Gun owners BEWARE of the AHSA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

I don't know much about ballistics and all that (I don't reload yet) But how can you tell the difference between a gap and a acp in a wound? They can even be loaded to the same pressure.

---

Honestly, I'm not sure what a "gap" is? Do you mean armour piercing?

There wouldn't be much difference in the wound I'm guessing, other than a narrower channel perhaps for the armour piercing if the acp deformed or fragmented even a little. (Sorry, I've read a lot about guns and this sort of thing is often discussed.)

A .45 LC would certainly leave a different wound channel than a .45 acp round, as well as more fragments inside the wound since very little, if any, .45LC rounds are FMJ. Most would be JHP or SP, or some manner of hunting round. Also, the rifling pattern on a .45 acp and a .45LC are bound to be noticeably different, as well as their weights and composition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

People will kill each other no matter what. Ban guns and they will use them any way or use a bat or something.

---

Same thing with nukes.... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Honestly, I'm not sure what a "gap" is? Do you mean armour piercing?

There wouldn't be much difference in the wound I'm guessing, other than a narrower channel perhaps for the armour piercing if the acp deformed or fragmented even a little. (Sorry, I've read a lot about guns and this sort of thing is often discussed.)

A .45 LC would certainly leave a different wound channel than a .45 acp round, as well as more fragments inside the wound since very little, if any, .45LC rounds are FMJ. Most would be JHP or SP, or some manner of hunting round. Also, the rifling pattern on a .45 acp and a .45LC are bound to be noticeably different, as well as their weights and composition.

---

A gap is a 45 acp with a shorter casing basically.

Goof - I agree with points 1 through 6, at least generally, but am unsure of the registration.

The only problem with it is, and excuse the phrase and perhaps poor argument, "slippery slope." With all firearms registered (under penalty of long prison terms) it is just one step easier to ban some or all firearms and confiscate them. It won't happen tomorrow, and probably not in 25 years, but who knows in 75 years from now?

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Goof - I agree with points 1 through 6, at least generally, but am unsure of the registration.

---

I'll only take points 2,3 & 4 personally and change 2 to a violent crime or a felony. 6 is flat out dumb and has been proven time and time again not to make any difference, whereas 1 is an undue burden. People can and do know how to handle guns and are able to keep them in their homes without taking formal, government approved courses.

Unless you've proven yourself irresponsible (2,3,4), you have to be assumed to be a competent and responsible person. The right to own a gun is a right in the US and you can't strip someone of it without reason.

How about keep #1 but allow it to be waived if your:

# Current or past military service.
# Current or past law enforcement service
# Participation in a rifle, pistol, air gun or shotgun competition (provide copy of results bulletin).
# Completion of a marksmanship clinic that included live fire training (provide a copy of the certificate of completion or a statement from the instructor).
# Distinguished, Instructor, or Coach status.
# Concealed Carry License.
# Firearms Owner Identification Cards that included live fire training.
# FFL or C&R license.
# Completion of a Hunter Safety Course that included live fire training.
# Certification from range or club official or law enforcement officer witnessing shooting activity.

I got this from here. These are the marksman participation requirements required to purchase an M1 from this government-related program, Civilian Marksmanship Program.

2 could be softened to violent felonies, I guess.

Nah, it's still an infringement of a right without good reason- it makes the assumption that the average citizen who buys a gun will be irresponsible with it without training(and that 1 who takes some 1hr class will be responsible). Again, I dont think you should strip someone of a right unless they've shown themselves not to be competent. (liken it to making someone pass a written test before being able to vote.)

Besides, there are many ways for a person to learn how to use a gun- they could be life long hunters, or have been trained on gun use from childhood by relatives, ect.

Quote:

---

@English assassin,

It seems you cannot think outside your own perspective? It seems you are a little stuck on yourself there.
I'd like to remember you the world is larger than your own neighborhood what looks normal to you may not be acceptable somewhere else, for instance, I would never eat at an English restaurant, I think English cousine is pure crap, if you ask me I wouldn't serve it to my dog, if I had a dog that is.

---

I think THAT was a little uncalled for. As it happens I was a pretty good rifle shot at school, where I was lucky enough not only to fool around with Lee Enfields on a regular basis but a lot of other toys up to an including the then current british army GPMG.

And I am a current (though admittedly only recently joined) member of a rifle club.

So I would suggest that maybe it is YOU who needs to consider than not everyone who thinks that registration is a good idea, or that no one really needs to own a semi automatic weapon, is anti-guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

I think THAT was a little uncalled for. As it happens I was a pretty good rifle shot at school, where I was lucky enough not only to fool around with Lee Enfields on a regular basis but a lot of other toys up to an including the then current british army GPMG.

---

The "then current" still is current bud, 60 years old and still going strong.

Is that right? They were muttering about going over to the LSW at the time.

I guess someone worked out that since all the new rifles were going to jam it might be a good idea to stick with a machine gun that actually worked...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Is that right? They were muttering about going over to the LSW at the time.

I guess someone worked out that since all the new rifles were going to jam it might be a good idea to stick with a machine gun that actually worked...

---

LSW is a squad support weapon along with the LMG but the GPMG is still used in the heavier role.

The A2 LSW and IW are vastly improved over the A1 versions and almost everyone is happy with them, teh SF might even use them if they were painted black ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Nah, it's still an infringement of a right without good reason- it makes the assumption that the average citizen who buys a gun will be irresponsible with it without training(and that 1 who takes some 1hr class will be responsible). Again, I dont think you should strip someone of a right unless they've shown themselves not to be competent. (liken it to making someone pass a written test before being able to vote.)

Besides, there are many ways for a person to learn how to use a gun- they could be life long hunters, or have been trained on gun use from childhood by relatives, ect.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou, edited by Ironside

Nah, it's still an infringement of a right without good reason- it makes the assumption that the average citizen who buys a car will be irresponsible with it without training(and that 1 who takes some driving lessions will be responsible). Again, I dont think you should strip someone of a right unless they've shown themselves not to be competent. (liken it to making someone pass a written test before being able to vote.)

Besides, there are many ways for a person to learn how to use a car- they could be life long drivers, or have been trained on car use from childhood by relatives, ect.

---

Point taken? ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

I think THAT was a little uncalled for.

---

NO! YOU WILL NOT MAKE ME EAT ENGLISH FOOD! NOO! NOOOOO! PLEASE! PLEASE HAVE MERCY! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :surrender:

Quote:

---

So I would suggest that maybe it is YOU who needs to consider than not everyone who thinks that registration is a good idea, or that no one really needs to own a semi automatic weapon, is anti-guns.

---

I mentioned the registration of Airsoft guns and how they suffered a collateral ban because of it, I never said any of the rest.

Are you so used to people vehemently disagreeing with you when they talk to you that you automatically assume and deduce who they are and what they think and that they must be against you? Well, don't do that anymore because this time you missed terribly. ~D :rifle:

My point was about how registering anything (<-) is not necessarily a good thing, should dogs be registered? Some people think it's logical, good and necessary to exterminate some races of dogs from Germany, should we also ban these races over here, or anywhere else for that matter? Registering would be a first step, since professional breeders are registered, you know exactly where to go to exterminate the race, if you register the owners, you know exactly where to collect each dog or demand the owner to hand it over to a gas chamber, if both breeders and owners of some specific races were unregistered it would be IMPOSSIBLE to exterminate a race.

So the thing is, can't registration campaigns for anything (<-) have other motivations behind them other than only good, nice, logical, goals? I was merely asking you to consider the USA has tons of NGO's and some wolves in a lamb's skin, and that perhaps there is a good reason or more than one to keep things as they are, even if that thinking is imcompatible with British society or illogical to an English assassin. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Point taken? ~;p

---

Cars arent a right. Certainly driving them on public roads isnt a right either. Point taken?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Cars arent a right. Certainly driving them on public roads isnt a right either. Point taken?

---

Ah, the constitution argument.
I'm sure that the funding fathers were wanting to have the population be able to handle thier guns properly when the rebellion vs the goverment comes. ~;)
(And if you disagree that the second ammendment has annything to do with militias, care to explain why it's so wierd compared to the rest of ammendments in that case).

Anyway, do you think it would be sensible to have every law-obeying with a gun to have atleast basic training with it?

BTW about cars and guns. What is more important today? What would most likely be written into a constitution today?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Anyway, do you think it would be sensible to have every law-obeying with a gun to have atleast basic training with it?

---

Sure, the responsible thing for a gun owner to do would be to learn to be proficient with it- but, we don't live in a nanny state and it isn't the responsibility of our government to mandate that everyone "understands" their rights before being allowed to exercise them.

Quote:

---

BTW about cars and guns. What is more important today? What would most likely be written into a constitution today?

---

I dont think the right to drive a car would be written into the Constitution anymore than the right to drive a horse and buggy was when it was created. The right to own firearms was written in explicitly, which shows how important a right it was viewed as- right up there with freedom of speech, ect. The notion that people want to wipe away such an important part of our Constitution is unsettling to me.

Remember, the 2nd Amendment doesn't explicitly say "firearms", it says "arms". This allows the definition to change, as technology advances. Automobiles, or horse/buggy team, aren't in the Constitution because they don't have the same effect on the relationship between the people and the government. If the founding Fathers added an armed populace clause, they did it for a good reason. It adds a check to the government's power, which is really what the whole document is about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Nah, it's still an infringement of a right without good reason- it makes the assumption that the average citizen who buys a gun will be irresponsible with it without training(and that 1 who takes some 1hr class will be responsible).

---

No, it doesn't make that assumption.

What it assumes (correctly) is that people (even Republicans~;) ) do not come straight out of the womb knowing the proper safe handling techniques for firearms.

A gun used improperly is equally as deadly as a car used improperly, and we require people to pass at least a basic operator test before giving them a drivers license.

What I am seeing here is what appears to be a systemic "slippery slope fear" syndrome in the U.S.

Just as pro-choice advocates balk at any small hint of limiting a woman's freedom to abortion (i.e. late-term bans) because they think it will lead to further limitations, gun advocates balk at even the suggestion of a limitation to any person's "right" to buy any gun, anywhere, any time, no questions asked.

Do you honestly think that it is really a silly idea to require somebody to demonstrate at least a rudimentary amount of safe handling knowledge before selling them an item that could kill an entire third grade class in less than one minute?

I think a little dash of common sense is called for here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

A gun used improperly is equally as deadly as a car used improperly, and we require people to pass at least a basic operator test before giving them a drivers license.

---

I adressed this already- driving isnt a right.

We arent tested before being able to exercise free speech, nor do you have to take a class before being secure in your possessions ect. You don't come out of the womb being able to make an informed vote- yet people can vote without taking a class on it or demonstrating their knowledge to the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I adressed this already- driving isnt a right.

---

Nor is the constitution a suicide pact.

Just because something is a right doesn't mean common sense shouldn't be applied.

It simply boggles my mind that you don't think people should be required to know how to operate a deadly device properly before owning it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

We arent tested before being able to exercise free speech

---

Free speech doesn't go off accidentally while you are cleaning it and punch a large hole in the back of your three year-old's head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

nor do you have to take a class before being secure in your possessions

---

Similarly, knowing the government can't arbitrarily search your house without probable cause does not cause accidents that involve sucking chest wounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

You don't come out of the womb being able to make an informed vote- yet people can vote without taking a class on it or demonstrating their knowledge to the government.

---

I was about to say that making an uninformed vote doesn't kill people, but based on the results of your last election that would clearly be an incorrect statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Similarly, knowing the government can't arbitrarily search your house without probable cause does not cause accidents that involve sucking chest wounds.

---

Maybe that right should only be applied after you house and place of business have been inspected annually by federal agents to make sure you don't have something dangerous that could hurt yourself or others with. Common sense, no? My god, they could even have guns! ~:eek:

Quote:

---

I was about to say that making an uninformed vote doesn't kill people, but based on the results of your last election that would clearly be an incorrect statement.

---

Good, so you agree with me then or are you saying the people should be required to take classes to vote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Maybe that right should only be applied after you house and place of business have been inspected annually by federal agents to make sure you don't have something dangerous that could hurt yourself or others with. Common sense, no? My god, they could even have guns! ~:eek:

---

sssssstttttttrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetttttttttttccccccccccchhhhhhhhhhhh...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Good, so you agree with me then or are you saying the people should be required to take classes to vote?

---

C'mon X, you know me better than that.

"Agree with you?"

~:joker:

But seriously.

Until they invent ballots that fire projectiles capable of penetrating the human body, no, I don't think you should have to take classes to vote.

It's also a stretch to say that droves of gun owners will accidentall kill themselves or others if they dont have government approved training.

Total accidental deaths in the US: 106,742
Death due to accidental firearm discharge: 762
link

Again, you're going to need something more compelling before making a case for depriving people of their Constitutional rights. By your logic, more people have died from voting Bush into office- maybe you should rethink the voting classes. ~;p

So actually an American citizen have a constitutional right to own a nuke ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Remember, the 2nd Amendment doesn't explicitly say "firearms", it says "arms". This allows the definition to change, as technology advances. Automobiles, or horse/buggy team, aren't in the Constitution because they don't have the same effect on the relationship between the people and the government. If the founding Fathers added an armed populace clause, they did it for a good reason. It adds a check to the government's power, which is really what the whole document is about.

---

As it's obvious that the state can use the access to cars and roads into a reward system, it's obvious to a constitution written today that cars and roads needs to be protected for the freedom of it's citizens. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

So actually an American citizen have a constitutional right to own a nuke ?

---

Yes. Atleast according to some. It also approves you driving aroud in a tank inside a city, unless you damage things, that is ~;p . Well actually not even then, but you'll get punished for the property damage.

Xiahou, got any simular stats on serious injury?

I do find it "funny" that people are letting other people die and let the sanity be trown out of the window, because of a piece of paper written 230 years ago.

But to be fair Xiahou, would you accept an add on the constitution about this, if voted through?

And BTW, most of the other rights have certain restrictions on them anyway.

in other news:

Capitol Hill sources have told GOA there is a provision in this bill (amending Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act) which would allow the FBI to get a secret court order to seize ANY business records it believes would be relevant to an anti-terrorism investigation... without having to make the case that the gun records they're confiscating have any connection to a suspected terrorist.

Hence, in the name of fighting terrorism, the FBI will be given a license for unbridled fishing expeditions.

Gun sales are business transactions, and FFL holders must retain copies of the 4473 forms (yellow sheets) filled out on every gun sale. Thus, an anti-gun administration could easily determine that such records would be useful in the fight against terrorism, and demand them all.

But that's not all. More than just your gun purchase records are at stake. Financial and medical records, library records and much more will now be open to FBI fishing expeditions. They won't have to get any prior court approval.

It gets worse. If the gun dealer, where you purchased firearms, is required to hand over your gun purchase records, he is BARRED from telling you about it under the PATRIOT Act.

http://www.gunowners.org/a111705.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

As it's obvious that the state can use the access to cars and roads into a reward system, it's obvious to a constitution written today that cars and roads needs to be protected for the freedom of it's citizens. ~;)

---

The federal government has very little to say about the rights of citizens to drive cars, this is up to the local/state governments. Cars supposedly (and I know this is debatable) help the economy so it is in the government's interest to allow access, regulated as it may be.

If I'm reading that link Xiahou put in correctly, firearms (suicides 17108, assualt 11829, accidental 762, other 243) are not nearly as deadly as transport accidents. In a magical would without firearms, many of those suicides would still occur by other means, so I'm not sure we would save many lives there. Looks to me like we need to ban driving first. ~;) As someone who as been through both a State of Georgia driver's exam and an NRA-sponsored gun safety course, I'm of the opinion that the NRA definitely does a more copmprehensible job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

The federal government has very little to say about the rights of citizens to drive cars, this is up to the local/state governments. Cars supposedly (and I know this is debatable) help the economy so it is in the government's interest to allow access, regulated as it may be.

If I'm reading that link Xiahou put in correctly, firearms (suicides 17108, assualt 11829, accidental 762, other 243) are not nearly as deadly as transport accidents. In a magical would without firearms, many of those suicides would still occur by other means, so I'm not sure we would save many lives there. Looks to me like we need to ban driving first. ~;) As someone who as been through both a State of Georgia driver's exam and an NRA-sponsored gun safety course, I'm of the opinion that the NRA definitely does a more copmprehensible job.

---

I'm glad you took the safety course. You would be a gun owner whom I would feel safe sharing the same room with while you were armed. Did you find that taking the course was avaluable experience for you, and would you recommend it to other gun owners?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I'm glad you took the safety course. You would be a gun owner whom I would feel safe sharing the same room with while you were armed. Did you find that taking the course was avaluable experience for you, and would you recommend it to other gun owners?

---

I definitely think gun owners should take the course (even if not mandated). Most of it is just common sense, but there are a lot of people out there that lack that. I got a lot out of it since I wasn't around handguns growing up (parents didn't like them), although I had shot rifles and shotguns before. Virginia has made concealed carry legal, but you need a permit and I think you have to do another safety course centered around carrying the firearm on a regular basis. I don't have this permit, but I would like to take the class at some point, seems like it would have a lot of practical pointers on how not to blow your foot off. Most people I know who have the permit have it mainly so they don't have to worry about transporting their weapons in cars to and from ranges. The "handgun in car" rules are arcane at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

If I'm reading that link Xiahou put in correctly, firearms (suicides 17108, assualt 11829, accidental 762, other 243) are not nearly as deadly as transport accidents. In a magical would without firearms, many of those suicides would still occur by other means, so I'm not sure we would save many lives there. Looks to me like we need to ban driving first. ~;) As someone who as been through both a State of Georgia driver's exam and an NRA-sponsored gun safety course, I'm of the opinion that the NRA definitely does a more copmprehensible job.

---

Wrong thread ~;p

You see, in a attemt to reduce the accidents with cars, we're having drivers licences, because we have come to the conclution that if you want to own a car, then you'll need to handle it properly, to reduce the amounts of accidents.

By some odd reason does some people think that applying this to guns is proposterous. ~;p

I got no problem that NRA holds the corse instead of the state (probably quite the opposite, if the NRA holds better corses), the issue is those with guns that have no idea to handle them.