@Sigh, perspective, etc.
I completely agree mate,
Just one minor point tho.. regarding smuggling stuff into Britian.....do you know how much heroin gets shipped here every day!
STOP Dont do drugs kids
Max Motors is aware of America's crime problem. And it wants to be part of the solution. With this in mind, the Butler, Missouri auto dealership is offering a free handgun to anyone in the market for a new car or truck. As reported by the BBC, Max Motors recently launched a "Guns and Gas" promotion. If you purchase any vehicle …
I completely agree mate,
Just one minor point tho.. regarding smuggling stuff into Britian.....do you know how much heroin gets shipped here every day!
STOP Dont do drugs kids
There are all sorts of legal reasons why you can't just walk into a store and buy a gun in most, if not all, parts of the US. First, you've got to buy the thing off a licensed firearms dealer. The car dealer may also have a firearms dealer license, but then you've got a raft of other regulations (that vary from State to State) to negotiate.
The real joke is that if you're experienced with firearms then you're unlikely to want to be given some random (cheap) handgun. You've already got the ones you want and while you probably have some others you've got your eye on they're be relatively expensive. Gun owners (usually enthusiasts) are actually quite picky. If you've never owned a gun before this freebe is worse than useless, its dangerous. Guns are not toys. So I'll list this one as a gimmick.
If you want home protection, a small pump action shotgun's the answer. You don't have to fire it, the noise of racking it usually is enough to persuade someone to go away. (If you do have to fire it then you don't need to be too careful about aiming it.)
Banning guns will not stop violent crime, but removing them makes the battle a little less onesided. Have you ever tried a driveby shooting with a knife? And would the Port Arthur or Columbine gunmen have managed to kill so many if they were carrying knives? And how often do you get collateral damage in a knife fight?
Mine is the non-bullet proof one, because I live in Australia
As others have noted, this is common practice in the south and midwest of the US. A dealer near my home in Arkansas has a yearly sale where he gives out 12 gauge shotguns with a purchase of a truck.
Did anyone notice the * after "free gun" ? All the dealer did was hand out a certificate that gave you a certain amount of store credit for the local gun store. In Missouri you have to go to your county's sheriff's department and they do a background check there, they give you paperwork that you have to give to the gun store before they can sell you a handgun. As the law stands right now, you do not need to wait 7 days before you receive your handgun.
As an ex-pat USAian living in Germany for a while now, I can assure you that non-patrolled land borders aren't a problem. Looking at the case you so handily provided, the problem with the right to bear arms is immediately evident. Criminals will steal the guns they need, they do not need to go through background checks, because you, the arm bearing, law abiding citizen continue to provide them with the 'tools of the trade'.
As the poster said earlier, If there are three guns per American obviously a lot of profits to be made and made by the gun manufacturers. Let me wonder?
Is there I strong pro gun lobby in Congress by those same manufacturers?
QED - The problem is not about guns, it is about greed and money.
The auto dealer wasn't selling the guns, he was providing a certificate for the purchase of one...presumably redeemable with a local FFL dealer. It becomes the responsibility of the Federal Firearms Licensed dealer to ensure that the firearms sale complies with the appropriate State and federal firearms laws.
Interesting sentiments. I happen to know that it is not shared by all of your fellow countrymen and women. I just spent the last several days as a range officer at the NRA Bianchi Cup National Action Pistol Championship, ironically held just a few miles north of Columbia, Missouri. There were a dozen plus Australian competitors that do not share your happiness with the state of firearms laws down under. And you can be proud at how well your fellow Aussies performed - several trophies and plaques are on their way to Australia today.
For the record, there were also contingents from Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, and New Zealand this year, and I'm probably forgetting a couple.
@Gun Control in general...
In the US, law enforcement agents and agencies have a moral and ethical obligation to, they do in fact have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT YOUR OR YOUR PROPERTY. That is case law, look it up. There was a case back in the '80's involving two women that were raped in Central Park in New York City within ear and eyesight of two NYPD officers. The women lost the case. I don't like it, but that is they way the law is.
@Gun buying in general...
Not everyone can purchase firearms in the US. When you go to buy from a dealer, you fill out a BATF form and the dealer then calls the FBI to verify the information on the form. Your identifying information is compared against federal and state criminal databases. That's federal law, some States are more restrictive.
This guy clearly has it backwards.....you bring the gun you already own to the car dealership and leave with the car for free. USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!
I wait for the day, when someone goes to US Supreme Court with complain about 'government confiscating his 155 mm artillery piece'.
After all, 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about type of armament you are allowed to carry. If the 'meaning of founding fathers' is considered, then it is muzzle-loading muskets which are only allowed weapon. If on the other hand you decide that people are allowed to use something more deadly, then (by US constitution) anything up the the nukes should be fair game. [Which would truly eliminate all the potential problems in the entire country. And the country itself.]
"When I travel to the city, my gun is like my American Express card...I don't leave home without it!"
Is a society in which citizens feel the need to leave the house tooled up a healthy one?
People always show their intelligence when they fail to read an article thoroughly and then start pissing and moaning about it.
First off, as stated above, they arent just handing guns to every buyer who signs a contract, like it were a bag of popcorn. they arent even the ones distributing the guns, they've worked out a deal with a local gunshop, which handles the actual transaction including all screening and reporting requirements.
Second off, they are giving buyers a voucher for $250, which when redeemed will cover the cost of many lower quality guns offered by the gunshop, or that $250 can be applied to the buyers weapon of choice.
Having an armed public does impact the crime rate, in 1992 Arizona passed a "shall issue" concealed weapons bill and targeted the advertising campaign towards women due to increasing violent crimes against women, many women took advantage of the training, got the permit and started packing, by 1996 violent crimes against women had dropped dramatically. recently the state has seen an increase in violent home invasions, so they passed a home defense bill that instituted a shoot first ask questions later policy and placed the burden of proof on law enforcement to prove the shooter has broken the law, instead of the shooter having to prove they were in danger, the bill also removed the requirement to retreat before you shoot. guess what, violent home invasions in Arizona have dropped by over 70%.
I absolutely advocate the second amendment, and i exercise it. As someone stated above, if you put myself, my family or my friends in harms way, i WILL shoot you, there is recovered drug addict missing half a lung somewhere in this state will attest to that statement. 2 years after i pulled the trigger on him as he was beating my sister with a rake, he sent me a letter, he said that incident changed his life, he realized he was lucky to be alive and that on the path he was heading down he probably wouldnt be around much longer. he said pulled his head out of his ass, stopped doing drugs, went through anger management, got a job and became a productive member of society. he also said he didnt think i would actually shoot him, in my reply, i told him, i cant believe i missed, i was aiming for center mass, i must have jerked the trigger. who says guns dont solve anything...
Mines the one with the HK emblem on the shoulder and powder burns on the sleeves...
"And remember, we loaned y'all a lot of firearms back in the early 40's, just in case Hitler decided to cross the Channel, because, surprise, surprise, nobody being allowed to own guns= unarmed citizenry in time of need. Too bad you didn't learn your lesson, and worse yet, YOU DIDN'T SEND THE DAMNED THINGS BACK!"
These sorts of "what about when we saved your butt in the war" posts always bemuse me, partially because they are usually illogically and incorrectly presented, partially because they are irrelevant to anything, and partially because they are a little economical with the truth.
Britain was given huge helping hand with Lend-lease, but it was a loan. It provided a life-line when British industry was stretched. But a stretch it also is to say that Hitler planned to invade the UK because nobody had a gun at home. I'd be keen on seeing some evidence for such a claim, otherwise we'll just accept it for the nonsense it is.
And we'll also note that in rural England guns were, and are, not uncommon, and that secondly the primary weapons of the British soldier in WW2 were the Lee Enfield, the Sten gun and the Bren Gun....all British.
> And remember, we loaned y'all a lot of firearms back in the early 40's, just in case Hitler decided to cross the Channel, because, surprise, surprise, nobody being allowed to own guns= unarmed citizenry in time of need. Too bad you didn't learn your lesson, and worse yet, YOU DIDN'T SEND THE DAMNED THINGS BACK!
Leased, and we only finished paying for them last year. Anyway, we still haven't finished with them yet. We have a nice collection of (deactivated) lend and lease Enfield No.4's sitting in the local cadets armoury for rifle drill.
"USA, your welcome to your guns. Just don't invade my country and try and make us into you."
Are there any significant oil/gas deposits in Oz? If not, I'd think you'd be fairly safe from America's idea of democracy.
if it is the people who legally carry firearms in the states who are responsible for the murders and mayhem, or if it is the crazies?
Remember that we also have quite a lot of gun crime over here in England, despite the draconian laws regarding possession of firearms. That being the case, I don't think that we can be as self-righteous and condescending as some people are.
@greg "YOU DIDN'T SEND THE DAMNED THINGS BACK!" - I think you will find that the USA got paid for them. Failing that, I think you can probably accept that the virtual gift of the Jet engine, which our dick-head government of the time sold the patents or licence to the USA for the princely sum of 2m GBP, is more than enough compensation. :)
No icon cos I can't be arsed with them
And remember, we loaned y'all a lot of firearms back in the early 40's, just in case Hitler decided to cross the Channel, because, surprise, surprise, nobody being allowed to own guns= unarmed citizenry in time of need. Too bad you didn't learn your lesson, and worse yet, YOU DIDN'T SEND THE DAMNED THINGS BACK!
First up the Lend Lease Act didnt happen till March 1941. Before that the Brits either paid the USA for weapons in gold or traded permanent leases on military bases for them (like Bermuda).
The terms of the Lend Lease Act specified that the weapons had to be either returned to America or dumped at the end of the war. When the USA terminated the act in 1945 they didnt want the weapons back. The Brits did what they were told under the terms of the act & all those lend lease weapons went straight to the bottom of the sea or were otherwise destroyed in situ.
You and your bloody Glock again! I bet you sleep with it, and I don't mean under the pillow.
"Nope, the vast majority of gun crime occurs in the inner cities with illegally possessed and carried handguns. But anyone who points that out is automatically 'racist', regardless of color and the statistics, because that's what the Brady Bill crowd want you to believe."
Did you ever think why it is so easy to illegally possess a gun ? If guns where forbidden it would also be a lot more difficult to obtain them illegally I think.
At those legally bought guns have to go somewhere some day and I doubt they are all returned/decommissioned/melted down.
sometimes it does not hurt to think
there are lies, damn lies and statistics
Doesn't it include the key clause "subject to State and Federal regulations"?
of going into the showroom and asking to buy a Shooting-brake?
But then I'm easily pleased.
Incidentally is that what you still call luxury estates in the US?
To be shot, or to be stabbed?
I am told by people from the US that part of the reason we Europeans have so many rude people is that we don't all carry guns here.They live in a polite society and we live in a repressed one.
I would rather deal with bad manners than guns. If someone decides to mug me, I would rather he did it with a knife. Any idiot can kill someone with a gun. Kives take practice or a degree of ability/luck...
Jean de Menezes did not skip paying for the tube.
Only the criminals will be robbed for them.
$500.oo for a weapon. That's got to be easier prey than half a dozen phones, watches or wallets.
Plus, you can still rob the mark of his phone, watch and wallet.
Number of people killed by automobiles in the USA: 43,005
Number of people killed by firearms in the USA: 28,663
These are all deaths regardless of intent. Numbers are a little on the stale side, being from 2002, but I think stats for both may exist up to '05. Never the less, it would seem that owning a gun purchased with the certificate might actually prove safer than driving on the fuel from the gas card.
(What follows is a piece of humor, based on an oft referenced but little confirmed bit of history, neither the spelling nor the situation are an attempt at serious historical parody.)
Com down to Arther's Fyne Carte Emporeeum for ourr Crosbowes An Cabages prommotional! Due to a resent decision by the Pope regarding the usse of crosbowes, we havv decided to offer you the choyse of eyther onne free crosbowe or 20 of our fynest cabages with the purchas of any new or usid
carte! Horry, suplys are limted!
(I'm going to hell aren't I...)
If you have a gun, you're not a Christian, end of topic. The founder (you know, that Christ guy) specifically outlawed violence as a method of solving any problem, including very specifically violence itself.
Being a Christian means, amongst other things: not owning guns or other weapons, not being in the military, not using violence in any way against your enemies, forgiving those who attack you. Because, in the end, they're going to Hell and the objective here is not to let them take you with them.
Amazing how a nation so convinced of its Christian values has so few of them.
"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"
Throw back to the times of marauding Englishmen...
Makes me feel a little queasy after thinking about this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_related_attacks
"In ten years leading up to the Port Arthur massacre, insane males were regularly, like once a year on average, grabbing their military weapons and slaughtering strangers. Since the bans, no insane male rampages have occurred."
Ah, this is true; however, is it really because of the ban?
Think about it. New Zealand, much like Australia, had many gun massacres perpetrated by insane individuals in the late 80s and early 90s. However, like Australia, they have not had a single high-profile massacre since 1996. The thing is, they never banned semi-automatic shotguns and rifles like Australia.
Why, then, were there no more massacres there, despite the fact that they have gun laws similar to some states of the United States?
I'm an Australian, and a shooting enthusiast. I enjoy target shooting, and have membership in a gun club. I am a perfectly sane individual who would never dare turn his firearm on an innocent human being. However, while I do agree with certain aspects of Australian gun law, such as the idea of mandatory licensing, prerequisite safety courses and comprehensive background checks, I do believe the laws here may have gone a bit too far in other areas.
Consider semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. While a number of these types of firearms which were prohibited in 1996 were military-style weapons such as the AR-15 and AK-47, many were sporting-style firearms with perfectly legitimate uses for licensed sporting and target shooters, like the Ruger Mini-14.
These are ordinary-looking firearms with no fancy folding stocks or anything and only low-capacity magazines - it's kind of hard to go on a rampage with 5 rounds, eh? Though I'm not so certain about relegalising military-style firearms any time soon, I honestly would not mind it if sporting-style, low-capacity firearms were relegalised for ordinary target shooters.
As for this story... Eh. It's a pretty good marketing tactic, I'll give them that. While I'd be cautious dispensing guns willy-nilly, I don't have any problems if it is conducted through the proper channels (for example - the advertisement states that a background check will be necessary for the free firearm, so hopefully not too many of these firearms will fall into the hands of vicious criminals).
Even if you have no desire to shoot it for target practice or self defense, people should KNOW how to clear and secure a loaded weapon. I've since sold off all my weapons, in order to pay for my real passion, photography. But, even when I did, my family members (most of whom don't like guns) all knew how to chamber and clear a round, AND make the gun safe, by removing any ammunition clips.
As one poster mentioned, the vast majority of gun crimes are not committed by CCW permitted citizens, or people who are serious about target shooting or hunting. 99% of the time, gun crimes are committed by people who have obtained weapons illegally.
I live in a relatively small community, and have many friends in the local police department. I've been in their evidence vault, working on things and have had quite a number of conversations regarding about the confisgated weapons from drug crimes. And of the relatively few that do have serial numbers, every one has been reported stolen and was in the posession of someone who wasn't the registered owner OR the weapons had their serial numbers removed...
I really don't care what others opinions of firearms are, but people should definitely know how to secure one, until it can be delivered to the proper authorities.
I haven't seen the headline lately
"Insane male goes on murderous stabbing, bat, fist rampage, kill dozens, severely maims dozens" have you?
Insane males still exist, they just find it harder to kill multiple innocents.
Should be obvious, ya numnut.
"You fail to mention that the insane male obtained the weapons illegally."
Your point is? Does this statement have a point? Didn't think so.
Mines the cammo hunting jacket, off to hunt some game to feed my wife and chilun.
It's very nice to see some rational points being made on a thread about guns, usually such an emotive subject.
As a brit I would take exception to us all living during a complete ban on firearms, this is simply not true, however those controlled are slowly being chipped away at even now with bans of certain types of air weapon the most recent (that I know of)
I would like to point out that ALL laws that ban things are usually inaffective at best, have a contrary affect at worst... for example who owns all of the handguns in the UK at the moment? I would suggest criminals and the government (probably in that order) and of course that particular knee jerk law could have been avioded by actually enforcing the existing laws.(often the case, look at mobile use in cars for example, I still see dozens of f*ckwits on their phones every day)
Humans are fairly complex beasts (even the most stupid of us) and simple responses never catch more than a minority of situations wich is probably why huge swathes of us in the UK don't particularly like speed cameras for example.
Any now I suggest you all take a listen to "If you tolerate this" (yes I know the're welsh but...), answers on a postcard to:- The Occupior, 10 Downing Street, London.
Anonymous because I have carried a handgun, legally I might add, so that everyone doesn't have too.(unless they really, really want one)
Here's a little inconvenient truth (one actually backed up by scientific data rather than just dreamt up by a failed VP) - you are more likely to be mugged as a unit head of population in many British towns than ANY area of America. In certain areas of the UK (London, Nottingham, and Manchester) you are MORE likely to be a victim of guncrime as a unit head of population than ANY American city. All this despite a useless piece of New Labour knee-jerk legislation that supposedly banned handguns in the UK, with handgun crime rising THREEFOLD since. As a law-abiding Briton that liked a bit of handgun plinking down at the range I was most annoyed to be labeled a "likely violent criminal" and have my harmless past-time made illegal. Of course, I still have my Shotgun and Fire Arm Certs, both of which allow me to legally keep and use weapons far more deadly than the Kel-Tec .380 mentioned.
Numerous polls of criminals in the States have shown again and again that what criminals involved in violent crime fear most is running into a "victim" with the training and ability to use a gun, as it massively reduces the criminal's chance of getting out of the encounter alive. Having unarmed victims is so much easier for them. Many criminals admitted just an NRA sticker on a car made them less likely to try stealing it. Unfortunately, as the Tony Martin case shows, defending yourself against criminals is more of a crime here in the UK.
And Obama's statement was made to a San Fran "rich club" gathering, where he was trying to drum up campaign cash by playing up to rich Dummicrat perceptions of "poor white trash" in Pennsylvania. Obama was using the statement to label the average rural Pennsylvanian a racist as a means to explain his lack of success compared to Hillary Clinton in such areas, whilst conveniently dodging the fact that his overwhelming success in black areas is even more overt racism. Strange that his team (especially his wife) are so happy to play the race card....
"It's a hell of a lot easier to ban guns in Britain and Australia than it is to ban them in America. You have no land borders at all."
The strength of this argument is born out completely by the fact that neither republican or loyalist paramilitaries were able to get their hands on military grade assault weapons in Northern Ireland. Where there is a will (read profit), there is a way.
I am an Australian ex-pat living in Britain who has travelled extensively throughout the US. In over 10 years of travelling throughout the worl,d only twice have I ever felt truely scared for my life: walking around the streets of New Orleans, and standing in the main corridor of a highschool in Missouri.
I must say I felt completly reassured when the teacher I was visiting there came up with this little bit of trivia after my expressing reservations for my safety: "Oh don't worry, there is only one kid in the school who might go on a rampage. And we expelled him last week."
"guns are fine. ... I've lived in Texas my whole life and I've never been shot."
Who's up for betting that this guy always shot first - a la "..... and let god sort them out" style!
Seriously though, no intelligent person would make a judgement based on a sample size of n=1, that from a population of >>> 1.
Hello, ESR. :)
He's right, though, apart from the usual posturing about martial arts and shooting folk. You do not use guns or martial arts in an attempt to intimidate people and make yourself look superior. Someone needs to read a little more on the traditional martial arts, particularly the usual "Do not try to be humble. BE humble." guidance and variants of the same. Quiet competence and simple humility speak louder than words.
The point is that taking away the right to have a firearm is just creating a disparity of strength between the criminals who don't care (anyone from Manchester here? I worked there for a while and a word of advice: Never use the toilets in Piccadilly station if you want to get home with your wallet) and the general public.
So, to go against true Brit form and whine without a solution, here's mine: Allow householders with no criminal record a permit to have a single firearm in the master bedroom in a locked and sealed gun cabinet after mandatory training (you may want to upgrade that bedroom's door to something a little more substantial with a decent lock to give you time to remove the firearm and load it in a worst-case scenario). Make it an offence to remove it from that cabinet unless you're in fear of your life and promise spot checks on the seal and counts of the ammunition. It's a powerful deterrent, forces the owner to make a judgement call before the firearm is available to use for loss of temper, gives clear rules about justifying use and could save a few lives to boot. Of course, you'd have to return the right of a householder to defend his or her property but that should never have been taken away in the first place.
One minor detail: If your burglars/assailants are fleeing, even if they have something of yours in their hands, it is NOT acceptable to shoot them in the back or cause any other injury. You have repelled the threat to your life. Simple property is not a justification to use lethal force. Protection of life is the extent of the firearm's duty. This should be stressed over and over in the mandatory training.
AC: Could this same story have happened in Britain, just replacing "gun" with "cricket bat"? You bet it could have.
Absolutely. And the point is that the gun made it potentially worse. Maybe not on this occasion, but it's easier to kill with a gun than a bat, and it needs more courage to use a bat because you have to get closer, and it's easier to defend against too. People getting angry and lashing out happens everywhere, but if they have a gun to hand a minor brawl becomes a fatality.
`All those people in the Midwest, you've got to have compassion for them because they're clinging to their guns and their Bibles.'
Well I do have compassion for them. You can put your faith in the Bible and you can put your faith in a gun, you know where you are with both (preferably holding them) unlike Obama and Clinton and the guy on the other side who's going to lose and politicians in general, you have no idea where they will lead you next. In the case of the USA, probably Iran or into an economic depression.
And since when making something illegal actually stop it happening? Murder has been illegal in the UK and it still happens. Handguns are illegal in the UK but gun crime is rampant in parts of the UK. Driving without licence and insurance is illegal, but it still goes on. The attutude in the UK is simply this, "It's only illegal if you get caught" and getting caught is harder to achieve.
"There are a lot of very dangerous things in the world. Bats..."
Here in the UK we have laws that protect Bats against that sort of thing , sniff !
"As a Yank myself " , dont worry , its perfectly natural...
"just arm yourself, so at least you can meet the threat on equal footing?"
Cheers for that "Final Thought" . Fear is the mind killer after all huh?
Don't think Gore Vidal would post as an AC so let me guess ? you're channeling
Brig Gen Jack D Ripper ..........
Please note this is not a criticism of the US of A , its just a general and personal unwillingness to be patronised by crypto fascist psychopaths, who , oddly , always seem to be a bit keen on their hardware , we have plenty of those in the UK already from all sorts of cutural and ethnic backgrounds , .........nice.
To introduce a little "perspective" a culture where carrying a gun is felt to be necessary in order to feel safe , is a culture ILL with fear ( i use "ill" in the medical sense ). There has been NO misunderstanding "my friend" , Salut!
You did sed:
> I seem to remember that while the number of "Gun Crimes" went down, the overall violent crime numbers went up.
You'd do well to get your facts from somewhere other than NRA panhandling videos... I still can't believe the Australian government didn't sue the arse out of them for lost tourism revenue over that one.
Just to remove any ambiguity, yes, that means that violent crime in Australia, much like anywhere else in the developed world, is either flat-lining, or is in a very slow decline, regardless of what the tabloid press shriek about from their front pages.
> we loaned y'all a lot of firearms back in the early 40's, just in case Hitler decided to cross the Channel, because, surprise, surprise, nobody being allowed to own guns= unarmed citizenry in time of need.
Yes, because civilians with double-barrel shotguns and revolvers would've done a hell of a lot of good against tanks and artillery, wouldn't they?
Thanks, however, for reinforcing the idea of gunsturbators as fantasists who subscribe to the idea that governments, both their own and foreign, factor civilian gun ownership into their decision-making and go, "Oh, they have guns. We better not push them around too much or they'll snap and we'll have a guerilla war on our hands." For an illustration of how a hostile civilian populace with pervasive small-arms ownership is treated by a government with a conventional modern army, see Gaza and the impunity with which Israel takes out AK-waving beardos using UAV's and whatnot.
Am I the only one who had visions of Yosemite Sam running through a car yard yelling "I'm the rootiness tootiness Gun Slinger North, south, east and WEST of the mississippi"
As in any democracy you will find people who object to just about any law. And naturally sports shooters are going to be a little unhappy with the tight restrictions on gun ownership, however, i can tell you the VAST majority of people in Australia are incredibly happy that we have not had to endure any massacres since port arthur.
If a few people have to be inconvenienced (but not actually stopped owning sports weapons) in order to prevent another Port Arthur then i dont think you'll find too many concientious objectors.
As for the states, you havent got a hope in hell of banning guns because you've got too many as it is. About the only way i can see that you would improve the situation is if you made it a) illegal for anyone with so much as a parking ticket to own a weapon, b) anyone who commits any crime whatsoever loses any guns they currently own, c) anyone who has committed a crime and who is found in possession of a gun is locked away for 1 year minimum d) Anyone who has a blood alcohol reading that would make it illegal for them to drive found in possession of a gun is lockied away for 1 year and loses all there guns. Maybe that would get a few guns off the street. Just maybe...
OK, I'm not bagging firearms ownership - I've own a fair few rifles and shotguns in my time and fired pistols at the local range, I live in New Zealand where there is some pretty hefty legislation in place regarding firearms but they are not impossible to legally obtain given a clean record and the ability to pass a firearms safety exam.
I do, however, have to wonder, every time someone in the US trots out the second amendment and says "our government cannot oppress us as we own firearms", exactly what the 2nd Amendment and firearms ownership have done to protect the public of the USA from the Patriot Act and other gross breaches of their Constitutional rights in recent years.
Seriously, guys, by all means buy firearms to protect yourselves and your families from armed intruders if you must (and for fuck's sake don't keep them in a "safe" that some teenager can prise the lid off (what was it made of, marzipan?) or in your side-table drawer) but please stop going on about how they "protect you and your Constitutional rights" from a despotic, corrupt and totalitarian government because evidence suggests they do no such things.
As to the Kel-Tec. Forget it. Use the $250 voucher as a discount voucher on a better firearm. Get $250 off the price your beloved Glock, Colt, S&W, Ruger, Walther or whatever - any brand new gun that's "a bit rough" out of the box and needs modifications is false economy when compared with more expensive, but better-made, firearms that need nothing more than ammunition "out of the box".
Better a $250 discount on a proper weapon than a "free" piece of crap, especially if you're planning on betting your life on it, else it's just like getting a cheap car that's "a bit rough off the showroom floor but just fine once you've fixed up the brakes and replaced the sharp spike in the middle of the steering wheel with a proper airbag"...
I wouldn't buy a crap firearm for hunting or target shooting (the only legal reasons to fire firearms here), let alone "personal protection" - which is why the names associated with my purchases in the past have been Anschutz, Miroku, Mossberg, Walther...
I'll leave you with that thought.
Coat, please... yes, the 3/4-length safari jacket with large-capacity pockets, leather patches on the elbows and Walther patch on the breast pocket...
"no guns, no bullets, no school shootings"
So how come adolescents in Manchester can get guns for £70 and kill fellow 13 year olds?
When you had a firearm certificate for handguns in the UK before His Tonyness outlawed them, the Police had right of access day or night to inspect your weapons, which should be kept in a locked steel gunbox, bolted securely to your house. Ammo to be kept seperately in a locked steel ammo box with rope handles (so you do not burn your hands on the box when removing ammo from a burning house).
At this time, the police knew where about 95% of all firearms were.
Remember that the Hungerford shootings were carried out with (amongst others) an AK47, which always was an illegal weapon, but most of the population went "oooh, Guns. Bad. Nasty. Ban All Leagally Held Guns Now And Stop All Crime".
Now, handguns are illegal, and it has never been easier to get a gun and ammo illegally in the UK, and violent crime with handguns (or other illegal weapons used for hunting or warfare) are on the rise.
oh well. At least His Tonyness got won his first election through this. For all the good it did the rest of the country.
I'm American. I don't have a gun, and don't want one. I've never even shot one. Nobody in my family has, AFAIK.
Guns are dangerous. The statistics say that if you have a gun in your home, you are much more likely to be shot either by accident or by a criminal defending himself from you. Or the kids will find the gun and shoot other kids or the neighbors. I say my TV is not worth getting shot over.
Flashing a gun at someone else on the freeway as a threat is insane. If someone drives offensively, they are probably also stupid enough to take up your threat and take a pot shot. Anyway, Darwin's law should take care of them soon enough.
A nation where everyone has a gun and isn't afraid to use it is not a safer place than one where nobody has a gun. Criminals can steal guns if everyone has one, if nobody has one then criminals will need to use a knife or club. I'd rather be stabbed or hit than shot, any day. And who heard of a drive-by knifing???
It takes a while to kill with a knife, and it's a mess. A gun is very simple and fast, and you don't have time to think or slow down. This may be a plus when you are fighting with a criminal, but not when you are fighting with your wife or a stupid driver. And how many times have you fought with a criminal and wanted to kill them? With your wife? It's too easy to kill when guns are around. And that's dangerous...
So not all americans are insane... Yes, from California. BTW, I don't live there, I live in Europe. Thank Buddha, or whoever :-)
"You think the language in the 2nd amendment is clear enough?"
"Why, I think it's perfectly clear: Everyone has the right to a pair of bear arms on their wall"
I understand from my inbox that petrol stations are going to start showing pr0n in the forecourt soon, so you can watch someone else getting screwed whilst you fill your tank.
"As the poster said earlier, If there are three guns per American obviously a lot of profits to be made and made by the gun manufacturers. Let me wonder?
Is there I strong pro gun lobby in Congress by those same manufacturers?
QED - The problem is not about guns, it is about greed and money."
Until gas went past $3/gal, the single SUV assembly plant nearest me had more volume and profit than the entire US gun industry, including ammo and imports. We're not quite to 3 per--If I remember right, it's just under 1 per, with about half of households having at least one.
"It's a hell of a lot easier to ban guns in Britain and Australia than it is to ban them in America. You have no land borders at all. "
Apart from he one with the Republic of Ireland you mean? You know, the one which the IRA smuggled all those weapons those St Paddys Day parades in Boston bought and paid for.across.
Who brought you George dubya, the war on terror and Iraqi WMD comes the latest american masterpiece. A man who gives away free guns and wonders why there's such a problem with gun crime!!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018