Photographers and Marksmen

[djon]

"DJON wrote "I'm convinced that gun enthusiasm (as opposed to hunting, which is generally athletic) has a lot to do with personal insecurities, and often accompanies middle age, poor physical fitness and tendency to heavy drinking. "

Wow, that's not prejudiced or anything."
__________________________

I think it's easy to confirm, though I certainly am prejudiced against a sub-class of people who are so insecure that they focus on firearms rather than addressing their personal deficiencies.

I didn't say every gun owner was insecure. I'm personally a gun owner, well trained and coached, a competitive target shooter (Jr. NRA, Olympic-class target team and ROTC team in college), hunter etc. The weirdness I see frequently among people who are more gun-enthusiast than they are hunters does argue against the NRA's liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment.

I'm all in favor of the bloody killing and eating of animals, if one plays by sportsmanlike rules. But I'm not in favor of weirdos who fear the minorities in their community, speak badly about them, do nothing about the situation, arm themselves to the teeth, yet fear to leave, somehow expecting normal respect.

While a diminutive female physician may reasonably fear for her life (anti-abortion terror), physical size has little to do with insecurity in men.

There's a C&W song: all a man needs is $500, a pickup, and a 30:06. When I first heard that song I had about that much money, a big old Forest Service 4WD Blazer, and a 30:06, a 12ga, a .357, and a .22. The song rang true, except that I also knew SOME men needed ambition, needed to deserve respect from other men and needed good relations with women...things evidently not needed by SOME gun enthusiasts.

 

[derevaun]

I like my guns, but I try not to have illusions about why. For example, I have never tried to envision a short barrelled sporter rifle as a good choice for hunting (I don't hunt by running around in tight quarters and shooting around corners). Guns make you feel lethal, and for many gun owners that's a personal problem. For some, it's a public problem.

So I feel pretty supportive of restricting and regulating gun ownership. If it got to the point of making it as accountable to own and use a gun as is it to own and drive a car, I'd be receptive to giving the NRA arguments some credibility.

In any case, I'm not really into the machinery of my guns. I do like tinkering with the Makarov, and some nights I swear I can hear it whispering to the Fed-2 in the other cabinet....

 

[bmattock]

I like my guns, but I try not to have illusions about why. For example, I have never tried to envision a short barrelled sporter rifle as a good choice for hunting (I don't hunt by running around in tight quarters and shooting around corners). Guns make you feel lethal, and for many gun owners that's a personal problem. For some, it's a public problem.

Guns make YOU feel lethal. Speak for yourself, please. You have no idea how my guns 'make me feel' or if they give me any emotions at all. Frankly, I don't get off on fondling my firearms - seems a bit daft to me.

See, here's the deal. You say you have these weird feelings about your guns - some kind of power trip thing? OK, fine. You seem to want to put that on all gun owners, but see, you don't actually know squat about anyone's mind but your own. And don't feel like the Lone Ranger, I have no idea how YOU feel about guns, other than what you've told me just now. I'm no better than you - but I don't pretend to be, either.

Since you seem to have a problem with your gun ownership, and you're worried about it, I suggest that you restrict and regulate your own personal gun ownership, and worry a little bit less about my guns - because as I've mentioned, you don't know Jack about how I feel. So your fix for my problem isn't. Which is a bit of a problem itself, really. People wandering around wanting to fix problems I haven't got. And against my will at that! Cheeky!

So I feel pretty supportive of restricting and regulating gun ownership.

Take out the words 'gun ownership' and put in the words 'free speech' or 'freedom of religion' or 'freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures' and I suspect (of course I don't know) you'd be screaming bloody murder (as would I). The 2nd is an Amendment too. Imagine that.

Oh, I know, the Framers never envisioned machine guns and atomic bombs when they said 'arms'. I know. They never envisoned the Internet when they said 'free speech', either, or Mormons when they said 'freedom of religion'. Funny, most seem not to want to give up that nasty dangerous old free speech thing, or the religion thing. Even if it what we have now could not have been imagined by the dead white guys who wrote the Constitution and the citizens and states who ratified it.

If you can just blithely write off the 2nd Amendment because we don't really need that one, then you can write off the rest as well. They're Amendments precisely so that well-meaning citizens with a fear of an armed populace can't just vote away a civil liberty on a whim. Even a well-reasoned, well-intentioned whim. Even if you were right and I were dead wrong - you still have the uphill battle to get an Amendment passed and ratified - and that was by intention, don't you see? You don't just get what you want in this matter - everybody else has to agree too.

Well, 3/4 of them, anyway.

If it got to the point of making it as accountable to own and use a gun as is it to own and drive a car, I'd be receptive to giving the NRA arguments some credibility.

Gosh, is that all? We already have that, sport.

I can buy an car anytime I like if I have the cash or the credit. There are no restrictions on ownership - none. There is no background check done to see if I've been a bad boy and got all tanked up and splashed a few fellow citizens all over the highway. In fact, if I don't have a license at all, I can still buy a car.

Drive a car? Well, to drive legally, I have to have a license. Of course, there is no national database, I can go to a state that doesn't have a computer hookup or reciprocity with my state and get a license there. Or, I can just drive without one. And if I have my ability to drive restricted, I will get it back eventually.

But buying a gun? Well, I can buy a gun in a private sale, and that's not registered or tracked anywhere, that's true. But if I buy a gun at a dealer or at a gunshow, I have to go through a federal and state background check. I also must swear under penalty of federal perjory that I am not a felon, not a mental defective, have not been convicted of domestic abuse (did you know that if you hit your wife, you lose your right to own a gun forever?), are not under an restraining order of any kind, are not addicted to drugs, etc, etc. You have to give affirmative ID and it has to be checked with the FBI's crime computer before you can take possession of your firearm.

Many cities have gun registration laws - some make ownership illegal altogether, such as Washington DC and NYC and so on. States have their say too, with restrictions on the type of weapons that can be owned (California) and magazine capacity and blah blah blah.

In short, there are all kinds of regulations surrounding the legal ownership, carry, and use of firearms - city, state, and federal. Far more than those simply required to buy and drive a car.

Funny old world, innit?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[fgianni]

I think the only difference here is where to draw the line, since everyone agrees that it has to be drawn somewhere.

Even the USA don’t allow people to buy nukes of figters/bombers, so the freedom to go around armed is somehow already limited.
At the opposite scale you can have someone that says: you are free to carry around any weapon you like as long as it is not more dangerous than a pencil sharpener, and he too is not going strictly against the 2nd amendment, he is just giving a more restrictive interpretation that the guy that would like everyone to be able to buy nukes.

So most of us all agree that a line needs to be drawn, this mainly because the society needs are more important that the individual ones (ubi maior minor cessat), what we disagree on is where.

West Europe society is fairly similar to the USA one, however homicide rates in the USA are 300% higher (0.04 per 1,000 people in the USA compared to 0.01 per 1,000 people in most European countries), and those like me, think that this is most likely due to greater availablility of weapons. And that saving almost 10000 lives every year is reason enough to restrict access to guns.

I saw a documentary by an American guy, titled “Bowling for Columbine”, and at the end of the movie he seemed to think that high homicide rates in the USA were more due to the fact that Americans are nutters than to availability of weapons, but somehow I don’t believe it, of course I am prepared to change my mind if someone proves me wrong.

 

[bmattock]

I think the only difference here is where to draw the line, since everyone agrees that it has to be drawn somewhere.

If 'everyone' means US citizens, then fine. You don't get a vote, unless you happen to carry that peculiar distinction known as US citizenship.

And I meant it when I said that I don't care for people from other countries telling me what my country ought to do. I won't weigh in on fox hunting, kindly keep your nose out of the 2nd Amendment.

Even the USA don’t allow people to buy nukes of figters/bombers, so the freedom to go around armed is somehow already limited.

Limited, based on the fact that the US Supreme Court won't grant cert to a 2nd Amendment case. All we have is the defective Miller case, in which the defense attorney did not even show up. Not hard to get things to go your way when your opponent is absent, eh? And then use that as precedent and never revisit the argument - astounding considering how often all the other Amendments are challenged and reconsidered by SCOTUS.

At the opposite scale you can have someone that says: you are free to carry around any weapon you like as long as it is not more dangerous than a pencil sharpener, and he too is not going strictly against the 2nd amendment, he is just giving a more restrictive interpretation that the guy that would like everyone to be able to buy nukes.

People can say what they like. In the USA, a right protected by the Bill of RIghts cannot be abrogated by 'people saying things'.

So most of us all agree that a line needs to be drawn, this mainly because the society needs are more important that the individual ones (ubi maior minor cessat), what we disagree on is where.

Who is us? If us is citizens of Europe or the UK or Lower Elbonia, I don't much care.
You don't get a vote - but you can have an opinion. Thanks, we'll keep it in mind.

As strongly as I feel about the concept of giving up my guns to please my fellow citizens, I feel even more strongly about giving up my guns to please people from other counties - which all seem to run so well and have no problems, by the way.

West Europe society is fairly similar to the USA one, however homicide rates in the USA are 300% higher (0.04 per 1,000 people in the USA compared to 0.01 per 1,000 people in most European countries), and those like me, think that this is most likely due to greater availablility of weapons. And that saving almost 10000 lives every year is reason enough to restrict access to guns.

Actually, the USA is very different than Europe, which ya'll are most happy to point out whenever we dare to suggest our similarities, like having cuisine, culture, art, or even history. We are told curtly over and over again how NOT LIKE Europe we are.

And frankly, I agree. Unlike your countries, we have always had a tradition of gun ownership - our founders rejected the notion that the people should be disarmed and depend upon the government to protect them. All power flows from the citizenry (although many Americans forget that), and so we reserve to ourselves the source of power.

We don't have a thousand-year history of society rising from feudalism to the development of the concept of the rights of man, from a citizenry largely kept disarmed - our society was born in bloody rebellion, and even before we rose up, we all carried firearms of daily necessity.

I saw a documentary by an American guy, titled “Bowling for Columbine”, and at the end of the movie he seemed to think that high homicide rates in the USA were more due to the fact that Americans are nutters than to availability of weapons, but somehow I don’t believe it, of course I am prepared to change my mind if someone proves me wrong.

A) You saw a documentary and on that basis, I should lose my rights. Short-Attention-Span Theatre, indeed. I could point you at some literature, but frankly, it would involve doing more than sitting passively in a theater for 2 hours and having your opinion given to you.

B) Your statistics are useless because they don't carry through. The US is number 24 on the list of homicide rates, compared to the UK at 46, and Italy, Spain and Germany after that. Ooh, sounds bad for us, eh?

However, Thailand is number 14, Mexico is number 6. And what does this mean?

Many of those countries with higher murder rates already have very restrictive gun laws - or simply don't permit private gun ownership at all. Now wait a minute. If they have higher homicide rates than even the (gasp) US, and they don't all legally own guns, then how can this be?

We have not established what might otherwise be considered 'common sense' - that if you cut gun ownership, homicide rates will likewise drop. Yeah, sounds good, eh? But when it doesn't hold true across the board - and it clearly doesn't - then the theory must be defective. Remember, this is using YOUR statistics - just taking the whole picture instead of clipping out the bits that make it look bad for private gun ownership.

It would appear that there is no causal relationship, or that the relationship between private gun ownership and homicide rates is more subtle and complex than simply collecting up all the guns.

But as long as we only quote that portion of the statistics that seems to favor our pet theory, we'll be fine, right? We can justify our desire to disarm the US citizen.

C) There are more guns than there are people in the USA. A well-cared for firearm, or simply one that has not been overly abused, is most likely still serviceable. No restriction that can be placed on future ownership can change that fact. So if one truly believes that cutting back on gun ownership will cure societies' ills, then one must of necessity go house-to-house collecting up the guns. Let's just say it is probably not something most people who loved life would really want to do, badge or no badge.

D) Talk all you like. Nobody is getting my firearms, and I suspect that there are a large number of people in the US who feel likewise.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[pvdhaar]

"And I meant it when I said that I don't care for people from other countries telling me what my country ought to do."

This happens in many more subtle ways than you can apparently imagine. Take power plants for instance. Even though the USA didn't sign the Kyoto protocol, US manufacturers are confirming to derived targets, in order to be able to sell their power plants abroad... The reverse also happens, vehicle emission standards from California are forcing car manufacturers to create cleaner cars, which will also find their way across the globe...

Talk about a win-win situation..

 

[pedro.m.reis]

Just my 2 cents...
"I" beleive that a "regular joe" does not have a need for a gun, amd sould not be allowed to carry one.
But this is "my" beleive, because "my" education and "my" social enviroment.
But i dont, and i wont, judge others just because they live in different social enviroments and had different education.

 

[bmattock]

Just my 2 cents...
"I" beleive that a "regular joe" does not have a need for a gun, amd sould not be allowed to carry one.
But this is "my" beleive, because "my" education and "my" social enviroment.
But i dont, and i wont, judge others just because they live in different social enviroments and had different education.

No 'regular joe' has a need for a camera. They should not be allowed to carry one.

Rights aren't defined by what others think their level of need is. Shall I then define and defend my 'need' to speak freely, or lose that right? Shall I prove to the unbelieving that my God exists, or else I will not be allowed to worship as I please?

But as you said, this is your belief, and I respect it. Thank you for not wishing to press it down upon my head.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[fgianni]

If 'everyone' means US citizens, then fine. You don't get a vote, unless you happen to carry that peculiar distinction known as US citizenship.

By everyone I mean exactly that, everyone, I did not mention your country in this context did I?
And in the context of everyone inside or outside the US I still think that every country puts some limit on the kind of weaponry the public is allowed to own, this includes the USA.
Unless you want me to believe that you are free to buy a B1 bomber complete with nukes I will keep my idea that freedom of buying weapons is somehow limited even in the US, and for good reasons.

And I meant it when I said that I don't care for people from other countries telling me what my country ought to do. I won't weigh in on fox hunting, kindly keep your nose out of the 2nd Amendment.

Well an issue has been raised in this forum, (not by me) and I thought I was allowed to express my opinion about it; you take exception of people expressing their feelings about some policies of your country, however I think now you are being unreasonable, one of the disadvantages of freedom of speech is that we may have to hear things that we don't like, do you really think the alternative is better?

As strongly as I feel about the concept of giving up my guns to please my fellow citizens, I feel even more strongly about giving up my guns to please people from other counties - which all seem to run so well and have no problems, by the way.

Bill, you could not be farther from truth here, you can keep all the weapons you have and even buy more, and it won't make any difference to me personally.
My point was to explain the reasons behind European attitude towards firearms, and I used the USA as an example of what we don't want to happen here.

whenever we dare to suggest our similarities, like having cuisine, culture, art, or even history. We are told curtly over and over again how NOT LIKE Europe we are.

There is ideed someone that sees it this way, but you can't blame me for it, I always considered american whites as sort of European expats, unlike native americans their roots are in Europe, like it or not.

And frankly, I agree. Unlike your countries, we have always had a tradition of gun ownership - our founders rejected the notion that the people should be disarmed and depend upon the government to protect them. All power flows from the citizenry (although many Americans forget that), and so we reserve to ourselves the source of power.

We don't have a thousand-year history of society rising from feudalism to the development of the concept of the rights of man, from a citizenry largely kept disarmed - our society was born in bloody rebellion, and even before we rose up, we all carried firearms of daily necessity.

I fail to se how the fact that the common citizen needed firearms in the 19th century should automatically prove that he needs them in the 21st
Also I have news for you, you may not like it but you share exactly the same thousand year history as the rest of Europe until about 200 years ago, since most of the immigration in America occurred in the 19th and 20th century.

A) You saw a documentary and on that basis, I should lose my rights. Short-Attention-Span Theatre, indeed. I could point you at some literature, but frankly, it would involve doing more than sitting passively in a theater for 2 hours and having your opinion given to you.

So the fact that I cited a documentary, and actually disagreed with the conclusions drawn by the author, means that I never read books, nor articles in newspapers, nor heard news about the matter?
I cite something and that suddenly becomes my only source of information, where did you get this idea from?

B) Your statistics are useless because they don't carry through. The US is number 24 on the list of homicide rates, compared to the UK at 46, and Italy, Spain and Germany after that. Ooh, sounds bad for us, eh?

However, Thailand is number 14, Mexico is number 6. And what does this mean?

Many of those countries with higher murder rates already have very restrictive gun laws - or simply don't permit private gun ownership at all. Now wait a minute. If they have higher homicide rates than even the (gasp) US, and they don't all legally own guns, then how can this be?

We have not established what might otherwise be considered 'common sense' - that if you cut gun ownership, homicide rates will likewise drop. Yeah, sounds good, eh? But when it doesn't hold true across the board - and it clearly doesn't - then the theory must be defective. Remember, this is using YOUR statistics - just taking the whole picture instead of clipping out the bits that make it look bad for private gun ownership.

It would appear that there is no causal relationship, or that the relationship between private gun ownership and homicide rates is more subtle and complex than simply collecting up all the guns.

But as long as we only quote that portion of the statistics that seems to favor our pet theory, we'll be fine, right? We can justify our desire to disarm the US citizen.

It may have escaped you but their society and traditions are very different from the western ones, that's why I don't put Colombia (with its economy mainly fuelled by cocaine trade) South Africa (where the black majority still has an axe to grind against the whites) or other developing countries in the statistics, hasn't occurred to you that an extremely different social fabric might have something to do with it?
Western developed countries are the sample that should be used to see what the US might be able to achieve, should they care of reducing their homicide rates, with tighter gun controls. However if you are happy with what you have, then fine for me, as I said I wanted only to illustrate our position, not forcing you to follow it.

C) There are more guns than there are people in the USA. A well-cared for firearm, or simply one that has not been overly abused, is most likely still serviceable. No restriction that can be placed on future ownership can change that fact. So if one truly believes that cutting back on gun ownership will cure societies' ills, then one must of necessity go house-to-house collecting up the guns. Let's just say it is probably not something most people who loved life would really want to do, badge or no badge.

In Northern Ireland they convinced the IRA to give up their arms, as a task I suspect it can't get much more difficult than that.

D) Talk all you like. Nobody is getting my firearms, and I suspect that there are a large number of people in the US who feel likewise.

Yes the old cliché "you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands" thing, except that sometimes the firearm had to be pried from a child's cold dead hands.

And anyway tighter arms control does not mean "no firearms", a lot of my relatives live in the mountains in Italy, they often go hunting, and almost every family in the area own legally one or more rifle.
So if you want to hunt you can buy a gun, if you shoot as a sport you can own a gun, if you need it for self protection you can own a gun, and even if you are a collector you can own one (or more).
Just you need to apply for a permit, and checks are done that you don't have criminal convictions and that you don't suffer from serious mental illnesses, every gun legally sold is tracked and stored in a database, and no shop can sell a gun to someone without a permit.
To get the permit you have also to demonstrate a minimum level of expertise (often following a course) so that the authorities are satisfied that you know how to properly use it.
I suspect the law in the rest of Europe to be fairly similar.

Have a nice day, and try not to take things too personally.

 

[bmattock]

"And I meant it when I said that I don't care for people from other countries telling me what my country ought to do."

This happens in many more subtle ways than you can apparently imagine. Take power plants for instance. Even though the USA didn't sign the Kyoto protocol, US manufacturers are confirming to derived targets, in order to be able to sell their power plants abroad... The reverse also happens, vehicle emission standards from California are forcing car manufacturers to create cleaner cars, which will also find their way across the globe...

Talk about a win-win situation..

I am actually quite aware of this, and approve of it. Private enterprise needs to sell, buy, provide, and provision to continue to exist. As more and more borders to commerce are set aside, the world becomes more multi-national and interlocked and interdependent and all this is good - as it pertains to business.

But we're not all one happy government, nor do I have any particular interest in us becoming so. Business and governments may have overlapping interests in many areas, but most legitimate international business needs have no impact on my civil liberties. Sharing governments would.

If you read my statement that you quoted, I said that I don't care for people (meaning individuals) from other countries tell me (meaning me personally) what my country ought to do. I meant it as I wrote it, and I stand by it.

Everyone is free to have their own opinions, of course. I get a little tired of people throwing stones from the safety of their glass houses, and I find it more than a little ironic that so many Europeans urge us Americans to be more like Europeans - which of course, they despise the very thought of and decry the notion that we great unwashed could ever be as cultured, intelligent, or altogether wonderful as themselves.

Yes, we want to be much more like those who find us little more than slightly smelly savages with guns.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[fgianni]

I need to clarify one of my statements, When I say:

what the US might be able to achieve, should they care of reducing their homicide rates, with tighter gun controls.

1) I refer ONLY to homicide rates, there are many other things that the USA have achieved better than us in Europe, simply we are not talking about them here. And also who likes to admit that someone else is doing things better?
It is up to you across the pond to point these things out, you are not getting anything out of me!

2) I don't want to imply that tighter gun control alone will work, but I think it will help as part of a wider policy.

 

[Mike Kovacs]

Being from Canada (and believe me there are lots of guns/hunters here) I think there is a big attitude difference in the USA that no amount of gun control can adjust.

In Canada, the vast majority of gun related deaths in Canada is suicides, which while tragic, would probably just be accomplished some other way were guns not available. The next in ranking is accidents and homicides take up the remainder. 0.5% in 100,000 will suffer a gun-related death in this country.

Our long rifle registry is a joke. I do believe there are many firearms that should not be the hands of your average non-military person as they serve no purpose other than to kill. Many are prohibited here, or restricted meaning they can only be fired on a range and are subject to (overly IMO) strict transport regulations.

I have been pursuing an interest in gun smithing - some similarities to camera repair which I also enjoy. Requires a contemplative approach with attention to detail.

 

[bmattock]

Unless you want me to believe that you are free to buy a B1 bomber complete with nukes I will keep my idea that freedom of buying weapons is somehow limited even in the US, and for good reasons.

No, I want you to believe that all of our federal laws prohibiting gun ownership hinge on one precendent-setting case (Miller) in which the defense attorney was not even present. The Supreme Court refuses to hear another such case to settle the 'right to private gun ownership' debate, which leave us with laws that depend on a single defective case.

Well an issue has been raised in this forum, (not by me) and I thought I was allowed to express my opinion about it; you take exception of people expressing their feelings about some policies of your country, however I think now you are being unreasonable, one of the disadvantages of freedom of speech is that we may have to hear things that we don't like, do you really think the alternative is better?

No, I take exception to being told what to do by foreigners. You're welcome to your opinion.

Bill, you could not be farther from truth here, you can keep all the weapons you have and even buy more, and it won't make any difference to me personally.
My point was to explain the reasons behind European attitude towards firearms, and I used the USA as an example of what we don't want to happen here.

Then don't let it happen there.

There is ideed someone that sees it this way, but you can't blame me for it, I always considered american whites as sort of European expats, unlike native americans their roots are in Europe, like it or not.

Can't blow hot and cold with the same breath. We are Europeans, we're not Europeans. Oh, we're Europeans when it suits those who want it to suit them, and not when they don't. Nope, not buying it. I'm not European, I'm American.

I fail to se how the fact that the common citizen needed firearms in the 19th century should automatically prove that he needs them in the 21st

It doesn't, but then again, it doesn't need to.

No rights are derived from need, perceived or unperceived. If so, your right to religion could easily be abridged - show me how you NEED to worship God.

Rights are rights - they need no further justification.

Also I have news for you, you may not like it but you share exactly the same thousand year history as the rest of Europe until about 200 years ago, since most of the immigration in America occurred in the 19th and 20th century.

Like hell I do. My ancestors left Europe, in large part because the British were starving us to death (in Ireland) and killing us for being Catholic (in Germany). You mean that history? Oh yeah, loved it.

We started our own history, and it started with every man having a gun and knowing how to use it. The first thing we did was use it on those who tried to control us from afar.

So the fact that I cited a documentary, and actually disagreed with the conclusions drawn by the author, means that I never read books, nor articles in newspapers, nor heard news about the matter?
I cite something and that suddenly becomes my only source of information, where did you get this idea from?

You cited one source.

It may have escaped you but their society and traditions are very different from the western ones, that's why I don't put Colombia (with its economy mainly fuelled by cocaine trade) South Africa (where the black majority still has an axe to grind against the whites) or other developing countries in the statistics, hasn't occurred to you that an extremely different social fabric might have something to do with it?

Hmmm. Our society and traditions are very different than those of Europe, but we don't count, because we're actually European. All those Spanish-speaking countries and Portugese-speaking countries that were colonized by (gasp) Europeans, they're different cultures and traditions and it matters.

Very convenient. BS, says I.

Western developed countries are the sample that should be used to see what the US might be able to achieve, should they care of reducing their homicide rates, with tighter gun controls. However if you are happy with what you have, then fine for me, as I said I wanted only to illustrate our position, not forcing you to follow it.

Your opinion is noted and rejected.

In Northern Ireland they convinced the IRA to give up their arms, as a task I suspect it can't get much more difficult than that.

Hahahahaha! You have no idea. Do you know how many 'active' IRA members are estimated to exist? Let's be generous and put the number at a couple thousand. We have 275 million citizens, at least 25% percent of which are gun owners. Good luck, fella.

Yes the old cliché "you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands" thing, except that sometimes the firearm had to be pried from a child's cold dead hands.

Yes, let's wave the bloody shirt.

I read a lot about kids being killed by DUI drivers. Don't hear much about cars being banned. Huh.

And anyway tighter arms control does not mean "no firearms", a lot of my relatives live in the mountains in Italy, they often go hunting, and almost every family in the area own legally one or more rifle.

Gun restriction leads directly to gun confiscation, just about everywhere it's been implemented.

So if you want to hunt you can buy a gun, if you shoot as a sport you can own a gun, if you need it for self protection you can own a gun, and even if you are a collector you can own one (or more).

I don't have to tell anyone why I want a gun or guns. It is no one's business.

Just you need to apply for a permit, and checks are done that you don't have criminal convictions and that you don't suffer from serious mental illnesses, every gun legally sold is tracked and stored in a database, and no shop can sell a gun to someone without a permit.

The background check is required here as well, also a waiting period (a 'cool off' period).

We do not track the individual guns, because gun owners in the USA fear that one day the lists of registered owners would be used to collect the guns up.

To get the permit you have also to demonstrate a minimum level of expertise (often following a course) so that the authorities are satisfied that you know how to properly use it.

Many states in the US have similar licensing requirements for hunting permits, and that includes mandatory gun safety classes, tests, and so forth. But in the USA, each state is free to have their own laws regarding this.

I suspect the law in the rest of Europe to be fairly similar.

Our laws are not that different. Which leads me to believe that either most of Europe has no idea what American gun laws are, or that their real motivation is what we 'gun nuts' believe - which is that your real agenda is gun confiscation.

Have a nice day, and try not to take things too personally.

Y'know, I tried to stay out of this nasty business. I tried to ignore it and let it go. And I'll try to do it again, it's not worth it.

But I'll tell you something, sir. I used to be quite active in the pro-and-anti gun debates in the USA, and of course I took the pro-gun side and of course I always won the debates. That's because law, history, and right are on my side. If I enter into the debate here, I already know all the sad pathetic little arguments against private gun ownership in the USA, and I can demolish each of them with logic, fact, and historic documents.

But I don't bother anymore. Because at the end of each of these sad little tableaus, we come to the same conclusion. When all your so-called facts and your nonsense statistics are stripped away and the lies are made clear, you still will think that Americans should not be allowed to own guns. And that's fine, but it is like pulling teeth to finally get to the point where you say "I just hate guns and that's that."

So enjoy your opinion. I don't share it, but you're welcome to it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

2) I don't want to imply that tighter gun control alone will work, but I think it will help as part of a wider policy.

"I think it will help" is not a good basis for taking away liberties defined in the US Constitution.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Being from Canada (and believe me there are lots of guns/hunters here) I think there is a big attitude difference in the USA that no amount of gun control can adjust.

In the USA, the 'attitude' to which you refer is the complete and total rejection of any sort of gun control legislation by a majority of citizens of the USA, because most gun owners realize that the minority of anti-gun people will stop at nothing to achieve their aims. We're under attack - and the cost of losing is a precious liberty gone forever.

We know that the anti-gun crowd have gone to a 'Divide and Conquer' strategy, since it became clear to them that they could not get the US citizen to buy off on a 'let's ban all the guns' law. So they go after our rights piecemeal.

First - they succeeded in getting 'Saturday Night Special' laws passed. This kept cheap handguns from being sold in the US, and pistols with short barrels. They did this by stirring up fears (unsupported by facts) that criminals were using cheap handguns with short barrels to commit crimes - no average citizen had need for any such gun. Did it lower the crime rate? No, it did not.

Then - they succeeded in getting the 'Assault Weapons Ban' which banned all guns which LOOKED like military weapons. They misled the average citizen into believing that they were banning automatic weapons (machine guns) which they were not - those weapons have been heavily regulated since the 1930's. But Joe Sixpack thought they were voting to ban machine guns, and that sounded like a good idea, so it was made law. But it also did not lower the crime rate, and just this year, the law expired. No explosion in crime as a result, by the way.

They have tried to pass laws raising the tax on ammunition 10,000 percent.

They have tried to pass laws forbidding the ownership of any weapon that did not have a 'sporting use' as defined by them.

They have tried to create a national registry of firearms - but they promised that it would never, never, be used to later confiscate same - despite the fact that their own leaked internal memos said that it was EXACTLY what they intended.

They have written books that tried to show that American citizens never actually owned guns in the 19th century (the author, Michael Bellesiles, discredited and resigned in disgrace).

They have tried and tried to get us to accept that if we take just a little bit of gun registration, some 'common sense' rules, we'll all be happy and no one will try to take our guns away.

But we know them to be liars. If we give them an inch, they will take a mile. Their promises mean nothing, and their stated aims have always been the complete and total ban on private gun ownership in the USA.

So, when you see us 'gun nuts' seething and refusing to give an inch, there's a reason for it. We've been under attack in the USA since the 1960's, by our own citizens who wish to erode and then end our right to own firearms. We know that once we start giving in, the 'giving' never ends.

If we seem harsh, that's the reason. And that is the basis for our statement about 'cold dead hands'. We need to make sure that our stand is clear - under no circumstances, none - will we ever willingly give up our arms. It literally means that if guns are outlawed, we will defend our rights by force if we must. Any who think to just walk into my house under color of authority and take my guns must count the cost - warning has been given. And not just me - I'm just one guy. Something just shy of 100 million other gun owners in the USA. There is no military force in the world that can disarm 100 million gun owners who say 'no'.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[pedro.m.reis]

Offtopic

Offtopic

In US the laws have expiration date, or just some kind of laws? I'm just curious.

 

[Mike Kovacs]

Bill, I don't mean an attitude with respect to resisting gun control. I mean a more cowboy attitude towards the use to of firearms to solve problems. More people willing to use them spurns more people wanting (needing) them to protect themselves.

We have had registration of restricted firearms on the books since the '30s. All full automatic firearms are prohibited. All pistols below 4.5" barrel length, certain small calibres, prohibited. Sawed-off shotguns, prohibited. Certain others, prohibited for who knows why. Only grandfathered prohibited firearms owners can even have them, with provisions in place to pass them onto immediate children after death. Restricted firearms (all handguns, various centre fire semiautos like AR-15) are subject to stringent transport controls and can only be discharged at a licensed range. I could buy a restricted firearm but I won't because its honestly too big a pain, and although its my right, I just don't need a handgun or short rifle which incidently is illegal to use against an intruder anyway in this country. No centre fire semiautomatic firearm can have a larger than 5-shot clip, with the exception of the M1 Garand.

I can't honestly say I disagree with some form of regulation. I'm definitely a moderate but things have gone too far already here with really no demonstratable benefit. The main problem is much of the Canadian Firearms Act is just too complicated. Even cops don't understand the Firearm Act. It regulates the acquisition, possession, storage and use of firearms and ammunition.

So I don't disagree with the arguments, I just wish there was some common sense solution that didn't involve all or nothing.

 

[fgianni]

Can't blow hot and cold with the same breath. We are Europeans, we're not Europeans. Oh, we're Europeans when it suits those who want it to suit them, and not when they don't. Nope, not buying it. I'm not European, I'm American.

Ok fine, and enjoy your murder rate, we'll enjoy ours.

No rights are derived from need, perceived or unperceived. If so, your right to religion could easily be abridged - show me how you NEED to worship God.
Rights are rights - they need no further justification.

And what defines a right?

You cited one source.

I was writing a reply to a forum, not a book, did not think was necessary to quote all my sources, if you want I can, but I am not sure a post several pages long would be tolerated.

Very convenient. BS, says I.

Ok BS everything you dont like, you know, even a kid aged 3 is able to do that.

Hahahahaha! You have no idea. Do you know how many 'active' IRA members are estimated to exist? Let's be generous and put the number at a couple thousand. We have 275 million citizens, at least 25% percent of which are gun owners. Good luck, fella

Sorry its you that have no idea on how many weapons the IRA owned, and they gave them up voluntarily, also regulating weapon ownership does not mean confiscating them automatically.

Yes, let's wave the bloody shirt.

Why not, it is there we might as well show it, I mean is not as if it never happened over there is it?

I read a lot about kids being killed by DUI drivers. Don't hear much about cars being banned. Huh.

Maybe because the benefits to society from the existence of cars outweight the drawbacks?

Gun restriction leads directly to gun confiscation, just about everywhere it's been implemented.

Can you cite your everywheres? In Italy, Uk, France, Geamany, Spain and many other eurpoean counties restriction has not meant confiscation, so your everywhere is at least 5 countries short.

I don't have to tell anyone why I want a gun or guns. It is no one's business.

Based on the very same principle
"I don't have to tell anyone why I want a nuke or nukes": North Korea
So why the US are so active in trying to prevent North Korea and Iran from owning Nukes, it is a right and a right needs no further justification (I already heard this one)

The background check is required here as well, also a waiting period (a 'cool off' period).
We do not track the individual guns, because gun owners in the USA fear that one day the lists of registered owners would be used to collect the guns up.

So why do you track cars, are you not afraid they could be confiscated as well?
Also if you don't track guns, how do you ensure that someone that passed the background check does not sell them to someone that would not pass them?
I'd say that your Background checks are a waste of time and money.

But I'll tell you something, sir. I used to be quite active in the pro-and-anti gun debates in the USA, and of course I took the pro-gun side and of course I always won the debates.

Won the debates according to which standard exactly?

If I enter into the debate here, I already know all the sad pathetic little arguments against private gun ownership in the USA, and I can demolish each of them with logic, fact, and historic documents.

What a coincidence! I too already know all the sad pathetic little arguments for unregulated private gun ownership everywhere (not only in the USA), and I can demolish each of them with logic, fact, and historic documents, I'll show you my documents as soon as you show me yours.

But I don't bother anymore. Because at the end of each of these sad little tableaus, we come to the same conclusion. When all your so-called facts and your nonsense statistics are stripped away and the lies are made clear, you still will think that Americans should not be allowed to own guns. And that's fine, but it is like pulling teeth to finally get to the point where you say "I just hate guns and that's that.".

Now it's my turn to say BS! I have several relatives that own guns, and I am not against gun ownership, only I consider guns very dangerous things that should be tracked and not be given to people that are unable to properly use them, I also used one on a hunt expedition with an uncle (however unless thew duck I shot died from a heart attack later I must admit that I did not manage to harm it)
So sorry you are wrong here, I don't hate guns, I hate to see guns in the hands of the wrong people

So enjoy your opinion. I don't share it, but you're welcome to it.

Ditto

Best Regards

 

[bmattock]

In US the laws have expiration date, or just some kind of laws? I'm just curious.

It is normally called a "Sunset Law" meaning that it has an expiry date. Most laws do not, but hotly contested ones sometimes do, as a concilatory move that placates the opposition. See Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[fgianni]

Actually Bill I think here the best course of action is agreeing that we disagree, and stop bumping a thread that is quite OT and probably interests only a tiny minority of our members.

Should you want to tell me something more about it you can always PM me.

If however you really can't hold it then please disregard the advice and post to the forum, I don't want to be accused of trying to silence disagreeing voices.