Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rockpup

Firearms, NFA specific

Recommended Posts

As an englishman, it strikes me real sad for you that you NEED to carry a gun at all times - is it really that bad everywhere ? Ok theres gang knifings etc here but not bigtime, and i never feel the need to go loaded, even going round London as i do for business. Is it the same throughout the usa ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an englishman, it strikes me real sad for you that you NEED to carry a gun at all times - is it really that bad everywhere ?

Ok theres gang knifings etc here but not bigtime, and i never feel the need to go loaded, even going round London as i do for business.

Is it the same throughout the usa ?

Not in the areas of the country where the local law allows citizens to own and carry a side arm.

I guess your attitude is what accounts for the fact that the only people in the UK that own guns are the criminals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok theres gang knifings etc here but not bigtime, and i never feel the need to go loaded, even going round London as i do for business.

I can assure you, knife and gun crime here (ie possession) is much worse than you are aware. Deaths make the headlines. Woundings seldom do, and I doubt 'threats' are even reported.

Street crime in Florida went down by 10% [iIRC] when concealed carry licenses were issued. Justification enough.

My (limited) understanding of the 2nd Amendment, is that its purpose was to allow citizens the tools to protect themselves from those who would take from them, and that included their own goverment.

In our country, only the law-breakers have the means to protect themselves, and that protection is against everyone including the lawful. :smile:

Seem fair/just to anyone? Certainly isn't to me.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can assure you, knife and gun crime here (ie possession) is much worse than you are aware. Deaths make the headlines. Woundings seldom do, and I doubt 'threats' are even reported...

My (limited) understanding of the 2nd Amendment, is that its purpose was to allow citizens the tools to protect themselves from those who would take from them, and that included their own goverment.

In our country, only the law-breakers have the means to protect themselves, and that protection is against everyone including the lawful. :smile: Seem fair/just to anyone? Certainly isn't to me.

...

I think you've just covered the major arguments for keeping firearms within easy reach. About the only other thing is the fact that whenever citizens lose the right to arm themselves it's almost impossible to regain those rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the only other thing is the fact that whenever citizens lose the right to arm themselves it's almost impossible to regain those rights.

There is a small group of motivated people here, trying to turn that around in the UK.

What some of the fearful folk here don't realise, is a [lawful] citizen with a 'concealed carry' firearm, is likely going to protect more than just him/herself. People who use guns are seldom fearful of using them. Bad thing with the lawless obviously, but provides some balance if the lawful have the same access.

Interestingly here, those with lawful access to firearms for 'protection of the community' [that would be the Police] are sometimes ordered to stay away from a crime scene while there are firearms in use. There was a notable case three or four years ago, when a depressed/angry man shot his ex-wife, and I think her sister (IIRC) at a family barbecue. While they both lay bleeding to death, the [armed] Police and Ambulance services were kept out of the area in case the perpetrator was still about.

I know a small handful of people [firearms owners] who would have gladly risked their own life to save the lives of the wounded womenfolk. :smile:

As before, if you don't have the means of self-defence, you don't have any.

Epilogue to event noted above:

Inquest

Perp' suicide

[As a response to the anticipated comment "the perp' had access to a shotgun <firearm> .... " True. Even if it was legally owned, had he not had that, he would surely have used another tool. Hammer, knife, who knows?

[The links above tells us he had a history of violence, and was an alcoholic. Either trait being inhibitors to legal firearms ownership here.]

My point is: a gun would have been a faster 'stopper' than another knife, or another hammer. The Police don't use such basic tools to take on armed murderers, (knife/axe/cosh) why should the country's citiizens? I would argue that if the perp' had some fear of himself being killed while attempting to murder his ex-wife, he may never have tried in the first place.]

....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fastfreddy2 wrote:

I would argue that if the perp' had some fear of himself being killed while attempting to murder his ex-wife, he may never have tried in the first place.

Perhaps at the point he became so enraged that he carried out his attack, he really didn’t care if he lived or died.

**********

Several years ago the late Mr. Carl Rowan, a nationally-syndicated columnist living in the Washington, DC area, who was well known for his opposition to private ownership of weapons -- specifically handguns – by the general public was charged by D.C. authorities with the crime of using an illegally possessed, unregistered handgun to protect his property. According to newspaper reports, Mr. Rowan wounded a trespasser who had entered his back yard and was swimming in his swimming pool late one night. Mr. Rowan’s explanation was that he actually feared for his safety and had acted in “self defense.”

Now, some in his community called Mr. Rowan a hypocrite. However, he excused his action by saying the instinct for self-preservation is far greater and much stronger than obeying any law that limited his ability to save his life.

As the old saying goes, “I am against personal/private ownership of firearms except when it is necessary to protect my life and property.” Go figure. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio has just passed a new law that allows you to shoot to kill if an unexpected intruder enters your home and you are in fear of danger and also can carry a loaded gun in a holster on your seat or in your glove box.:smile: It will then be up to the police and the lawyer to decide the outcome and do not have to go through all the other crap with judges etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think that the part about it being legal to have a loaded gun in your car will make the police very nervous when they stop you for a minor violation? Here in Europe we always get the impression that the police in the USA is far less relaxed as compared to for instance in Holland when they stop a car. I don't want to spoil your happiness about this law, but I wouldn't want to see you getting shot because you went 10 miles over the speed limit and made a wrong move when halted. This is not about the eternal gun debate in which we won't agree anyway. This is more about your safety. We appreciate you here. Y.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any person that is issued a permit to "carry a concealed weapon" by a authorized state agency, must, as in my case, complete a rigorous training program conducted by a qualified, licensed small arms instructor. The course of is long. The personal evaluation (personality profile) is thorough and comprehensive. The chances that any person that has successfully completed this program turning his firearm on a policeman for being stopped for a minor traffic infraction is very, very small. I would say (and, this is clearly my own opinion) the citizens of The Netherlands are more apt to commit this type of violation than one of us that has qualified for this permit and carries a weapon on our person. Yozz, if you ever visit this country, and your safety is in question -- and I am anywhere close by -- please announce yourself clearly so that I won't come to your defense using my firearm protect your life. I wouldn't want to do something that would be against your principles. Just tell me who you are and I'll defend you with my stilettos, instead. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps at the point he became so enraged that he carried out his attack, he really didn’t care if he lived or died.

Of course, it's a consideration. But typically [which includes 'not always'] suicides do the deed at the bloodbath. I suspect drink had far more to do with this initially, than rage. Since all three women were alive when he left the scene, his reasonable expectation was they would survive. My understanding is the women bled to death, (waiting for paramedics) the wounds themselves not being lethal in and of themselves. Certainly the two sisters didn't survive, and that would have ripped the heart out of any family, regardless to whether they were mothers. It looks like guilt got the better of him.

I personally believe, the fear of being caught and being executed is a deterent. If not to all (and I'm sure it isn't) then certainly it is to some.

Any person that is issued a permit to "carry a concealed weapon" by a authorized state agency, must, as in my case, complete a rigorous training program conducted by a qualified, licensed small arms instructor. The course of is long. The personal evaluation (personality profile) is thorough and comprehensive. The chances that any person that has successfully completed this program turning his firearm on a policeman for being stopped for a minor traffic infraction is very, very small.

Over here, sporting and target rifles can be legally owned if enough hoops are jumped through. Everyone applying has a personal interview, and a background check. Two referees must be offered, with each having known the applicant for a minimum of 2 years. Having to go through this process, with the cycle time being anything up to a year (in parts of Wales), it would seem foolish to throw away that effort just to argue with a Policeman. :smile:

The system isn't perfect, but firearms crime by 'legal' owners, is (almost) unheard of.

....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you think that the part about it being legal to have a loaded gun in your

car will make the police very nervous when they stop you for a minor violation?

The training course we attend teaches us what to do and say when pulled over. Our license plate already tells the police that you are carring. The police , from what I have seen , heard and read, are on our side as we are on there's. It's a whole new bonding thing between the cops and the good guy's.:smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fastfreddy2 wrote:

Perhaps at the point he became so enraged that he carried out his attack, he really didn’t care if he lived or died.

**********

Several years ago the late Mr. Carl Rowan, a nationally-syndicated columnist living in the Washington, DC area, who was well known for his opposition to private ownership of weapons -- specifically handguns – by the general public was charged by D.C. authorities with the crime of using an illegally possessed, unregistered handgun to protect his property. According to newspaper reports, Mr. Rowan wounded a trespasser who had entered his back yard and was swimming in his swimming pool late one night. Mr. Rowan’s explanation was that he actually feared for his safety and had acted in “self defense.”

Now, some in his community called Mr. Rowan a hypocrite. However, he excused his action by saying the instinct for self-preservation is far greater and much stronger than obeying any law that limited his ability to save his life.

As the old saying goes, “I am against personal/private ownership of firearms except when it is necessary to protect my life and property.” Go figure. :thumbsup:

Hallelujah! :smile:

Here I thought I was the only one hollering about Carl Rowan - the hypocrite's hypocrite. I have been on that man's case for so long that all my friends around here think I'm anti-Rowan. No, actually I'm anti-hypocrite!

But thanks for pointing out just how hypocritical so many anti-gun people are. Whenever the need actually arises they almost invariably cast their anti-gun rhetoric aside and reach for the nearest firearm, as you so correctly pointed-out about the late Washington Post writer Carl Rowan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The training course we attend teaches us what to do and say when pulled over. Our license plate already tells the police that you are carring. The police , from what I have seen , heard and read, are on our side as we are on there's. It's a whole new bonding thing between the cops and the good guy's.:smile:

Maybe it is just that here on TV (on the commercial channels) they just show the

excesses. But also my personal experience (I lived 6 years in the USA) is that one

should be much more careful w.r.t. the police when stopped than in Holland.

But I do agree that the one time I was pulled over, they were rather friendly.

It was just that it would seem rather 'unsatisfactory' if someone gets pulled over

for being 10 miles over the speed limit and gets shot because he has the hickups.

(OK, OK, sometimes I like to exagerate).

Y.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an englishman, it strikes me real sad for you that you NEED to carry a gun at all times - is it really that bad everywhere ?

Ok theres gang knifings etc here but not bigtime, and i never feel the need to go loaded, even going round London as i do for business.

Is it the same throughout the usa ?

In general, the actual NEED for the average American to be armed is very low. Except for specific "pockets" of high crime areas - usually in the urban centers - the actual need for armaments in America is very low. So the debates that you see raging are really more in support of a principle than anything else.

However, the old saying still goes: when you really NEED a firearm - nothing else will do! I can still remember the look of consternation on my brother's face when I asked him to return my shotgun to me prior to a long trip I had to make (I was wintering with him at the time and he asked that I store my weapons in his safe). I did not ask for my weapon because I actually had a need for it, but rather, in the event something should come up I would not have time to travel 100 miles to retrieve my weapon. In like manner, I cannot help but feel that most people would rather have a firearm within easy reach in case something should present itself as opposed to not having one. Very obviously, certain rules of sensible conduct do apply: one should never venture into those areas where one would be in danger unless absolutely necessary; never stay any longer than required; and if possible, take along a buddy. When I was armed I usually kept my personal sidearm in a lockbox under the seat of my car and almost never actually carried it in public (my Walther was so small that I could easily conceal it on my person). Apart from some hunting expeditions and perhaps one or 2 other times, I never felt a genuine need for my sidearm.

Then too, one must bear in mind that the mere presence of a firearm changes one's circumstance. I cannot help but feel that many potentially bad situations are averted when someone has a firearm present, even if it is never actually taken out. But oddly enough, the same is not true when one has some other thing: a knife, axe, club, etc. within easy reach. So then I would have to say that arming one's self is, in a very real sense, a state of mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

second time in 1 year. :smile: There seems to be young lonely and unsocialble male persons who hates the world and mankind. This guy used 22 cal automatic pistol which he bought in August. Shooter shot himself and he was delivered in hospital and that hostital is in the same town I worked. People need firearms certificate to buy a gun in Finland. It seems that we need new regulations to firearms. I think that first, small, hideable, gun should never be automatic/repeating pistol or revolver with 6 to 15 bullets in magazine or cylinder. NO MATTER if the caliber is 22, 9mm, 357 or 44. If someone likes to shoot, he/she can buy a one bullet firearm and shoot automatic firearms, owned by gunclub, in gunclubs shooting range. After years of hobby person would be able to apply firearms certificate for magazineguns or revolvers. Statistics says that finns owns a lot af weapons. True, but those guns are shotguns and hunting riffles. Older hunters teach their sons to handle weapons safely and they take care of ducks, deers and other animals feedind them through cold winter. They respect close seasons when hunting is not allowed. Now we feel very bad here in Finland. Innocent people were killed again. Take care!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is difficult to comment on this tragedy without understanding the laws in Finland. However, it seems to me that much more rigid security measures should have been in place at the school. Having young people walking around armed at school seems very much out of place and a very far cry from what the school is about. Therefore this young man should have been stopped - if need be, with lethal force - just as soon as he was spotted with a firearm on his person on school premisis. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, HappyFeet, my comments were generic. I wasn't calling names. I wasn't addressing any one specifically. Only a group (class) of people. And, if it wasn't "left leaning liberals" that were trying to control firearms, who was it? It surely wasn't conservatives or members of the NRA, now, was it?

(I honestly can't remotely see where you would get the idea that I was addressing you -- unless, perhaps, you took it personally because you are one of the group I was describing? Besides, I really don't care if you find my comments offensive. My comments are my opinion and my opinion only!)

However, in the final analysis, this decision -- no matter how you try to "out think" the 5 Justices in the majority -- is that the "framers" of our Constitution unequivocally established, in simple plane English language of the period, that it was a basic" right of the people to own a gun and keep it in their homes. A "basic right" -- a guaranteed right -- is what it said and you that dissented (the four justices that voted in the minority) can't amend or remove that right without going through the "amendment" process that is also set forth in the Constitution.

Just because Justice Scalia also mentioned that there were circumstances where the government could deny the right to own a firearm to certain people, doesn't alter the fact that the government can't arbitrarily remove this right from the entire population just because they believe it is "wrong" to own a firearm.

I have a copy of this opinion saved no my computer and would be happy to email it to you, should you wish to delve into it further.

I also will send a copy of the "The Constitution of the United States of America" to you should you wish to "read" it. It is short, simply worded and easy to understand. You shouldn't find it difficult reading.

I have a "pocket copy" of the US Constitution that I keep within easy reach. Much like yourself, I used to think that the original Constitution was pretty simple and straightforward. Then I found out that the 537 elected officials at the federal level, 9 Supreme Court Justicis, God knows how many judges in America, and a couple of million left-wing pinkos (most of which are out on the "Left Coast") all have a different opnion on what it says. So it must not be quite so simple and straightforward after all. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×