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 …
"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.
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"!
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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 ;)
"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.
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!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
