From memory, or at least for the states I visited (and yes we looked at the gun shops and asked) you can't simply walk in and get any gun without any checks, that's utter drivel.
If I remember correctly you need several forms of ID, the gun shop is required to do a criminal records check, and there's something like a 2 week cooling off period, so that if you're planning on buying a gun in anger to top someone, you have time to calm down before you get it.
Ah but you CAN go to a gun show and pick up a gun without checks. And even in shops the requirements vary from state to state.
I like shooting, archery or guns, it's a good sport. But it's just as much fun with an air rifle as a .44. And yes I have shot both.
There's a big difference between an automatic weapon and a .22 handgun. If you can't see that then you aren't equipped to join in the debate imo.
bencooper - Member
Never truer word said, Hand guns and rifles however are not siege weapons.But they're equally irresponsible to own in a built-up area.
What anymore than a chainsaw, a gallon of petrol and a match or a machete.
What anymore than a chainsaw, a gallon of petrol and a match or a machete.
Yes.
I can't accidentally start my chainsaw and kill someone 100 yards away.
piemonster
Just curious here. It's not some sort of dig with a rhetorical point.But why?
I've been shooting, only .22s and air rifles, and it's fun in the same way that playing pool or darts is fun.
bencooper - MemberWhat anymore than a chainsaw, a gallon of petrol and a match or a machete.
Yes.
I can't accidentally start my chainsaw and kill someone 100 yards away.
No just 2 feet away.
Unless for home defence, a responsible gun owner would never bring a gun and ammo together unless at a range.
Well, ref the modified rifle above, at least "it’s fairly idiot-proof".
Thank God for that then ....
My missus is a yank, she hates guns. Last time we were over there I went to a range with my BiL and fired both handguns (easy) and fully automatic machine guns (terrifying, and really difficult to use accurately).
Bloke running the shop explained that apparently the military were not sold on some of the more high tech kit, 'wastes too many bullets'
Good grief.
Unless for home defence, a responsible gun owner would never bring a gun and ammo together unless at a range.
So why not just leave them at the range?
Unless for home defence, a responsible gun owner would never bring a gun and ammo together unless at a range.
Last tour I was on I stayed with someone in New Mexico who carried his loaded handgun in a holster all the time in the house or outside. It didn't bother me. Their country, their rules.
You know you are in America when locals talk about Jesus, the Devil, and reincarnation instead of the weather and libraries have "No Guns" signs.
If you ever want to doubt the sanity of the entire American race, just drink a cup of tea over there.
If that only leaves you wavering then eat a hershey bar for full confirmation.
I like great big nuclear submarines with enormous power to decimate continents of life. I like the ones with unstable russians with scottish accents the best.
So why not just leave them at the range?
I think leaving a large number of guns in one place might have security risks? Just guessing really. Spreading them out may make a less risky target. Perhaps?
piemonster - MemberJust curious here. It's not some sort of dig with a rhetorical point.
But why?
They're nice mechanisms for one thing- ingenious and incredibly evolved. Nice to hold and take to bits etc bit like a very large, easy to work on watch, precise but durable. And action at a distance is satisfying. I haven't done very much shooting but always enjoyed it. I just feel like the right to shoot things for fun is less important than the right to not get shot, probably.
bencooper - MemberUnless for home defence, a responsible gun owner would never bring a gun and ammo together unless at a range.
So why not just leave them at the range?
Most US sportsman's/gun clubs don't have an on-site storage vault. A few do, but most gun owners prefer to take them home.
That way, you can clean the gun at your convenience. For instance, if you have a teenage daughter, the ideal time for firearms maintenance would coincide with her date arriving at your house on a Friday evening to take her out. 😉 The suitor can then get a feel for the family, and how he should behave on his date (as well as what might happen if he misbehaves). 😆
I live in Pennsylvania. It is perfectly legal to carry firearms in the open everywhere except Philadelphia (Philly is Pennsylvania's only "city of the first class" and open carry isn't permitted in those types of cities by state law). While it is legal elsewhere, it probably would not be worth the hassle.
So the county sheriff issues concealed carry permits. They cost $20, and are good for several years I believe. You fill out a form, they run a background check, and then issue the permit. No big deal at all.
No, you can't take guns into the courthouse, even with a permit. You check them with the Sheriff's Deputy at the metal detector inside the door; they hold it for you and give you a receipt. Sort of like a coat check... 😉
The zombies don't stand a chance over here!
Edit - here is the concealed carry [url= http://www.co.westmoreland.pa.us/DocumentCenter/View/315 ]application[/url] if anyone needs it.
Unless for home defence, a responsible gun owner would never bring a gun and ammo together unless at a range.
Great idea, but in reality those sensible people would only want to shoot at paper targets in a range and would not need to have the guns at home. After a while you just have to accept the reason is so that you can, and because somebody once though that after a civil war owning guns would be great and it makes a point, they are generally used to shoot people so if you really think thats a good thing then admit it.
Sometimes it's time to accept that the world has changed, most people in the states don't hunt for their own food or have to defend themselves against outlaws or disgruntled locals that they just displaced from their lands in a great bout of ethnic cleansing/genocide. Move with the times, especially if you want to lecture the rest of the world on issues such as human rights and democracy.
I'm surprised it's taken so long for someone to post [url=http://
I hope it works, I'm a bit rubbish with links.
I think it nicely sums up the reasons many Americans carry guns, it's about fear etc. I carry a penknife, always have, use it for all sorts of things including peeling fruit and I would never consider it a self defence item yet others do. However guns only really have one purpose when carried outside a range and that's where the issues lie.
FWIW I've shot a number of handguns and rifles and appreciate a well engineered piece of kit and the feeling of accomplishment you get from being an accurate shot.
If you had a gun with a bayonet you could peel an orange
Piemonster... 😆
I could stop the neighbours cat defacating in my garden with one of those.
So, owning a gun is a right, and converting a rifle to full auto is cool in the US, eh?
Meanwhile, this happens to kids who play at guns in school:
A Louisiana high school student has been arrested for using a mobile app to simulate shooting his classmates. The app overlays an FPS-style gun and UI over a real background seen through the device's camera. The student tried it out and then unwisely posted a video of it on YouTube. Another student's parent saw the video and reported it to authorities. Major Wolfe of the local police said, "You can't ignore it. We don't know at what time that game becomes reality. He said it was a result of him being frustrated and tired of being bullied. He said that he had no intentions of hurting anybody. We have to take all threats seriously and we have no way of knowing that without investigating and getting to the bottom of it. With all the school shooting we've had in the United States, it's just not a very good game to be playing at this time." The boy is now facing criminal charges for terrorizing and interference of the operation of a school.
Via [url= http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/09/14/123236/student-arrested-for-using-phone-app-to-shoot-classmates ]Slashdot[/url]
Last tour I was on I stayed with someone in New Mexico who carried his loaded handgun in a holster all the time in the house or outside. It didn't bother me. Their country, their rules.
Might be legal but it's very strange behaviour. Did you ask why?
Lets see how the pro gun people spin this.
Retards the ****ing lot of em.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mass-shootings-central-american-history-article-1.1457514
They'll spin it the same way they spun it last time, and the time before, and the time before.
God Bless the NRA.
Lets see how the pro gun people spin this.
The standard response is that if the gunman had been shot earlier there would have been less deaths. So the answer is of course - more guns available to more people.
I can't accidentally start my chainsaw and kill someone 100 yards away.
Have a look at liability insurance for shooters. The cost is negligible because accidents are so rare. Shooting is far safer than any sport where you move about. Cycling for example.
Lets see how the pro gun people spin this
Need - More - Guns
I like trebuchets - but it's irresponsible to own one in a built-up area.
Never truer word said, Hand guns and rifles however are not siege weapons.
I like nuclear weapons. But I dont think that they should ever be used unless for peaceful purposes.
If you can afford a few to play with you should go for it. You'll need to buy a few islands to play with them on too.
Much as I think the gun lobby in the states are a bunch of swivel eyed loons, I don't see how any gun control would have stopped the shootings yesterday in Washington. From what I've heard on the news a bloke with a legitimate reason to be in the Navy Yard got hold of some firearms from the stores and stated shooting people. There is no way that even the most draconian gun control laws could have prevented this (unless you plan to do away with the military completely).
No, they're far more dangerous that Siege weapons - rather the people that own them are. So you either eliminate the people or the gun, whichever is easiest.
Te current situation certainly is eliminating plenty of people, but not necessarily the right people.
After the latest, tragically inevitable bullet-fest, they had the usual American politicians being asked on Radio 4 this morning
"do you think this will change attitudes to gun control?"
Why do they even bother asking them any more? Of course it won't! Nothing will. As a nation they seem addicted to some by-gone, wild west frontier notion of guns as somehow boldly representing their values. And if loads of people happen to get killed every year by nutters with easy access to firearms, then they seem to have decided, almost unanimously, that this is a price worth paying.
Insane!
I suppose the argument there is that having guns less "normalised" probably also discourages shooting sprees- it becomes less in the public mind, reduces copycats etc, also reduces familiarity with weapons which has got to reduce the actual danger... Though I don't know if that applies here.
It's just as easy to lay your hand on a sword today as it was in the 1600s, but you're less likely to walk up to a fellow gentleman and challenge them to a duel because that's now seen as batshit crazy, rather than something that you read about in the news...
It is all very sad.
As a nation they seem addicted to some by-gone, wild west frontier notion of guns as somehow boldly representing their values.
No. No they don't. SOME people do and the politicians lack the balls to fight the special interest groups that represent the lobbies that power politics there. Plenty of Americans own guns for totally sane reasons (live out in the wilds where a risk of wolves, bears, coyotes or wildcat attacks are very real for example) but some have them because they are a bit "odd" (bloke I met in Vegas buying a gun to have for "between the car and the house"). It's the latter ones that you need to worry about, not the former who tend to be responsible gun owners.
[url= http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/rural-population-percent-of-total-population-wb-data.html ]http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/rural-population-percent-of-total-population-wb-data.html[/url]
just under 18% of the US population live in 'rural' areas. I'd imagine the subset of those who might be subject to attack by predatory wild animals is a very small percentage of the total population.
Why anyone living in an urban or suburban area would *need* a gun is a mystery to me. So probably 300,000,000+ people could only need a gun to protect themselves from other humans.
If I lived in Shitsville Idaho, then I can understand wanting to own a rifle. But how many people does that represent? What percentage of the population could seriously justify 'needing' firearms?
That's not what gun ownership in America is about at all. Its marketed to the willing population, half on baseless fear, and half on some weird, testosterone fueled ballistics porn
So connect to their website and leave your comments - enough people hassle these morons they might stop making this sh*t. No good whining in a closet.
[url= http://www.slidefire.com/contact ][/url]
I find it ironic that this happens on the same day that GTA is released.
The issue is that some people see the world in terms of goodies and baddies. Not just in the USA either, people on STW do it too.
There are indeed goodies and baddies, but there are people in between, and people who move between the two. Most pro gun arguments run along the lines of "If the good people have guns, they can shoot the bad people and save the good people".
Which is patently obviously flawed to anyone over the age of 12 of course, but there is a complication. The guns are ALREADY out there. Stopping sales of new guns won't get rid of what's already there. The horse has already bolted.
That's a problem to which no-one really has an answer, imo.
Maybe they should only be allowed to own weapons that were available when the constitution was written.
molgrips - Member
The guns are ALREADY out there. Stopping sales of new guns won't get rid of what's already there. The horse has already bolted.
As Chris Rock (I think) said, make the bullets $1000 each.
EDIT - Zippy's plan works too.
Unless for home defence, a [b]responsible[/b] gun owner would never bring a gun and ammo together unless at a range.
Ah. There's that annoying R word again.
As Chris Rock (I think) said, make the bullets $1000 each
Except it'll take forever to deplete existing stocks.
zippykona - MemberMaybe they should only be allowed to own weapons that were available when the constitution was written.
I thought we'd cleared this one up?
[img] 
[/img]
On a more general note, I always have a little bit of trouble with the "It's in the constitution, and the constitution is sacred, you can't mess with it or, you know, [i]amend[/i] it."
