back to article US stocks up on semi-automatic rifles

US gun dealers are enjoying a boom in sales of semi-automatic rifles amid fears that Barack Obama may clamp down on selling certain firearms once he's settled into the White House, Reuters reports. David Greenberg, owner of the splendidly-named Second Amendment Family Gun Shop, in Bisbee, Arizona, told the news agency: "The …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Pirate

    turnabout is fair play

    What about the right to arm bears?

    - thank you R. WIlliams

    circa 1984

  2. John Imrie

    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.

    I wonder what the NRA would say if Obama forced every one who owns a gun to give up their Sunday's to train in the Militia?

  3. Dick Lovewell
    Coat

    How many people...

    ...are killed by guns each year in the US? I wonder if just maybe, just maybe, the number of guns in circulation is somehow related to the number of gunshot victims?

    "My kid has got as much right to die of a gunshot wound as the next child" seems to be the absurd mantra. Then again, lengthy research into the subject carried out in south Wales concluded that: 'guns don't kill people, rappers do', so maybe they're right?

    Mines the one with the white flag in the pocket.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    IT Angle

    home defence? With an AK47???

    I always struggle to follow the "home defence" argument for owning machine guns and hunting rifles. But then in some states you can buy a bazooka for home defence, it seems.

    No wonder some Americans don't think there's a problem in Afghanistan and Iraq - people firing rocket grenades and 50mm cannons at arbitrary targets (deer, strangers, furriners) seems to be normal suburban american behaviour.

  5. Rob
    Go

    Don't take my right to hold an AK47

    ... and positively kill every motherf**ker in the room, accept no substitutes.

    Safest place in the US has to a mental hospital, cause all the crazies are running around outside with weapons on speed-dial.

  6. MGJ
    Coat

    2nd Ammendment

    Once again some traditional and interesting interpretations of what the 2nd ammendment is all about; it says that a citizens militia (as opposed to a standing army) is a good thing in stopping the government overstepping itself, so those in the militia have a right to bear arms, nothing about it being a good idea for everyone in a modern society having access to the sort of firepower associated with the armoury of a 3rd world country. Of course the problem now is how you would (even if you wanted to) disarm those who do not wish to be disarmed, so it is all a bit moot anyway. Preventing more weapons from entering the market is probably the limit of what is achievable.

    Of course, with the absolute freedom to have whatever weapons they want attitude of the NRA, why has no-one asserted their right to carry WMDs? The US isn't so hot on tracking those babies down...

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Home defense?

    Why would anyone interested in "home defense" need an assault rifle that is lethal at ranges of well over a mile?

  8. Hollerith

    yes, indeedy

    Obama is a threat to all those who want to buy war-level weapons that can easily be found and used by disgruntled teenagers, angry postal employees, etc.

  9. David Cornes

    "serious threat to Second Amendment liberties".

    Which in a civilised world, is a bad thing how...??

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    2nd Amendment Violations

    ...and I suppose death by multiple gunshot wounds is in keeping with the 2nd Amendment and all?

    Paris, 'cause she's a whole lot better to look at than the rotting corpse of Charlton Heston.

  11. Duncan Hothersall
    Heart

    Ah yes

    By this, and by the votes for anti gay marriage constitutional amendments in various states, Merkins are ensuring that the rest of the world realises that despite their voting for the groundbreaking change agenda of Obama, they are still a nation of God-fearin', gun-totin' rednecks at heart. God bless America, and God help the rest of us.

  12. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

    Barak Obama to ban goldfish

    Quick - buy now before they become illegal. Only $50 each or $500 for eight.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    2nd amendment?

    Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the right to bear arms restricted to members of local militia forces?

    Isn't that what the 2nd amendment says?

    Maybe Obama just wants to force US citizens to comply with the law.

  14. Paul Murphy
    Coat

    Assault rifles???

    What sane country needs it's population to have ready access to assault rifles? who will they be assaulting?

    If you are a marksman you will not be using an assault rifle, you use a hunting rifle.

    If you need personal defense you will not be using an assault rifle, you use a pistol.

    The only use for an assault rifle is against mass targets.

    Americans!

    I can just see the big brave Americans hiding in their bunkers, pointing their '2nd amendment' machine guns out of the firing ports shouting 'we're not afraid' at anyone who will listen.

    Anyway, I'm off to buy a Vickes water-cooled heavy-duty machine for when the carol-singers come around, actually I might get a couple of mortars as well.

    sheesh.

    ttfn

  15. The Fuzzy Wotnot
    Happy

    Sorry....

    ...but did anyone else read David Greenburg's family gunshop statement, with a severe redneck. hillbilly accent or was it just me?

    As the GLC says "Guns don't kill people, rappers do!".

  16. James Le Cuirot
    Stop

    Overreaction

    Talk about an overreaction. We don't have the Second Amendment here in Blighty but it's still not that hard to own a gun. Sure, there's a bit of paperwork, but these things are not toys. I used to do some indoor rifle shooting and after the Dunblane massacre, they did tighten the regulations a bit but it was still pretty much business as usual as far as the sport was concerned.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    No comment necessary

    >are in favour of a ban on assault weapons and "common sense measures" to keep firearms out of the reach of children and criminals.

    Unfortunately common sense seems to be lacking in a large proportion of gun toting Americans.

    http://tinyurl.com/676z77

  18. Anonymous Coward
    IT Angle

    it's in our little bunny nature

    Sporting rifles should be limited to bolt action and up to a calibre suitable for their purpose based on hunting licence.

    Home defence should be rimfire pistols or dual-barrel shotguns (no semis/autos). and pistols should require a firearms training certificate, a 'concealed' licence for carrying and/or a sports club membership to allow you to carry it off your property.

    I can't think of a decent reason why anyone would need a AR-15. It's a the semi-auto version of the full auto M-16, same 5.56 calibre but civilians probably put higher grade ammo thru it. Either is good for a crime spree but not so great for hunting deer.

    In the UK, pistols are illegal even for Olympian pistol shooters. Rimfire (can be semi) rifles (rabbits and other small vermin) require 50 acres of suitable land, authority and reason, centrefire (bolt-action or equiv) rifles (deer/foxes/boar etc) require 500 acres of suitable land, authority and reason.

    Dual barrel shotguns are free4all after a police check but they'll still do you for ABH or 3rd degree murder if you shoot a burglar/rapist/murderer, take away your certificate+gun and chuck you in jail. TBH it's the only thing the US gets right in this respect.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Business as usual ...

    ... in the land of the dim. If all these gun toting rednecks actually read the constitution (which would of course necessitate them learning to read first), then they might actually grasp what the founding fathers really meant about the right to bear arms. It was the right of each state - not private individuals - to raise a militia as a check against potential despotism. In civilised countries (Switzerland for example), the arming of the militia is coordinated by the state, and doesn't depend on Billy-Bob and Zeke loading up on AK-47s at some arms fair. Quite frankly I'd rather live in the surveillance society of Britain than have to worry about what military hardware my next door neighbour might be hoarding.

  20. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    the Second Amendment Family Gun Shop

    Associating the notion of "family" with the very word "gun" is an ample demonstration of just how wacky those Merkins really are.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    NRA?

    The quote from the NRA must have been written for them as it contains more than five words, some of which have more than two syllables.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    NRA?

    The National Rifle Association is unsurprisingly having none of it, and has described Obama a "serious threat to Second Amendment liberties"

    As opposed to the republican party who seem to think the 2nd amendment is the only part of the constitution that they have to honour while ignoring all other aspects of it such as the right to free speech, right to a fair trial etc etc

  23. Bryan B
    Thumb Down

    Home defence

    These guys want Kalashnikovs and Armalites for home defence? Who the heck do they think they need to defend themselves against - an Al Quaeda assault squad?!? Bizarre...

  24. Damn Yank
    Alert

    god help us all..

    The next 4 years should be, well, interesting...

    Kalashnikovs??? How ironic. 15-20 years ago no self-respecting gun junkie would own some damn commie ruskie hardware..

    I'd go for a Walther PPK, just for the 00 cool factor...

    Anyone know where I can pick up an Aston Martin - cheap??

  25. Steve
    IT Angle

    Semi?

    The AR15 is semi-automatic, but a stock AK47 is not.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    "Well regulated"..

    ...seems like something NRA is not so hot on. I wonder what could be had using that particular part to argue that access to guns should be restricted... Probably none, but the contortions would be amusing to watch.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re:Home defence @Bryan B

    >Who the heck do they think they need to defend themselves against - an Al Quaeda assault squad?

    Shame on you, the correct answer is each other.

    They are a bigger threat to themselves than any terrorist organisation. More correctly foreign terrorist organisation, as they have their own bunch of right wing whackos that seem to be able to outdo anything Al Qaeda can throw at them.

  28. Chris C

    Stupid funny people

    The gun owners you hear about sure are stupid, funny people. I can only imagine (hope?) that like any group, the vocal ones you hear about are the minority. Personally, I find it hilarious that these people say they need "home defense" with Obama in office, yet they were perfectly happy with Bush taking away the freedoms guaranteed in our Bill of Rights and trying to turn this into a police state. But hey, that's all well and good as well as he doesn't touch our guns, right?

    I'm not in favor of restricting gun ownership, but I don't encourage it, either. It seems to me that like many of our laws, we've taken the second amendment and have twisted it so far from its original intention that the original intention can no longer be found amidst our rhetoric. Carlin may have had it right -- every citizen should be allowed one gun, but it must be a musket.

  29. Mark

    Go the whole hog

    Demand the same level of weaponry as the US Army has. Then you CAN be a millitia. If some state goes rogue and invades YOUR state, they'll have APC's and so on, impervious to any small arms available under the interpretation of the 2nd by the GOP.

    So you NEED a MANPAC and other major arms to counter this threat.

    Heck, if the US states want to split but the ***central*** government doesn't want it to (which they can't constitutionally deny), how are you going to manage to stop the armed forces without SAMs, AA flack, and the whole panoply of modern war?

    Nuclear arms can be dismissed because the use of any such against the US home ground would ensure that the US administration face the same fate as Saddam. Times ten. At least.

    So if the NRA were serious, they would DEMAND the full array of weapons be available at a state, county or even urban level, maybe with state acceptance as a proper state millitia (so you can't have gangland thugs or supremacists stockpiling 105 howitzers). But with that, the personal home level owning of arms should be set to the normal paraphenalia for an individual citizen acting against other ordinary citizens: small arms, single fire.

    Or admit that the 2nd is already broken and assess whether automatics actually fit in the new, reduced accepted meaning of the 2nd.

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    People who want to ban "assult weapons" don't understand guns

    There is no difference between an AR-15, AK-47 or a Ruger Mini-14. The former are largely used by armies to kill people, and the latter is largely used by farmers to kill Coyotes. Put a scary looking stalk and a large magazine on a Mini-14 it is essentially the same gun. Bill Clinton & Brady tried this crap, and the best they could come up with was a "point-system". Enough "points" and something classifies as an assault weapon. If such a vague system is required, then it is clear that there is no real definition, and should be no ban then.

    Actually, I'd say the real definition of an "assault weapon" (if such a thing really does exist), is the presence of a three-round burst or fully automatic mode, which is already illegal anyway.

    In all other respects (except perhaps his tendency to spend money we don't have), thank god Obama won. At least we finally have an intelligent, relatively moderate president.

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    home defence?

    Anyone who attempts to justify owning a gun or any other weapon by saying they might use it to scare or kill another human being is far to irresponsible to be in possession of such a weapon. Plain And Simple.

    Home defense, for the love of smut, do you actually intend to kill some kid junkie just cause he's nicking your ipod? What's wrong with banging about and turning the lights on? You can even hold a heavy club if it makes you feel braver. What a bunch of pansies!

    God better save America cause lets face only America's imaginary friend would!

  32. ElFatbob

    meanwhile...

    ...back in the real world, Obama will take office, come up against all the vested interests (in this and many other areas) and i doubt very much will be able to make any significant change.

    And anyway, what do you do with the millions of these weapons already in circulation?

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    re. it's in our little bunny nature

    "Dual barrel shotguns are free4all after a police check but they'll still do you for ABH or 3rd degree murder if you shoot a burglar/rapist/murderer"

    You forgot "trick-or-treater" (just being topical http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27482694/).

  34. B

    Physician heal thyself

    I'm a US citizen and I'll take a moment to respond to some of the hypocritical stupidity exhibited on this forum. I see a parade of ridiculous logic saying that legal gun ownership is not necessary, that semi-automatic weapons are only used to shoot innocent people, etc, etc. Have you people seriously been reading the news lately? Your own government wants a DNA database, complete monitoring of all phone calls, emails, internet use, cameras about every 5 feet, and that's all the crap they've rolled out so far! Wake up and smell the coffee folks. Your government, my government, all the governments seem to be using child porn and terrorism as excuses to justify monitoring and reducing the rights of its' citizens. While I am not advocating hiding in a bunker, I will say that an armed population greatly inhibits a governments ability to easily subjugate its' citizens. That is what the 2nd Amendment was written for and that is why gun owners jealously guard their rights. Getting the guns away from the population is the first step in trampling the citizens rights. Look no further than your own uber-monitoring society. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, that it's probably a duck.

    As for guns and crime, gun laws won't stop that. Most gun owners are responsible with their weapons and use them for hunting, self defense, or simply to blow apart coffee cans filled with water for fun. Criminals will always find the guns, laws or not. Just like criminals will always find ways to break the law and plant bombs on subways? . . . . .Sound familiar? . . . .

    I guess my point is the high and mighty comments about the barbarians in the States sound a bit ridiculous from a populace who has rolled over and spread their ass cheeks for their government to f' them? The alarmists who are freaking out over here are definitely over the top in their paranoia, but paranoia isn't that big a deal if all they are doing is buying them and storing them at home. As unenlightened as they are to your highly evolved state of being, at least they haven't given up the fight to their government overlords yet. How have you managed to justify your apathy in the face of what your government is doing to you?

  35. lIsRT
    Boffin

    pedantry?

    The implication is heavy that because a "well-regulated militia" is referred to, then it is a given that one has to be a member of such a thing, to own and carry weapons.

    “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.”

    It's a preamble, something the writers used to express (one of) their intentions. I'm going to assume the writers thought carefully about what they put to paper - if they intended weapons to be available *only* to militia members ("people" is just about as general as you can get), it would be specified as such.

    My interpretation of the text, would be that anyone can do the keeping and the bearing, because that would make it easier to raise and maintain militias, which would increase the security of the US against threats such as itself and foreigners.

    Arguments that this amendment was misguided, over-reaching or just plain bloody stupid are valid (I'd disagree); but it's difficult and convoluted to claim that it doesn't give a normal citizen the right to own and carry a self-loading rifle.

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    2nd Amendment and the NRA

    Sadly, there is an unfortunate quantity of slack-jawed mouth-breathers here who slavishly partake of the right wing-nut talk radio bile here in the good-old USA. When Obama spoke of "bitter people, clinging to their guns and religion", he wasn't being dismissive, simply descriptive.

    Anti-intellectualism is rampant here and I'm hoping this election will help diminish it's grasp on the country.

  37. Matt
    Joke

    Second Ammendment typo

    What they actually meant it to say was "right to arm bears" not "right to bear arms" because they were worried about the indigenous animals being wiped out. But then some idiot scribe went and wrote it incorrectly. It would have been such a pain in the ass to rewrite the page that apparently they left it in hoping no one would notice.

  38. Paul
    Pirate

    @ John Imrie

    Or get drafted into the local State Guard and shipped off to Iran / Afghanistan for a tour of duty.

  39. jacob
    Stop

    @ Steve - Semi?

    "The AR15 is semi-automatic, but a stock AK47 is not."

    Wrong, a typical AK-47 for sale in the US will only be semi-automatic. The only exception is a full auto that was registered and built prior to 1986. Even then the only way to get a full auto is to pay several hundred dollars to the BATF for the permit (if the local law enforcement will sign off on it) and then pay upwards of $15,000 for the weapon itself.

    ----------------

    FYI

    In the DC vs Heller case the US Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Am. referred to an individual right to keep and bear arms. That means every American (except felons and minors) not just militia forces.

  40. Duncan Hothersall
    Flame

    Re: B

    Amid accusations of hypocrisy from Brits who apparently simply don't understand that the only way to stand up to government is to shoot at them, you say "Getting the guns away from the population is the first step in trampling the citizens rights."

    I'm searching for a way to express my thoughts on this clearly and without unnecessary abuse. Here goes:

    NO IT ISN'T YOU UTTER TWAT.

    Oh dear, that didn't go well.

  41. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Boffin

    Dear anti-gun lobby

    Before you fall off your moral high horse, lets consider a few facts:

    1) Restricting firearms in the UK did not reduce gun crime, in fact is has increased since. All it did was criminalise a sport in which the vast majority of sports shooters were completely law-abiding. In fact, I have never heard of a member of any of the old pistol-shooting clubs I visited ever being involved in any form of criminal activity. Oh, and it killed the few pistol gunmakers still in business in the UK, despite the majority of their business being for export.

    2) BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION in countless surveys of thievs, muggers, burglars and other unsavouries in the US, criminals admit they are LESS likely to break into the home of someone who they know is armed, for the simple reason they don't want to risk getting shot. Having unarmed victims is so much nicer for them. Even just an NRA sticker was enough to make a burglar look elsewhere.

    3) Thieves said they carried weapons such as guns irrespctive of what the public was or wasn't carrying as their main threat was from other criminals. Having an unarmed public simply made it easier for armed criminals to commit crimes.

    4) Cars kill far more people in the US EVERY MONTH than die from gun crime every year - are you hoping Obama will ban all means of automotive transport? In the UK alone, 2 teenagers a day are killed in automobile accidents, which is more than ten times the rate by all violent crime (knife, gun, fist and boot or two-by-four, etc) for what is supposedly the same age-group most at risk. By your own logic you will all be walking for the rest of your lives.

    5) I used to pitol-shoot legally as a hobby. Now, thanks to Knee-Jerk Blair, having committed no crime, my legal hobby has been outlawed. Instead, I now shoot small-bore rifles (so I can now kill at three-to-four times the range I could with the handgun, should I go postal), and clay pigeon shooting (beieve me, a shottie is a darn sight more deadly than any of my pistols ever were). All in all, Blair did not achieve anything other than making my sport more expensive, and all for a few votes.

    6) The anti-gun lobby in the UK are predominantly urbanites with no understanding or interest in rural life or activities, just like the anti-hunting mob. In the US it is a very simialr picture with one big difference - in the US there are animals that can cause serious injury or death to rural people. Bear attacks are becoming more common in the US, and it is often only the use of a large-calibre pistol or a heavy rifle that will deal with a bear. Being able to put several rounds in quick succession into a charging bear is ideal, which the Armalite and Kalashnikov will do. A bolt action gives you one chance and then the bear will be on you.

    Think it can't happen to you urbanites? On the night of June 17th 2007, 11-year-old Sam Ives was dragged out of his tent and killed in Uinta National Forest Park, Utah, by a black bear. Also in the tent was stepfather, mother and brother. None were armed, but the bear was later shot by officials. Now, I would dare Barack Obama to ask the parents if they would have liked to have a gun handy that night.

  42. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: Physician heal thyself

    You almost got me going there, I was hooked, right up to the words "I'm a US citizen". Good try though.

  43. Dick Lovewell
    Paris Hilton

    @ B

    "I guess my point is the high and mighty comments about the barbarians in the States sound a bit ridiculous from a populace who has rolled over and spread their ass cheeks for their government to f' them?"

    Sure, the Uk government would LIKE us to spread our ass/arse cheeks to f' us, but so far we have not let them, and at the next General Elextion they are likely to be voted out of power so they cannot introduce those utterly scandalous proposals.

    As for your suggestion that all those guns in the US are being used to stop their politicians ganging up on them, whilst that might have been the original intent in the 2nd amenedment, do you seriously believe that is the reason most US guns owners have them today? And is it really worth around 3000 children & teenagers lives?

    Why not try going without your "essential" weaponry for a year, and see how many children die, and how many times you get raped and pillaged by your local mayor?

    Paris...because even she wouldn't let Gordon Brown spread her arse cheeks and....oh well.

  44. N

    @ B

    Spot on, we need to wake up to the shit thats been going on for the last 11 or so years in the UK.

  45. Mark

    re: Physician heal thyself

    But being armed with pistols won't stop an APC. Which the police WOULD use because an armed mob stormed the Parliament Building.

    Now, if we were unarmed, the police would have to deal without being inside a nice safe wagon. A million people walking along the road will be unstoppable unless they use lethal weapons of mass destruction on them. And at that point, the Police will have lost. If they don't and do not get out of the way, the police will be a smear of red on the ground.

    No guns needed. As it is, the arms allowed are pitifully inadequate to even the score and give some legitimacy to the use of these more effective weapons.

  46. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    RKBA

    Oddly enough, here in the US (I'm a Brit, by the way), more kids die each year in swimming-pools than are killed by firearms - so if it's all about "Save teh Chilluns", shouldn't we ban pools first?

    Second - just to clarify something - the US Supreme Court recently (DC vs. Heller) affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right - nothing to do with militias.

    Third - the term "assault-weapon" is a misnomer; I have two semi-automatic rifles and have never seen them jump up and assault anyone - nor are they "machine-guns". They're quite safe and a lot of fun in experienced hands - (I was military, then executive-protection, then Iraq PSD-team). Pity you lads aren't allowed to have them back in Blighty, though; personally I'd be worried about any government which doesn't trust me enough to own a firearm.

    Fourth - It's what one does with it that matters, and as mentioned above, felons are currently not allowed to possess firearms anyway. So one has to ask - what is any new law going to do to change that?

    Fifth - When we have people here like Carolyn McCarthy whose legislation is based on total ignorance (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U ) - how can we respect anything they're trying to pass? A barrel-shroud is not "a shoulder-thing that goes up", Ms McCarthy - get it flippin' well right.

    Sorry, I don't believe in cosmetic legislation that does absolutely zero to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

  47. TimNevins
    Thumb Down

    2nd Amendment to be put to the test

    Given that Peak Oil (see Hubbert Peak) is here and the US is about to undergo a 2nd Greater Depression there has never been a more pressing need for the Govt to disarm the people. Bush has now deployed shock combat troops at home in blatent disregard to the Posse Comitatus Act.

    Tough times ahead means that when the US economically implodes there will be large scale social unrest.New Orleans during Katrina was a glimpse of what is to come. Every one is going to be tooled up.

    People in the know in the US have seen this coming for years and have been moving to the UK pronto. i.e. Madonna, The Jacksons etc have been buying up property in the UK in anticipation of the Dollar collapse. Even rappers like Jay-Z (Glastonbury anyone?) who relied on a huge base in America have been touring like mad across Europe to make up for the dire financial straits at home.

  48. Rick
    Paris Hilton

    Screw the constitution.

    Seriously, what's the name of this thing being argued about? Amendment. As in, it wasn't in the constitution to start with but was added later. So what's the big deal? If taking away guns would be against the 2nd amendment, just make another amendment to get rid of the damn thing. They've done it 27 times already, why not make it 28? Is it just possible that what seemed like good laws 220 years ago might not be the best we can do today?

    Well, I did use the word "screw".

  49. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    What happened to England?

    Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England were highly influential and were used as a reference and text book for English Common Law. In his Commentaries, Blackstone described the right to arms.

    "The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

    So - what happened, England? The action of a criminal stripped you law-abiding folk of your rights?

  50. V.Srikrishnan

    Americanese?

    "someone that honors".... i have been taught that it should be "someone who honours"... apart from the changed spelling, why do americans use "that" for people? it looks, sounds and reads a bit odd.

  51. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    The Uncomplicated Rationale for Carrying a Firearm

    By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

    People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

    Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.

    The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

  52. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

    Are you real, or a troll? I'd think you were a troll if you hadn't written at such great length.

    > When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.

    Yes, I can. I can shoot you in the back before you even see me, and that is presumably exactly what I would do if I needed your wallet and saw that you had a gun.

    Personally I prefer living in a society in which only the police and *organised* criminals have guns, and I'd prefer it if they keep guns out of the hands of the police as much as possible, as armed police are probably more likely to kill random people than organised criminals, who tend to be wiser than your typical policeman.

  53. B

    Wow, NOW we've got a debate

    I thought I was the lone voice in the wilderness on this one. Good to hear some other folks both inside and outside the UK understand that banning gun ownership only endangers the law-abiding population.

    By the way, when will we finally get that knife ban in place? Especially against those "assault knives" that are capable of stabbing up to 10 people per minute? How many children die because of knives each year? Isn't it worth banning knives to save some kids?

    On a related note, I saw in the newspaper the other day that some poor child choked on some assault candy. Another pointless death that could have been averted . . . .

  54. Mark

    re: Dear anti-gun lobby

    And the main reason why is twofold:

    a) There weren't many legitimate guns anyway, so most were already illegal. And carried by crims whose flippin JOB DESCRIPTION requires they break the law.

    b) US gun worship. Monkey see, monkey do.

  55. Lukin Brewer

    The Second Amendment

    The wording of the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous, because it was hacked about a lot during the political wrangles that accompanied its passage. Its meaning has been subject to debate ever since. However, the anti-federalists that made the original motion were concerned about one thing: that the US Army (the “militia”), which the US needed to make England and Spain keep their distance, might be used at some point to oppress the people. By allowing the people to keep and bear arms, the armed enforcers of a future tyrannical government could be opposed if necessary.

    This means that the home defence and all the other stuff is secondary. More popular, yes, and easier to get your head around, but still secondary. The point of your 2nd Amendment rights is to make the government (from the president to the local police) unable to oppress you and your fellow citizens. No one said this would be easy.

  56. Mark

    @USMC

    "When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone."

    I'm left alone and I don't carry a gun.

    Doesn't seem needed, does it.

  57. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    @ Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

    Yes, but less articulate thugs, might skip the reasoning bit and just shoot you instead.

    So if it was made extremely difficult to obtain a firearm then with a bit of luck you would keep your life and loose your iPod.

    Then you might provide a description of you assailant and a serial number of your iPod to a law enforcement officer.

    The law enforcement officer might exact societies revenge in a professional and unprejudiced manor.

    You might even get your toy's back without anybody getting killed.

    But then that's so uncivilized isn't it?

  58. Mark

    Dear pr-gun lobby

    One of the problems with owning a gun for protection is that normal people DO NOT LIKE KILLING.

    So you wave a gun around and use it to threaten. But if they have a gun, they are likely to get it out and shoot YOU. 'Cos they are already breaking the law one way and will likely have done this before, so are less hesitant about using it.

    It's the same with protecting yourself from "the government". You think it will be solved by threatening? No. The forces arrayed have already been briefed and you are the enemy. They don't know why you do this, but you are armed and they have been told you're bad. They are ready to shoot.

    Armed populace will only throw over a tyrant when the general populace are ready to kill (not just die, kill) without hesitation to get their way. Otherwise they are holding a weapon that is more dangerous to themselves than their opponents. And their opponents do not have the same problem as you.

  59. Stuart Van Onselen
    Joke

    Darwin

    Given that a frightening proportion of the gun-deaths in the US are accidenatl ones, within the family, I say:

    Give every family one fully-automatic AK47 each!

    Those with the sense to treat a weapon with the respect it deserves, can keep it. The slacked-jawed yokels will proceed to kill themselves (or be killed by the gangs of criminals who stole themselves an extra couple of shooting-irons 'cuz the yokels don't keep their weapons secure.)

    Sure, a lot of innocent people will get killed, too. But for every such case, there will be two of idiots removing themselves from the gene-pool. Over time, the average US intelligence will become *greater* than that found in countries which lack such a useful winnowing tool.

    And if you lot became smarter than me, I would actually be happy! I don't fancy the current setup of a bunch of idiots in charge of enough nukes to sterilise the surface of the planet, thank you very much!

  60. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Concealed carry

    @ Anonymous Coward

    "> When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.

    Yes, I can. I can shoot you in the back before you even see me, and that is presumably exactly what I would do if I needed your wallet and saw that you had a gun."

    Well, AC - that is why concealed carry is such a great idea - it prevents criminals from knowing who is and isn't armed :)

    "Since concealed carry permits prevent the criminal from knowing who is armed and who is not, those who are not armed benefit from the general deterrent effect as criminals choose non-confrontational crime rather than risk being shot." - Dangerous Women: Feminism, Self Defense and Civil Rights - Robert L. Barrow and Dr. Gary Mauser

  61. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Boffin

    RE: re: Dear anti-gun lobby

    Slight problem with your reasoning:

    a) Now there are no legal handguns in the UK. Oops, guncrime has gone up, and more illegal handguns are still being imported. The banning law failed in its chief aim - to reduce the number of guncrimes. It should be repealed.

    b) So how do you account for the fact that Victorian Britain had more guncrime than the Wild West per capita? And more knife-crime, and more muggings. Were the cowboys copying us? In fact, guns became a major force in Europe and the Middle East long before the Americas were discovered by Columbus, and criminals such as the higwaymen used guns for crimes here in the UK long before similar events in the US. Believing that guncrime is an American invention and therefore the cure is to attack American culture is just naive and stems from nothing more than liberal anti-American sentiment.

    There were plenty of good UK laws around gun ownership before the handgun ban, the problem was they were poorly employed. Instead of tightening up on those laws (which should have weeded out applications from nutters like Micheal Ryan), the knee-jerk response was a complete ban on private ownership of handguns. All this did was remove a number of less-lethal .22 sporting pistols, and did nothing to stop or even reduce the smuggling into the UK of the larger calibre handguns (typically 9mmP) used by criminals.

    As for those arguing that guns are somehow massively dangerous in a family house there are two simple answers. Firstly, secure the weapon so kids can't get it, and there are a number of devices on the market to inactivate a handgun until required (usually buy a key lock acting on the trigger). Secondly, train the kids. Smart kids will listen and understand when it is explained to them what the dangers of guns are. I have taught youngsters range safety before and I can honestly say I have had more trouble with adults that only listened with half an ear.

    As regards semi-auto "assault rifles", the argumen tthat these are a prime target for criminals is rubbish. How would a mugger hide his intent with an Armalite sticking out from under his jacket? How is a burglar going to climb quietly throuhg a window with a hulking Kalashnikov under his arm? Maybe for a bank robbery or a gang war, agreed, but then the type for either seem able to get hold of plenty of weapons (especially smuggled military fully-auto rifles), making a ban on legal semi-autos just political windowdressing.

  62. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    @Dear anti-gun lobby

    HA HA,

    RE #2, guess what sells better than your uber-inch screen TV? If you guessed a Gun, . Recently in the county I live in, thieves have been targeting homes that have known to have guns in them (your NRA sticker as it is.) They just simply case your house and wait until you are gone. Bust in, take your guns (which are usually in an easy to carry case generally complete with ammo.) Run down, buy several K's of cocaine or several rocks of crack. Now that these clean guns are on the street given to the ones who REALLY should not have them. The drug dealer thugs. Yeah, good idea. Give them assault rifles too!

    I have a concealed weapons permit, and I carry my gun OR lock it in the car (as the company disallows the weapon to be on the premises.) Yes, its always loaded but never with 'one in the chamber.'

    I agree that hunting weapons should be allowed along with side arms. Gun collectors (who collect the items PURELY to have them and not for shooting them) who collect such automatics should be extended a special license with the notion that the storage of the weapons shall be inspected to acquire and renew the license (say every 5 years.)

  63. Chris G

    @ Matt Bryant and B

    Thank you for some common sense.

    What a wussy country the UK is becoming, every body who is a citizen should be willing to fight to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens but most of you appear to be willing to call one of the policemen that at other times help to oppress you.

    There are now more illegal arms on the streets of Britain than there ever was in legal hands when Brits could legally own a pistol and cheaper.

    What is really worrying is if the country had to go to war as it did in 1939, probably the people that would form the best contingent of a volunteer army would be the chavs, the rest of you would close your eyes every time you pulled the trigger.

  64. Ian
    Thumb Down

    I note that...

    The sensible, logical, and calm well-thought-out arguments are put forth by people who own and carry firearms (or would like to) for protection of themselves and loved ones, and the emotive rants with exclamation marks that pick up on nonexistent flaws and flail at them with reasoning that doesn't stand up to one second of rational thought are the people scared of firearms. Hmmm.

    For example. You have a gun about your person. As reasoned above, that means no-one can approach you by any level of force for they face an equal amount of force in return. So the argument against that, apparently, is "ahahaaaaa, but but but, the mugger will immediately shoot you in the back!!!!111one". The presupposition there though is that if you weren't carrying a firearm, the mugger would what, exactly? Your own rule, *your own example you typed in* shows that they are psycho enough to shoot at an *obviously armed* person with no provocation just to get an MP3 player, thus _risking their own life_ for cheap consumer tat. So what 100% they aren't going to do for someone obviously unarmed is switch from someone so dysfunctional and psychotic that they would pretty much randomly shoot anyone in the back for no reason, to someone who'll ask nicely for your iPod and maybe push you over a hedge and run off if you said no. Good grief, give me strength.

    What they'd most likely do is avoid the armed person like the plague and go shoot someone unarmed - easy life.

    And a million people marching on Westminster means the police have to get out of their APCs and not use guns? Christ, have you heard of China? Tianemen square? And indeed British Apathy? Millions indeed, how I cynically snort. Nope, you'd tut about it and get back to your surveilled 24/7 front room (hey - if it saves one life, think of the children, if you have nothing to hide...) I could go on but I suppose I'm either preaching to the converted or trying to use reason and logic against closed-mind emotionalism (pretty much how Blair got into power on the back of dead kids, you lovely anti-gun people you, I hope you're proud).

    Honestly I wonder what planet some people live on sometimes. Think your argument through first, or you just sound like someone who believes guns are the root of all evil and just by touching them you turn into a killer or something. If you recall there are armed police and armed forces and somehow they avoid going on the rampage at the drop of a safety catch. Oh no wait - the shining examples of "the only people who need guns" are actually quite prominent in the "shooting people they shouldn't" stakes. Gosh, another poorly thought through statement shot down in flames, this job's too easy.

  65. kain preacher

    @ac

    Home defense, for the love of smut, do you actually intend to kill some kid junkie just cause he's nicking your ipod? What's wrong with banging about and turning the lights on? You can even hold a heavy club if it makes you feel braver. What a bunch of pansies

    When that so call thief has knife and is high on meth, lets see say that again. See a meth heads is just as likely to kill if you hand the goods over. as if you resist.

  66. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Reason Vs Force

    Unfortunately the reality is, with both protagonists armed, a conflict is more likely to escalate from reason to force because both sides now has an inflated view of their own capability, and their opponent's threat.

    If you have a big stick, and you suspect your opponent has a big stick, you simultaneously feel threatened by their big stick while determining the only chance for your success is to

    1) Reason with a man with a big stick which is unlikely to work because the guy has a big stick - he didnt come to reason, or 2) Use your big stick now, before he uses his.

    If the alternative was unarmed brute force, you would probably make a more reasonable assessment of your own capabilities and choose either reason or retreat. With reason in this situation, you suddenly have a new capability - de-escalation. Without the armed standoff, you have a better chance of talking yourself and your opponent off of the ledge you have worked yourselves onto which is a lot harder if both sides think they have now reached a kill, or be killed, situation. You are both more motivated too because there is no longer a "flick of a switch" hail mary option available to you.

    If you are in a situation where you cannot retreat and your adversary has no intention of entertaining reason, you are in trouble, regardless of how big your stick is.

  67. James Butler
    Thumb Down

    Easy to see..

    The absence of common sense exposes the underlying reasons why British citizens are accepting of their government's successful attempts to disarm them. A couple of recent bits:

    "with a bit of luck you would keep your life and loose your iPod."

    iPod?!? Nobody gives a crap about a stupid iPod. How about trying a more realistic scenario, such as when a group of intruders break into your house, rape your daughters, kill your wife, make you watch it all and then gut you like a fish and steal everything of any value from your home? Oh ... that's right ... there's simply no need for "home protection", so I guess that baseball bat would be just fine, huh? Sorry. You're dead.

    And for those of you who wonder, you can't just shoot at someone who breaks into your house without being charged with murder or attempted murder. There needs to be an element of physical danger that causes you to respond with like force in order for a claim of "self-defense" to have any legal merit. So you can't just shoot people ... you need to be threatened with death, first. And if you are being threatened with death, then people should be able to respond in kind if they are able. Police might be able to track and prosecute the thugs, but that does nothing for you while the crime is being committed.

    "'Cos they are already breaking the law one way and will likely have done this before, so are less hesitant about using it."

    Not very keen on understanding the criminal mind, are we? By your logic, someone who just parked at a metered space without putting in some coins is ready to engage the cops in a high speed car chase. One level of crime does not translate to another, much deeper level. Most criminals are happy to be able to get away with the one act. When they are presented with an unexpected circumstance, such as when they are surprised by an armed citizen when they expected no resistance, their plans typically go out the window ... just like they do. The flight impulse is much stronger than the fight impulse. They were there to steal your jewelry, because that's what they know. To imply that they would happily jump from 5-10 years in prison to death by lethal injection simply to take the opportunity to kill you demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of what really happens in a situation like that.

  68. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Mark

    You seem to feel that because normal people don't like killing they won't be able to effectively use a personal weapon for self-defense. Sorry to disappoint you but normal citizens in America seem to be able to use guns in self defence, usually without actually killing the bad guy. It seems that the typical burglar/mugger/rapist will usually turn tail and run when looking down the wrong end of a gun - amazing the way that works, huh? You don't have to like to kill to be able to protect yourself.

    As for the argument that you should let the "law enforcement professionals" take care of the problem for you, there is a little problem with that. Since they are about as good at mind reading as the average person (not good at all), then they can't do much until AFTER the bad stuff has happened. So while they might be able to catch those burglers who broke into your home, raped your wife, stole your stuff and then stabbed all of you to death to get rid of witnesses it really isn't going to help you much. Will a gun be guaranteed to save you - no, but you would have a better chance, and at least you're not acting like a sheep. And I for one (being on the small and older side) would much rather be in a position of bringing a gun to a knife fight than trying to go knife-to-knife with them.

    And you should take a good look at the majority of the people who are killed by guns. The vast majority are criminals killing other criminals - usually over something to do with drugs.

    And as for those who disparage the US Consitution because it does something as ridiculous as protect the rights of the citizens to own guns, remember, it was written specifically to prevent the US government from committing the wrongs the colonies experienced from British government rule.

  69. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    President-Elect Obama and hunting legislation

    One of my conservative friends forwarded a link to a seemingly hysterical document saying the (then) Senator Obama wanted to outlaw all hunting. Imbedded was a link to a government web site describing a bill that Senator Obama supported. (Sponsored? Just voted for? Forgot).

    The bill seemed reasonable on the surface. It basically outlawed bullets powerful enough to penetrate a bullet-proof vest. Seemed like a very reasonable, supportable bill to me.

    But then I talked to a number of hunters. They said almost all rounds used in hunting rifles can penetrate a bullet-proof vest. Bullet-proof vests are only designed to stop relatively low-powered rounds from handguns.

    Did Senator Obama make a very reasonable mistake, not meaning to “outlaw” hunting? Does he really have an insidious agenda to take firearms away from all US citizens? I vote for the first. The bill never passed. But my conservative friends use this part of President-Elect Obama’s voting record as “proof” he wants to take weapons away from hunters.

  70. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ridiculous

    The amount of FUD on this page is overwhelming.

    1. "Assault weapon" is a vague, invented term designed to sound threatening but nonspecific.

    2. The "assault weapons ban" restricted the sale of any kind of weapon that fit a few or more of a set of certain criteria: pistol grip, high capacity magazine, collapsible stock, barrel shroud, or a couple others.

    3. Automatic weapons were already restricted, requiring a special license and background check, and are prohibitively expensive. Unrelated to assault weapons.

    4. Not all semi-automatic weapons are classified as assault weapons, and were available before, during, and after the assault weapons ban.

  71. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Empirical evidence

    In some US cities, it is impossible for "ordinary" citizens to own firearms. Chicago (home of Obama) is one of these.

    In other US cities, it is easy for citizens to own firearms legally, as long as they aren't felons, mentally incompetent, etc. Miami is one of those.

    In October, Miami had a full month with NO murders. Chicago, not so much.

    It isn't even the actual carrying of firearms, so much as the threat that you might be, that deters criminals. It's also the thought of uprising that keeps politicians (at least partly) respectful of the citizens.

    As for the question about whether I would shoot someone stealing my stuff, probably not. However, he doesn't know that, and that makes it a lot less likely that he'll try.

    Also, if you read not only the US, but the various State constitutions, you might find that most of us ARE in the militia. (Male, over 18 where I am. Probably including females since the incorporation of various anti-discrimination laws.) That doesn't mean that we have to show up to train, just that if the S-word hits the fan, my State can count on having a large body of people who can shoot, and already have their own weapons. Want to know why Yamamoto didn't invade California after Pearl Harbor? Look that up, too. (Of course, things have changed in the People's Republic of California since then.)

  72. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh, dear

    Mark - you said: "One of the problems with owning a gun for protection is that normal people DO NOT LIKE KILLING. So you wave a gun around and use it to threaten. But if they have a gun, they are likely to get it out and shoot YOU. 'Cos they are already breaking the law one way and will likely have done this before, so are less hesitant about using it."

    You're quite right, Mark, normal, sane people don't like killing - even gun-owners (like me). We're defensive by nature and inclination - we're not on the offensive, unlike those animals.

    We don't "wave it around" and we absolutely don't use it to threaten (that's both illegal and just plain silly to do anyway). As for the criminal just getting his out and shooting me - well, action beats reaction, as they say - I seriously doubt he'll be able to do that before I put a bullet in him first.

  73. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Hmmmm

    @Rick: "Seriously, what's the name of this thing being argued about? Amendment. As in, it wasn't in the constitution to start with but was added later. So what's the big deal? If taking away guns would be against the 2nd amendment, just make another amendment to get rid of the damn thing. They've done it 27 times already, why not make it 28? Is it just possible that what seemed like good laws 220 years ago might not be the best we can do today?"

    Sure - while we're at it, let's get rid of the other Amendments - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom from illegal search and seizure, trial by jury, universal suffrage, etc. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you like and which you don't.

    Second, the rights mentioned are natural - in other words, they are not *granted* by the Constitution as they were deemed to be natural, human rights - instead, those rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. Removing your favourite amendment would not remove the right itself.

  74. Charles Manning

    Sure give them guns

    But require extensive firearms training first.

    Switzerland has very high gun ownership yet has very low levels of gun problems due to high levels of training.

  75. Eddy Ito

    Must be nice

    @AC

    "The law enforcement officer might exact societies revenge in a professional and unprejudiced manor."

    They might, then again, inasmuch as their job has shifted to revenue generation from "to serve and protect," they likely won't. Clearly you have never had the pleasure of dealing with law enforcement in the U.S. The vast majority of laws here are designed to create cash cows and not to protect the public at large or serve the public good. It is only a matter of time before you need a license to change a light bulb since the law mandates bulbs with mercury and mercury is a known toxin... yada yada yada. Without going into several anecdotes, suffice to say with the police on this side of the pond you're pretty much on your own and I, for one, don't deem myself nor the government competent to determine the level of defense an individual requires.

    @ Mark

    "Now, if we were unarmed, the police would have to deal without being inside a nice safe wagon. A million people walking along the road will be unstoppable unless they use lethal weapons of mass destruction on them. And at that point, the Police will have lost. If they don't and do not get out of the way, the police will be a smear of red on the ground."

    So you are in favor of rule by mob. While you may enjoy living in a society that is more akin to the Los Angeles riots, by the by most of the rioters were unarmed, I would much rather have a means to defend myself. Mob rule is only good when you are part of the mob and enforcing your views on the minority.

    Oh, back on a Constitutional topic, for those who whine about the U.S. Constitution, please see Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 which starts with "No State shall" and contains "Keep Troops or Ships of War" and ask yourselves if there is a logical disconnect between those words and the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment being a state right. Now consider the amendment was added before ratification and only a short time after the main text was written.

  76. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Thoughts on Gun Ownership in the US

    First, I would like to point out that the caricature of gun owners in the US is just that, a caricature. Despite what you hear about troglodyte rednecks as gun owners, gun ownership is fairly constant across the demographic categories of education and income (gun ownership *does* skew more rural than urban, but this may simply be an artifact of legal restrictions in big cities combined with fewer places to shoot for recreation). Source: http://tiny.cc/8pe7p (note- all sources that I will cite are from gun control proponents, no NRA or John Lott stats here since they are unlikely to be convincing to gun control proponents)

    Second, in response to Stuart Van Olsen's joke, while there is some "Darwin Award"-type culling, the number of accidental deaths here is not that large, according thegreenman.au there were 802 accidental gun deaths in 2001 in the US (source - http://tiny.cc/7BXkB), this in a nation that had some 300 Million people including 57 Million gun owners and ~ a quarter Billion firearms in 2004 (source - http://tiny.cc/RoCJ5 ). The math is left as an exercise to the reader.

    Third, as jacob pointed out, with the Heller decision, the Supreme Court has declared that the 2nd Amendment does guarantee an individual right to firearms. Respect for the Constitution is one of the few things which can plausibly unite a population so diverse as that of the US. One of the few checks on the power of the outgoing President has been the Constitution which, IMO, took a battering in the process. We need our Constitutional Rights restored, not more taken from us.

    Fourth, jacob is also correct that what are referred to as AK-47s are really SA 85s, WASR 10s, VEPRs, and the like: semi-automatic only rifles that are patterned after the AK-47/AKM. As a VEPR owner, I can provide some personal perspective here. My primary reason for owning one is recreational, they are a great deal of fun to take down to the range and put through their paces, and my secondary reason is home defense. As a response to Stike Vomit, let me point out that, contrary to what you may have seen in movies like "Death Wish", I hope not to ever be in a self-defense situation and, if I am so unlucky as to be in such a situation, I would much prefer not to have to shoot. To that end, an intimidating weapon (an AK-type, for example), wielded purposefully is ideal for convincing any would-be assailant that this is NOT the place to be. Rifles like the AK-47 are also, contrary to depictions, not very popular for use in crime. The weapon of choice for crime according to the Clinton (not Bush) DOJ is a moderate caliber pistol, with 1% or less of felons surveyed carrying military style rifles while committing the crime that put them in prison (source - http://tiny.cc/F8wRS). For criminals, it seems, concealability trumps firepower.

    Fifth, in response to Damn Yank, as a VEPR owner, let me point out that the Cold War is over (for good, I hope) so why should we be prejudiced against a design just because it was the weapon of choice for our opponents. Mikhail Kalashnikov came up with a design of extraordinary reliability, so does Not Invented Here really make sense in this context? Not to me it doesn't.

    Sixth, so far as the ability of an armed citizenry to resist a conventional army without heavy weapons goes, both the Warsaw Uprising and the US experience against the VC (at least until the VC decided to come out and fight a stand-up battle during TET) shows that a force armed primarily with small arms can be effective against a conventional military by sticking to tried and true guerrilla tactics. Again, it is my fervent hope that this will remain strictly hypothetical.

    Finally, the reason I listed home defense as a secondary motive for owning a firearm is that I have never even been close to what I would consider a self/home defense situation, nor do I think it likely that I will ever be in one. The amount of anxiety about crime that I see in comments here at the Reg, coming from the UK, is far in excess of any degree of concern that I might have about the possibility of becoming a crime victim here in the States. I might end by pointing out that any success that you may have experienced at separating criminals from firearms just ends up convincing some of them to use other weapons. Knife Crime is not a term familiar to American ears.

    AC because my desire to avoid a home-defense situation informs my decision not to tempt fate by broadcasting my identity on the internet, even if I do think it low probability (expectation value, you know)

  77. Moss Icely Spaceport
    Stop

    Guns: It's really only an American problem...

    ....and that of some 3rd world, war-stricken countries.

    Many countries have few private guns. These countries are SAFER in general. Gun crime is very rare indeed, even amongst the nasty criminal set (who prefer to shoot each other anyway).

    America, go gun-free, you know it makes sense.

    You have nothing to lose but fear itself.

  78. JC
    Paris Hilton

    Morons

    I've never fired on another person outside of military directed orders. I'm a US citizen and will own an assault rifle if I bloody well want to. Who the fork are you to decide I don't need or shouldn't have what I have demonstrated all my life that I am reponsible enough to have?

    Perhaps you anti-semi-gun morons think that because you are irresponsible and unable to choose right and wrong, that everyone is? Hardly, it's about experience. If you can't have it, you are the inexperienced one who is unfit to make new decisions with more firepower than you are accustomed to.

    For the rest of us, it's not about what weapon you have, it's about the prior intent, how you end up using it. Firearms don't kill people, people kill people. If it'll make you happier to have some goon kill you with a stun gun, hot pepper spray, and a spoon, by all means go ahead and good luck to you!

  79. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Where do you live so I can rob you without fear of being shot?

    I am surprised at the ignorance of my fellow el reg readers.

    “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.”

    a. Use a dictionary and look up the word militia.

    b. Why would the bill of rights, which was specifically written to protect the natural rights of the people, contain a right reserved for the government? That makes no sense.

  80. Andy Worth

    "Home Defense".....?

    "Most of the people there were cussing Obama and saying we need home defense."

    What....you need a semi-automatic rifle to defend your home? So who exactly is invading?

    @Matt Bryant

    I agree with you that the ban on handguns was pretty much just a media stunt in the UK and did nothing positive. However, you seem to assume that everyone who buys a weapon is smart and responsible. If everyone educated their kids and secured their weapons properly in the manner you suggest then I am sure that keeping guns in the home would be a fair bit safer. But lets face it, there are still going to be a lot of people who don't abide by common sense.

    It is a rather widely held opinion though that Americans have a certain love for their weapons. So I would expect rather strong opposition to anyone who tries to take them away.

  81. Daniel Wilkie

    @Mark

    I think if a million strong mob stormed the parliament building, the police would likely decide they've lost control of the situation (which would be correct) and the army would be deployed to be honest. Riot Shields and Tear Gas can only do so much, a company of Paras with rifles and grenades can do so much more...

  82. Mark

    @Matt Bryant

    I fail to see where the "problem" is.

    Criminals had guns before. Criminals are already committing an illegal act, so actually CARRYING one isn't a problem for them, but not "normal behaviour" for the non-crim element. They are also ready for violence whereas this is not a "normal behaviour" and so those who are criminals are more likely and less loath (and hence quicker) to use the guns than your ordinary person who hopes like hell they aren't going to have to kill. As opposed to "If I kill them, I'll get an extra five years" that is the criminals' reason not to shoot.

    So the gun doesn't make you safer and pulling it out only escalates the situation to one where someone could die. Worse, it's far more likely it will be you.

    So I don't see where the problem is.

    For your idea of "securing a gun", it is now useless in the case of a burgular unless they are sufficiently noiuse that they make a noise a long way away and wake you up with plenty of time to

    a) retrieve the gun quietly

    b) find the ammo (this can blow up without a gun, so that needs to be secured too)

    c) load the gun

    d) find the crim before he finds you. 'cos he knows you could be armed and already has a gun. Worse, he's in YOUR house and knows that any target is available wheras you don't want to shoot your teenage kid who got home late, so must identify the target first.

    Or you could not have a gun. That's far more safe. And makes carrying a gun unnecessary and liable to make the crime so much more traceable (unless you chuck the gun). So the crim less likely to carry any gun.

    As regards "how is a burglar going to climb through the window..." How is he going to make it away with the big bag of swag? And ever heard of machine pistols? It's not like they are looking for a marksmanship merit badge from scouts, is it.

  83. Mark

    re: Concealed carry

    Have a look at "Get Shorty". The bit with the two mobsters in Harry Zimm's office. One has a gun in concealed carry. One has one pointing out in the hand toward the other mobster.

    Barbone: You must be one of those fast draws I keep hearing about

    And shoots him trying to get the gun out.

    Now, if you're being menaced by a mugger with a gun, how are you going to get the gun out without getting a bullet in the brain pan first? Do you practice fast draw? If you do, a concealed carry makes it far, far slower to draw a gun.

    If you're being menaced by a mugger without a gun, you are by default in the wrong. You have shot an unarmed man or if he wrests it from you, they have a gun registered in your name to shoot you with.

    Cool.

  84. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    stupid Britain once again

    As usual even on the Register; the Granuiad worshippers, hand wringers and general muppets come out in force.

    FACT - Handgun ban did nothing apart from take handguns from responsible owners

    FACT - I can kill you as easily with a knife as with a firearm

    FACT - Britain still holds murder capital of Europe, I think London and Glasgow are competing to see who can result in the most dead.

    FACT - this country is a NANNY STATE, ruled by tabloids and hand wringing morons intent on wrapping us all in cotton wool.

    FACT- UK Police are hopeless, the minority are good cops, the rest were appointed as they agree with the handwringers or due to "positive discrimination". Who never do anything and are more interested in protecting the rights of crims as its "less paperwork"

    But no lets not think, lets just follow the anti everything greenpeace, knobs of the earth mantra and think that everyone will be nice to each......

    In canada I might not have a gun.....here I want one to protect myself from the drug addicts looking for an easy mark, muggers and gangs of teenage thugs (why do we wipe the records of these little scrotes at 15?? )

    Paris as even she has more brains than most of the commentators here

  85. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Some Numbers

    Draw your on conclusions

    http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

    http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF10.htm

    http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm

    Will I visit the US again, probably. Will I be visiting Columbia, maybe not so soon.

  86. Antony Riley
    Coat

    Gun Ownership?

    Do we need protecting from ourselves?

    Mines the long black coat with the sawn off on the inside.

  87. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    2nd Amendment

    From Wikipedia...

    "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e., "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents."

    Its a personal right for arms to protect against militias.

    However I agree with the above comments that for home/personal defence a hand gun would fine and for hunting shotgun or hunting rifle. AK-47s and AR-15's are a bit extreme to have round the home.

  88. Wayland Sothcott
    Coat

    @"serious threat to Second Amendment liberties".

    "Which in a civilised world, is a bad thing how...??"

    David Cornes

    Well when I went to America it was mostly civilised but not entirely. They believe in Freedom in a big way over there. Naturally this does allow for quite a lot of crime and therefore the need for ordinary people to have guns. There are also a lot of very visible police.

    Contrast this with Dubi, no crime, no swearing or drinking. Every one drives a brand new mercedes and leaves the keys in the ignition. However no Freedom.

    If you ban guns then the only people likely to have them are the bad guys. It's true that if bad guys don't need guns then they are less likely to carry them but they are more likely to get away with crimes. The fact that people can break into my home without getting shot is a concern to me.

    Guns are not just for sport. You may need one for real one day.

    If children have some shooting lessons it's unlikely they will have accidents with guns. Same as with driving lessons, they drive much better when they are allowed to than when they borrow your car without asking.

    I have probably got some cartridges in this pocket.

  89. Mark

    @Daniel Wilkie

    And are the army units waiting nearby (less than 2 miles) from the houses of parliament for just this sort of emergency?

    No.

    Would the army shoot upon their own citizens?

    Maybe, maybe not.

    But if they would, it would be too late by the time they got there.

  90. Mark

    re: Morons

    Well, if we both own guns, I can tell you to get rid of it.

    Or cap you if you refuse.

    Duh.

  91. Mark

    re: Must be nice

    "So you are in favor of rule by mob."

    Where did I say that?

    I didn't.

    I said that if the populace really wanted out, arming them would be negative since armed response would then be more likely to be considered appropriate and that the government had better weapons and other standard paraphernalia of war, making the small arms of the populace no more effective than sticks and stones.

    That does not mean mob rule is right, but then again, arming a mob doesn't turn it into any sort of not-mob, so the americans/pro gun brigade seem to be arguing for mob rule too, which you happily seem to skip over as irrelevant.

  92. Mark

    f you ban guns then the only people likely to have them are the bad guys.

    And the only ones likely to use them are bad guys. The only ones likely to take them everywhere are bad guys. The only ones willing to shoot you are bad guys.

    I fail to see how that is an argument for having an armed populace.

  93. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Boffin

    RE: Mark

    "....Criminals had guns before. Criminals are already committing an illegal act, so actually CARRYING one isn't a problem for them.... criminals are more likely and less loath (and hence quicker) to use the guns than your ordinary person who hopes like hell they aren't going to have to kill...." As part of any firearms training, you should consider the use of the weapon. Suppose you only live in a completely crime-free area, but there is a chance you will be stalked by a bear (all bears are predators and they do hunt humans), then you should channel your training into how to avoid or deal with a bear attack. However, if you are more likely to face an armed criminal, you should train for that situation and be prepared. Most criminals do not train, they simply get a gun, and unfortunately so do most gun-owners looking for home protection. What is needed is thorough gun training for licensed gun-owners, including the legal responsibilities and safe use of. I would urge any responsible member of the public in the US to attend a proper gun use for self-defence class, if only to avoid accidentally shooting themselves! Whilst I had no intention of ever using my own .22 competition pistol in self-defence, a few years ago I took advantage of a friends offer whilst holidaying in Texas to attend a gunschool course whch included training on the Jeff Cooper Color Code System. The Color Code System is about mental preparation, and is very effective in increasing the ability of Joe or Joanne Public in avoiding or dealing with an armed intruder situation to the point of pulling the trigger. If you will forgive the martial connotations (well actually, seeing as you sound like a liberal fudgewit I'm hoping it will rile you even more), if you train to win a war you will do better than if you just hope never to go to war.

    "....So the gun doesn't make you safer and pulling it out only escalates the situation to one where someone could die. Worse, it's far more likely it will be you...." Which avoids the bear scenario completely. Bears don't know what guns are, they just like eating meat. As regards criminals, you seem to assume they are all hardened and comabt experienced pros - the majority are not, are bricking themselves during the act, and are not inclined to risk their lives for an iPod (but seeing as I don't have that brand of fashion-victim-ware, and I am very careful about hiding valuables when walking through risky neighbourhoods, that reduces my chances of getting targetted in the first place).

    Lets deal with your next bit of nonsense:

    "....For your idea of "securing a gun", it is now useless in the case of a burgular unless they are sufficiently noiuse that they make a noise a long way away and wake you up...." I have an alram system, in fact all of my American friends do too. One component of the alram system is a big and noisy klaxon, desinged to scare intruders away. My American friends that keep house guns do so for the idiots that don't take fright from the alarm going off.

    "... with plenty of time to

    a) retrieve the gun quietly...." Check - my Texan friend has a bedside gunsafe with a digital combination pad. He can open it faster than Lynford Christie could sprint up his stairs.

    "...b) find the ammo (this can blow up without a gun, so that needs to be secured too)..." Blow up!?!?!? You obviously know nothing about firearms or modern ammunition. For modern ammunition to "blow up" it would have to be heated by a serious house fire, to the point where you'd be already dead from the fire before you had to worry about gun ammo. It is perfectly possible and safe to keep modern handguns with their multiple saftey devices loaded and needing onty the saftey to be released and a round chambered. Some weapons have such good safety they can even be carried with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked. Please, if you know nothing about the subject, don't demonstarte your ignorance any further. Even if I had to keep the magazine empty from a pistol to follow a local gun code, I can chamber a pre-loaded clip and drop the slide in about two seconds (I could do it in less but I'm talking a careful load here, which is how all firearms should be handled). Lynford Christie isn't even at the landing before my Texan friend would be ready to receive him.

    "....c) load the gun...." See above. Try reading real slow so the words percolate through the years of ingrained, anti-gun, brainwashing.

    "....d) find the crim before he finds you. 'cos he knows you could be armed and already has a gun. Worse, he's in YOUR house and knows that any target is available wheras you don't want to shoot your teenage kid who got home late, so must identify the target first...." Yes, so unless he has the floorplans in advance, I know my house a lot better than any criminal. Simple case of my Texan friend, all his family sleep upstairs, so any crim breaking in has to come upstairs to do them some harm. His bedroom is the first room off the landing by choice, so anything to his right as he exits his room is upstairs and likely to be friendly, anything to the left is the stairs and likely to be unfriendly. He doesn't want to go downstairs, he is merely guarding against the thief coming upstairs before the police arrive, so he doesn't have to go find the bad guy(s). He has many years experience with the USMC (including combat) and regularly shoots in competitions - unless it's the Spetznas coming up those stairs my money is on his superior training and preparation winning the day. You may say that's an extreme case of a highly trained individual, but most people spend weeks if not months learning to drive before they take their driving test, yet most US gun owners spend less than a day learning how to use their weapon. A better solution would be better and compulsory training.

    "....As regards "how is a burglar going to climb through the window..." How is he going to make it away with the big bag of swag?...." You've answered your own question - he needs hands free to carry the loot, to climb through windows, etc. A handgun is the preferred criminal weapon as it can be concealed and easily tucked into the waistband when you need both hands. An assault rifle can't be concealed, and even with a sling it still hampers movement through tight spaces like a window.

    ".... And ever heard of machine pistols? It's not like they are looking for a marksmanship merit badge from scouts, is it....." As for macine-pistols, who do you think is breaking in, a Mafia death squad? Why don't you just say they are using a tank? Sure, there are instances where the intruder may be better armed than you, but if he's packing that level of weaponary then he's likely to use it regardless, so at least a house gun offers some chance, and a trained person will still be able to defeat a better armed but untrained opponent. I have a vid somewhere a mate took in Sierra Leone whilst a BAT member, it includes a clip of an SL Army recruit firing off a whole mag from a Sterling and missing a target completely - at twenty metres! It also has some combat footage of when an SL Army patrol met an RUF gang and both sides shot away at a range of less than a hundred metres with AKs and SLRs for about five minutes - neither side scored a single hit! After proper British training the same troops killed eight RUF members for no loss in their next firefight. Training is the differentiator.

    "....If you're being menaced by a mugger without a gun, you are by default in the wrong. You have shot an unarmed man..." So who said anyone was going to shoot unarmed muggers? The gun is a deterant, it is used to get across the message leave me alone or you will get hurt. If you just shoot a mugger offhand then you will be prosecuted for murder as it is unreasonable force.

    "...or if he wrests it from you, they have a gun registered in your name to shoot you with...." OK, firstly I'd only pull a gun if I needed to, whch means the mugger has already pulled a weapon such as a knife. If he's unarmed I simply back away - if he wants to push the issue he will soon learn a bit about Te Kwon Do. But then I'm a pretty big guy and muggers follow the rules of the savvanah - go for the weak. Even having lived in some of the less savoury parts of London, I have had only one instance of attempted mugging, and that was two guys - they changed their minds pretty sharpish, no need for a firearm. In the case of the feable grannie vs the mugger, she will probably pull the gun seeing as she's not likely to be able to defend herself otherwise, but even if she shot the mugger she would have a good case for reasonable force given her limited options.

    "....Have a look at "Get Shorty".... And shoots him trying to get the gun out....." Wow, what an example! A crim, ready to kill another crim (so not a mugging then), in a movie! So real life! If Hollywood is your measure on reality then please go watch some more, in fact go watch a lot more and don't bother wasting any more of your valuable movie-watching time on posting here. Win-win as far as I can see.

  94. Anonymous Coward
    Pirate

    Well...

    I guess you can't expect many Brits to be in favor of something they themselves are no longer are allowed by their government - even though it's in their constitution "And the citizens shall have arms for their defense" or something like that.

    Envy is a pitiful thing - poor, helpless sheep that they've become. What a sad end to such a proud fighting nation :)

  95. Mark

    Re: Well...

    Something most UK residents don't want, either.

    You used to have slaves in the US, but don't any more (well, officially). So why is that not bad? It was, at the time, said to be the end of the agricltural base of the entire united states.

    No longer seems needed, however.

    Just like guns.

  96. Mark

    Re: Matt Bryant

    Yup. So if you have a gun, you are as likely to use it as a mafia mobster?

    If yes, turn yourself in now.

    If no, your concealed carry will be of no use at all.

  97. Anonymous Coward
    IT Angle

    More heat than light?

    Good to see the traditional battle lines forming!

    I am a rare example of a Brit who grew up with firearms. I have fired handguns, rifles and shotguns. I grew up in the country - and whilst we don't have many bears in the UK, firearms are a natural part of country life. I am far less convinced of the need for firearms in cities and towns.

    A lot of the comparisons between UK and US are pretty spurious. Gun control is just one element of a wider criminal justice situation - along with culture, attitude, poverty and the legal system.

    As laws vary by country, so do the definitions of who is a criminal. If I drink a beer in Saudi Arabia I would be a criminal. The dutchman smoking a joint in Amsterdam would be breaking the law in the UK. So assuming that someone who breaks a law will break any law is pretty dodgy thinking.

    The murder rates in the UK and US are significantly different. Even within the UK, they vary significantly. I remember seeing the murder rates by police force in Scotland. Unsurprisingly, Glasgow was significantly above the wider Scottish or UK rate. Most murders were knife crimes, commited by somone the victim knew - in a drunken rage. Most of the murderers were violent men - but not necessarily muggers or burglers.

    Probably the more important statistic would be the numbr of knife victims that survived - and how many of them would have survived if their attacker had used a firearm. I suspect that greater availability of firearms would result in a higher murder rate. Quite simply a firearm is more deadly than a knife.

    One of the problems we face in the UK is the importing of gun culture, and firearms, from the US and Carribean. This tends to place the weapons in the hands of the criminal gangs that do use them to control the local drug and protection businesses. However, apart from some well publicised cases, these do not impact on nice middle class folks so is ignored.

    The main reason behind UK gun control is that the two cases which led to tighter controls - Hungerford and Dunblane were solid middle class communities. Dunblane was more horrific because the victims were young children. The gun licencing system in Dunblane had failed - I believe that the local police chief had supported the murderer's application.

    'Something had to be done' and so it was. Did it reduce my civil liberties? Not really.

  98. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Thank you

    to those few who have posted clear and cogent replies to what, to me, is the most appalling outpouring of ignorance and bias I have seen on this website. I was taught how to shoot when I was five years old. Why? I lived in a household of hunters, the house was full of rifles and pistols and while many were in gun cases to protect them, none of them were locked. It was expected that I would learn that guns are not toys and treat them accordingly. That training and the role models involved were a major contributor to my becoming a responsible adult. Can't use a gun to defend your family? Oh yes you can! I've been there, three drunks initially intent on stealing my truck at two in the morning but jinning each other up for an apparent home invasion, for "Fun". Because I had both the will and the means, I was able to take and maintain control of the situation (no gun waving or willy waving either) until the police arrived thirty-five minutes later. I have no desire to kill anyone but, if the situation requires it will be them rather than me or mine. In this instance no one got hurt, most especially my wife! To avoid complicating the trooper's job, I stayed inside but watched in case things got out of hand. I simply can't believe the amount of anti-gun indoctrination displayed here. The single most basic right of any living thing is that of self-defence!

  99. Mark
    Stop

    re: Thank you

    Strange though, isn't it, as soon as you take the woodsman out of the woods where you KNOW that you don't shoot what you THINK *might* be a deer in the bushes in case it turns out to be Uncle Ted, then put them in the army where, unless you KNOW it's one of yours, shoot away. If they weren't a target by then, they will be now!

    Also, did you pull a gun on them? What if they decided to be REALLY stupid and attack you (they were drunk)? Shoot them? Assault.

    Pulling a gun on someone should ONLY be done when you have only bad options left and you are willing to kill with it. Without that will to kill, you're displaying a weapon that is more a danger to you than the opponent.

  100. Mark
    Stop

    re: More heat than light

    Nicely said.

    Howwever...

    :-)

    The "So assuming that someone who breaks a law will break any law is pretty dodgy thinking." isn't as dodgy as you may think.

    If it is a "crime" that isn't violent, why would a normal, law abiding citizen pull a gun on them? They wouldn't. So that segment is out: the gun would not come into it.

    If it is a crime that IS violent, then there's more likelihood of a gun being thought of as a useful tool by the criminal. Especially if you MAY have a gun yourself. After all, the criminal isn't thinking of giving you a sporting chance, are they.

    But in those violent cases, you may consider pulling a gun. And since violence is the criminal's intent, the jump to pulling a piece out is a lot smaller. Maybe even non-existent if their victim may be packing.

  101. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    To Mark

    "Also, did you pull a gun on them? What if they decided to be REALLY stupid and attack you (they were drunk)? Shoot them? Assault.

    Pulling a gun on someone should ONLY be done when you have only bad options left and you are willing to kill with it. Without that will to kill, you're displaying a weapon that is more a danger to you than the opponent."

    Did I "Pull a gun on them"? Not in the way you meant. My choice for home defence is a 12 gauge pump shotgun and I simply leaned it against the door frame as I stood there and talked with them.

    Am I willing to shoot if I believe it necessary was a conversation I had with myself long ago.

  102. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    I have sympathy for sports men but it's a small sacrafice

    I have sympathy for sports men who found their guns were banned, but it only lasts until I hear gun nuts justify their gun ownership by fantasizing about pointing a gun at "bad guys". Then I am reminded of my childhood when my immature fear lead to fantasies of winning conflicts as a hero. Fortunately I grew up and am no longer afraid of the unknown, but the aggressive rantings of American gun owners is proof that not everyone does.

    What is this "home invasion" which you are afraid of?

    Is it a common occurrence? or, is it a paranoid fantasy you use to picture yourself as a hero pointing a gun at another human being?

    I'm pretty sure you would statistically be more likely to protect your Family by installing a lightning conductor on the roof of your house then by owning a gun in case of Holywood bad guys invading your home and raping your daughters whilst making you watch.

    It would be nice if sportsmen could own guns but Muppets like you really justify the ban on firearms!

    Oh and how does this argument work?

    Banning Guns hasn't prevent criminals getting hold of Guns so they shouldn't be banned. Will this reduce or increase the availability of guns to criminals? At the moment in the UK if you are caught in possession of a hand gun you will go to prison, with luck before you have the opportunity to commit a crime with it. If anything this law makes it a lot easier to lock away serious criminals, we can't prove beyond reasonable doubt you did this but since you have an illegal gun we can convict you for that instead.

    You Americans seem to have a very polarized view of the world dare I say you see things as either "Black" or "White"!

  103. Mark
    Pirate

    To AC

    "Did I "Pull a gun on them"? Not in the way you meant. My choice for home defence is a 12 gauge pump shotgun and I simply leaned it against the door frame as I stood there and talked with them"

    And if they had attacked you with fists alone, you would have shot and killed one? If, for example, one was high, they aren't thinking straight.

    I take it the gun was loaded. But then do you always take the 12-gauge to the door just in case? I take it it wasn't cocked (else you could easily get a misfire if it is standing end up ready to be picked up and it got kicked). If they'd jumped you, would you have time to bend over, pick up your shotgun, cock and shoot it? AFTER having ascertained that these were a danger to your life and limb?

    And if you hadn't got there, they now grapple for a shotgun. Yours. There are two of them. If you could have wrested it from them you wouldn't need the gun.

    You, in short, had only done the right thing if you are a maniac.

    If I had a neighbour like you, I'd get the police on to you for fear of my children.

  104. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    A few words from someone accross the pond.

    Ok, I find many of the comments here to be entertaining. Unfortunately the issue of gun control in the USA is a bit more murky than it would readily appear.

    Firstly, there was a comment that the second amendment only applied to state militias. This is not correct due to a strange law in the Code of Federal Regulations. It states that anyone who is over the age of 18 and is or intends to be a citizen of the USA is a member of the organized militia. This is the back door through which the Draft is legal and has been upheld.

    This matter also came before the US Supreme Court in reference to gun ownership in the Washington DC area. One of the questions put before them asked if the Second Amendment applied to the average person (citizen if you insist) of America. It was ruled that it, in fact, did apply.

    I find the concept of restrictive gun control to be a misleading concept here. I am not in favor of killings, or crime at all. But the simple fact is the BATF conducted a study about the numbers of firearms in private ownership in America. They made a conservative statement due to some numbers that cannot be confirmed. In the past our government has dumped semi auto rifles such as the M1 Garrand and the M14 in an undocumented fashion in large numbers. Even with that taken into account the BATF concluded that there were more firearms in private hands than there were U.S. citizens at that time. The simple fact is, there are literally millions of firearms in America, many of which are not documented. Very hard to control.

    I enjoyed the question as to why a person might have a reason to own a semi automatic rifle (or other guns). This was of course asked in a very negative manner. As a gun owner I can give some insight in this area.

    My Kalashnikov (7.62 x 39) was acquired for several reasons, first, recently the prices on these firearms have been rising making this a possible investment. Second I am learning more and more about history and this firearm has been involved in a lot of it of late. This resulted in my curiosity about how it worked, how reliable it is and so on. So I own my AK-47 for educational and monetary reasons.

    My AR-15, This will seem odd to those who do not live in the country but here goes. I live a fair bit out in the sticks as it were and help my family raise cattle. It may seem odd but the AR-15 is not a weapon but a tool out here. There are many animals that are natural to the area and sadly, come into conflict with human activity in the area. Many of the brighter ones do not often get caught by live traps and even if one does catch them, no one will take them. It gets used primarily as a noise maker to scare off the offending animals, failing that to exterminate them as humanely as possible. I made that choice after seeing what commercial poisons do and the unintended consequences of poison use as well. Frankly, if positions were reversed I would prefer a well placed shot to the agony that the poisons cause. With the large land mass I deal with and the numbers and different types of animal that I am dealing with the AR-15 with the 10 round magazine is the most utilitarian rifle for the job.

    Hand guns: I own several of these all but two were gifts. The PPK/S and the 1911 A1 .45 were former carry pistols for my Mother while she did some work for the local government. She was injured by in an accident by a drunk driver and no longer works in that capacity. They are strange mementos of a time when my Mom was physically whole. My .22 is just for target shooting and is the only hand gun I have for fun. My Glock is my concealed carry pistol. It may seem odd but understand this: the average rapid response to my area by police for an emergency is one hour. There are few crimes committed in my area but in those circumstances I want some form of insurance while I wait that hour. I used to think that foolish until I had a nasty encounter with a drunk who was kicked out of the local bar (pub I guess you call it) who was spoiling for a fight with anything and everything. I had to use a massive tractor to dissuade him.

    My only other fire arms are for hunting and are not very special. I must seem very odd to others who are not gun owners. Its the way I was raised, the way I've lived, and what I perceive to be normal. I do not harm other people, am a productive member of society and truly appreciate the safety and freedoms I enjoy. I see no reason I should be punished for these things.

    I object to more restrictive gun laws for very serious reasons. First, my government has been displaying a distressing lack of understanding of the simple concept of where to stop. I just do not trust them when it comes to my rights. Second, despite the news and the incredibly horrible statistics most legal gun owners do not go out and commit crimes. Literally millions of us go out, do our jobs, live our lives and obey the law everyday. We are not the drooling, shambling neanderthals out to blast everything in sight that others would make us out to be. Most of the gun laws punish and restrict us while in no way impacting the criminal element at large who mostly get their guns illegally. It is at best a band-aid for a major problem that no one has the faintest clue how to address. The bulk of the violent crimes have at least some roots in the economic gap that our nations poor face, many cant see a way out and have little to no hope. Add in some complex social issues and a recent and very rapid rise in new organized crime groups in this country and you are not going to get a very clean police blotter. The last time we tried an assault rifle ban the gun related crime stats actually increased. I can't explain it, but 'tis true.

    If you do not like guns I support you right not to have one or be associated with them. All I want is to be left on my own and not vilified for legal and safe activities. If you have a problem with crime then you have my support. All I ask is that you make sure that you punish the criminals and not the innocent.

    I hope that this at least address some questions posted here and sheds light on a rarely discussed part of the gun control story here in America.

    Thank you for your time,

    Anon.

  105. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Arf, arf...

    Wow - it really must be hell living in a nanny-state like the UK, being a helpless subject as opposed to a citizen (with full rights) in the US.

    How's that knife ban coming along, then? Won't be long till you'll be forced to eat with chop-sticks - then those'll be taken away because it's a pointed stick.

    And those of you pontificating over the horrors of armed self-defense - it's quite apparent you haven't got a clue how it happens in real life, so stop fantasizing, shut up and let the big boys speak, mmmk?

  106. Mark
    IT Angle

    re: Arf, arf...

    Uh, given the open and proudly proclaimed breeches of the constitution by the current government, and considering the complete lack of any use of guns to remove the traitors responsible, I would say that the US are living in a nanny state too, being helpless subjects to GOP rule as opposed to a citizen (with full rights) as the constitution grants you in the US.

    And the guns don't seem to have stopped that either.

  107. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sucks to be a subject

    We didn't need guns to do that, Mark - we simply voted the bastard out. Oh, and we *still* have our guns - we're citizens, not subjects - har, har, har.

  108. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    A shooter's perspective

    I (legally) own a number of handguns as well as a few semi-auto rifles - FN-FAL (I believe known by the British as the SLR), Ar-15, an AK74, etc.

    I own them for a number of reasons - and while self-defense is one reason, it happens to be the least important to me personally.

    Fun: I enjoy shooting and I enjoy tinkering with them to make them both more accurate and more reliable - ballistics is a fascinating and challenging science/art.

    Competition: I take part in 3-gun shoots quite often; I'm always trying to get better and learn from those who *are* better.

    Work: I'm a security-contractor and I like to keep myself conversant and competent with the tools of my trade.

    Anthropomorphism: I don't imbue any object with human characteristics such as "evil" any more than I believe that Harry Potter's wand is evil. It's an object and has no soul, no conscience, no thoughts and certainly not and tendency towards either good or evil. It's simply a tool and can be used for good or ill depending on the will of its owner.

    As for banning certain categories of firearms, I fail to see the point - it's simply feel-good legislation which allows the ignorant to believe that a politician has actually "done something" to stop criminals from getting their hands on firearms.

    Total rubbish, of course - it's already illegal for felon to own a firearm; heck, you can't even own one if you've been accused (note I didn't say convicted - merely accused) of domestic violence - which nowadays can be as little as yelling at your spouse. What, a new law is going to make it super-doubly-illegal now? Oooooh, scary :)

    It would be hysterical if it wasn't so pathetic that people can be so easily-fooled into believing that a criminal is going to obey that law while they ignore all others. Life is how it *is*, not how we'd like it to be - sorry.

    As for "need" - as in "prove that you *need* it" - it's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. Talk about need with me and I'll happily point out all the things in your life that you don't *need*, either - let's see how far you get ;)

  109. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Various and sundry responses...

    "Why would anyone interested in "home defense" need an assault rifle that is lethal at ranges of well over a mile?"

    A rimfire .22LR can propel its bullet 1.5 miles from the barrel. An "assault rifle" by its very definition includes selected fire, which is not a feature of modern, neutered semi-automatic AR-15/AK-47 clones.

    "I wonder what the NRA would say if Obama forced every one who owns a gun to give up their Sunday's to train in the Militia?"

    Well, since many NRA members are fervent Christians, and Sunday is their Sabbath, I imagine they'd be pretty pissed. That idea, however, is very close to what Thomas Jefferson had in mind. I for one think it is a fine idea; as most literate people know, many of those who bear arms are morons. Training, at least covering the basic ideas like "only point the gun at things you want to destroy," and "treat every gun like it is loaded," seems like a good idea. Citizens must be charged with the responsibility of homeland defense, and given the right to the tools necessary to perform that task. A "militia" in the minds of our founding fathers was intended to be comprised of every able-bodied male in the state, under the direction of that state's Governor. The federal government has stepped in to eliminate that check on its power with the National Guard, which is theoretically under the direct command of the Governors of the States in which they reside; however, the President may (and has) by executive order take direct control of a State's National Guard units.

    "There is no difference between an AR-15, AK-47 or a Ruger Mini-14. The former are largely used by armies to kill people, and the latter is largely used by farmers to kill Coyotes. Put a scary looking stalk and a large magazine on a Mini-14 it is essentially the same gun. Bill Clinton & Brady tried this crap, and the best they could come up with was a "point-system". Enough "points" and something classifies as an assault weapon. If such a vague system is required, then it is clear that there is no real definition, and should be no ban then."

    The "assault weapons ban" did nothing to prevent crime. It did not ban semi-automatic military weapons. What it meant for a semi-auto AK-47 was the removal of threads from the barrel and the removel of the bayonet lug. A number of features were designated as assault features, and no weapon produced in the US during the ban could include more than two. So the AK, left with its detachable magazine and pistol grip, without the bayonet lug and threaded barrel, was still perfectly acceptable despite the purported ban.

    "Anyone who attempts to justify owning a gun or any other weapon by saying they might use it to scare or kill another human being is far to irresponsible to be in possession of such a weapon. Plain And Simple. Home defense, for the love of smut, do you actually intend to kill some kid junkie just cause he's nicking your ipod? What's wrong with banging about and turning the lights on? You can even hold a heavy club if it makes you feel braver. What a bunch of pansies!"

    In most of the saner states in this country, it is not legal to kill someone to defend property, only life (in Colorado and Texas it is supposedly legal to kill an unarmed trespasser, regardless of perceived intent. Crazy). In Nebraska, for example, if you feel that your life or the life of another human being is in danger, you have the legal right to end that danger by taking a human life. If you open fire on somebody for stealing your iPod, you are a murderer, and you will go to prison. However, if you encounter an intruder in your home, you may point your weapon at that person and instruct them to leave. If they threaten you or otherwise present an active threat, you may defend yourself with lethal force. Armed or not, an intruder is a danger. If choosing a more effective defensive tool makes me a pansy, give me a pretty vase and a few inches of water.

    "Wrong, a typical AK-47 for sale in the US will only be semi-automatic. The only exception is a full auto that was registered and built prior to 1986. Even then the only way to get a full auto is to pay several hundred dollars to the BATF for the permit (if the local law enforcement will sign off on it) and then pay upwards of $15,000 for the weapon itself."

    It is not a permit, but rather a $200 tax stamp. The local Chief Law Enforcement Officer sign-off, passport photographs, and fingerprints may all be bypassed if the NFA item (machine gun, suppressor, SBR, SBS, AOW, destructive device) is transferred to a trust instead of an individual. If you are the sole trustee, there is no disadvantage versus private ownership, and it simplifies the inheritance process in the event of your death. The NFA (National Firearms Act) established the registration and taxation of certain weapons and devices. The machine gun ban of 1986 contained a grandfather clause; as such there is a finite supply of transferable, civilian-legal machine guns, and it takes a great deal of money to convince somebody to part with one. After satisfying all the NFA requirements and sending off payment and paperwork, there is typically a 2-4 month wait for approval and the issuance of the tax stamp, after which the NFA item may be transferred to you.

    "FYI

    In the DC vs Heller case the US Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Am. referred to an individual right to keep and bear arms. That means every American (except felons and minors) not just militia forces."

    You forgot users of illegal substances, those dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, subjects of restraining or protective orders, those ever adjudicated mentally defective, those convicted of or under indictment for a misdemeanor or felony for the which the judge could imprison them for more than a year, fugitives from justice, and those convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Hope I didn't miss any, might've. There are plenty of ways to lose your right to bear arms in this country, most of which make sense.

    "Gun collectors (who collect the items PURELY to have them and not for shooting them) who collect such automatics should be extended a special license with the notion that the storage of the weapons shall be inspected to acquire and renew the license (say every 5 years.)"

    I am a gun collector and I do have a few weapons that I do not fire either because of extreme age or mechanical unreliability, or simply because they're a rarer or more valuable variant. That being said, part of the enjoyment in collecting such things is using them occasionally. Chances are, I will never use my Nagant revolver or my Mauser broomhandle to defend myself; but I enjoy taking the Nagant out to the range every few months and putting a few rounds through it before cleaning it up and putting it back on the wall. There is such a license in the US, although not precisely as you describe it. It is called a C&R (Curios and Relics), and allows individuals to purchase weapons over 50 years old outside of their own state, and to have such weapons shipped directly to their homes. This license carries a Special Occupational Tax, and must be renewed annually.

    "For your idea of "securing a gun", it is now useless in the case of a burgular unless they are sufficiently noiuse that they make a noise a long way away and wake you up with plenty of time to

    a) retrieve the gun quietly

    b) find the ammo (this can blow up without a gun, so that needs to be secured too)

    c) load the gun

    d) find the crim before he finds you. 'cos he knows you could be armed and already has a gun. Worse, he's in YOUR house and knows that any target is available wheras you don't want to shoot your teenage kid who got home late, so must identify the target first."

    I keep a Glock 19 with attached flashlight in a retention holster (which completely covers the trigger guard) with a round in the chamber. This means when I press the button on the holster and remove the weapon it is ready to fire, and it will NOT do so until so removed. I keep this holstered weapon in a biometric safe. When I need it, I simply place my finger on a pad, open the safe and remove the weapon. I've never needed to use it for self-defense, and in all likelihood never will. As for identification of the target, that's what the blindingly-bright tactical flashlight under the barrel is for.

    AC because I don't need some idiot wannabe burglar breaking in and leaving his innards all over my floor.

  110. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    Guns, eh?

    What a bunch of pussies!

  111. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Judge Jury and Executioner?

    How can you imagine you have the right to be Judge Jury and Executioner?

    Would you give this right to you government? Even your American government is does not have this right and yet you are prepared to give it to yourselves and your next door neighbors!

    Now lets look at the hero to arsehole ratio, how many times in your life do you get to be a hero? How many times have you been an arsehole?

    How many more times are you going to be an arsehole?

    Come on be honest with yourself, what never? so you are just such an arsehole that you are unaware when you are being an arsehole and nobody feels that it is safe to point out to you when you are being one.

    The rules of handling a gun.

    1 Do not point a gun at a human being (loaded or otherwise)

    2 A gun is always loaded until you have checked it is not loaded

    3 You should always treat an unloaded gun as if it was loaded

    If you obey these rules you will be safe holding a gun regardless of your mental state.

    If you make exceptions to these rules then what exceptions will you make when you are drunk and enraged and don't tell me you will always have sound judgment because that is a self deception.

    And all you fools that keep "one in the chamber" you are aware that guns can go off without anyone pulling the trigger aren't you? The trigger merely causes the bullet to fire, the bullet can fire at any time without the trigger being pulled, even if the Gun has a safety catch.

    Yet you feel that you are qualified to argue that you should have the right to have any gun you want!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like