Shall I edit it to, [owning several, light weight carbines capable of rapidly firing in the semi automatic mode bullets, contained within a clip of usually not less than 30 rounds that can be rapidly reloaded. Though probably not fully automatic unless modified by the addition of a trigger repeating device]
I'd have said that but I suspect it would make me sound like a dick.
It's a magazine, not a clip. This is a clip -
And a 30 round magazine is not 'high' capacity, it's standard capacity. Anything over 30 rounds could be called high capacity.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 25th May 2014, 2:05 PM BSTAnd they have been, the US murder rate is at it's lowest in 20 years. Though that was through tackling violent gangs in large cities, not banning a farmer from owning a shotgun.
I don't think anyone wants to take old Farmer John's trusty shotgun.
Some might question why it's accompanied by a 20 round Glock, kalashnikov, couple of Armalite carbines and a .50 barratt anti material rifle designed for knocking holes in Soviet armour.
Unless thanks to global warming the rats in his barn have got really big.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 25th May 2014, 2:12 PM BSTIt's a magazine, not a clip. This is a clip -
And a 30 round magazine is not 'high' capacity, it's standard capacity. Anything over 30 rounds could be called high capacity.
You're starting to sound like the dictionary corner from a sociopathic version of Count Down
Quote: sootyj @ 25th May 2014, 2:14 PM BSTI don't think anyone wants to take old Farmer John's trusty shotgun.
Some might question why it's accompanied by a 20 round Glock, kalashnikov, couple of Armalite carbines and a .50 barratt anti material rifle designed for knocking holes in Soviet armour.
Unless thanks to global warming the rats in his barn have got really big.
But those are the ones that get him really hard, don't deny the poor farmer a solid erection.
Yeh I bet Obama wants to ban any erection over 6 inches as a lethal weapon.
Why did hardly anyone vote this week and why did UKIP do so well.
Here's why
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/this-vine-of-ed-miliband-trying-to-look-normal-is-strangely
and this
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/education-secretary-michael-gove-set-3604971
Quote: sootyj @ 25th May 2014, 2:14 PM BSTI don't think anyone wants to take old Farmer John's trusty shotgun.
Some might question why it's accompanied by a 20 round Glock, kalashnikov, couple of Armalite carbines and a .50 barratt anti material rifle designed for knocking holes in Soviet armour.
I have heard many a liberal say: 'Ban all guns' - that would include Farmer John's trusty shotgun.
As for his 20 round Glock, he might carry that around on his belt when attending to his livestock. His semi-automatic rifles are for hunting, target shooting and home defence.
.50 calibre Barrett rifles cost over $10,000 and each round is roughly $10 each, so he must be quite a successful farmer. As no one has used a Barrett rifle in any kind of criminal activity, presumably because it weights over 20 pounds and is nearly 5 foot long, I'm not concerned if Farmer John wants to own one.
The Waco Seige involved an antique WW2 Boy's Anti Tank Rifle in 0.55
Part the reason the FBI asked the army to attack the building with Bradley APCs was because that antique could knock holes in anything lighter.
I've always seen that as evidence that freely available firepower makes you more, not less vulnerable to the black helicopter brigade.
And what a modern fellow this Farmer John is as most hunters I believe still use bolt action rifles. Perhaps the deer are especially mean and organised in his part of the world.
I've never heard of any country that bans farmers from owning shotguns.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 25th May 2014, 1:48 PM BSTI'm sure your choice would be based on a number of clinical, legal and statistical factors and not be some draconian, emotive, kneejerk, dogmatic, illogical and nonsensical action based on ignorance and fear.
OK, let's remove some of the ignorance, shall we?
Illogical, nonsense, especially on the part of some pro-gun people in the USA, is not readily removable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The pro-gun arguments in the USA has three main points.
1. If the government goes mad, we armed citizens can form a militia and depose it.
2. If someone attacks me with a weapon, I can shoot him first.
3. Guns are nice toys, I like firing them on a range.
~~~~~
Number (1) is the top argument, it is the reason it is enshrined in the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. & referred to as "The Right to Bear Arms"
a ) { if citizens invoke number (1) you get the situation currently happening in the Ukraine-- Militia preventing democratic voting}
b ) in theory, we don't need that in the UK, we have the Queen, in theory, if our Government goes mad, the Queen can RESET the political system by dissolving parliament. It's the only really useful function left for Royalty. We are unlikely to find out if it would ever work, just as the NRA are unlikely to find out if they need to depose the USA government
c ) {some parts of the USA are hot, maybe this was a spelling mistake meant to be "The Right to Bare Arms"}
~~~~~~
Number (2) has some merit, but:
( a ) the defender is at a severe disadvantage if the attacker also has a gun (and in a country with many many guns this is likely} because the attacker is likely to have his gun ready whereas the defender's is holstered or upstairs in the drawer by the bed and not loaded.
( b ) if the attacker is in a car with his/her readily obtained gun and indulges in drive-by random shooting (like the one yesterday) the concerned armed citizens rarely get any chance to shoot him and remove the problem {I don't recall ANY case, where a rampagee has been shot by an armed normal citizen instead of the US police}.
( c ) If the attacker did not have a gun to start with, but the defender is not fully competent with his/her gun, the attacker can get hold of it and the defender gets shot with his/her own gun. (though I don't know of specific cases, I have heard that this does happen fairly often) You see, guns don't care who they kill, it's people kill people, not guns kill people. Guns just make it easier.
( d ) Guns can kill by accident, especially if an untrained person such as a child gets hold of a loaded gun or that old 'favourite' a gun in which the magazine has been removed, but the wielder didn't know that there was a round already loaded into the breech. One of the favourite arguments of the pro-gun people is that other things kill people by accident too and indeed that is true, people can fall on knives, or swords or garden forks, or get run over by cars, busses, lorries (especially happens to cyclists) or by falling off ladders. And indeed in total there are probably MORE people killed by accidents of such type because there are more, knives, vehicles and ladders than guns.
{a Great-Grandfather of mine died due to stabbing his foot with a garden fork}
~~~~~~~
Number ( 3 ) is indeed true, even I like shooting guns on a range. Basically it is a challenge to see how well you can go through the physical actions to achieve exactly the same result each time. Not different in principle to Golf, Highboard diving and other single-person activities (in which your competitors have no direct effect on your actions, only psychological effects). It is a quest for precision, to show that you are perfect, the most perfect person in that sport. Even that horribly inaccurate weapon the Sten Gun, might be fun to fire on a range, though the chances of any precision results with that are near nil.
But this can go horribly morally wrong. In Italy and other Mediterranean countries some of the gun owning people delight in shooting down the birds on their annual migrations; some of these they eat, true, after extracting the poisonous lead pellets, but they do this without any due thought about what they are doing to the species. In the USA they did this, 100-150 years ago, to the Passenger Pigeon and in the last shoot, KNOWING THAT IT COULD CAUSE EXTINCTION OF THE SPECIES, I think I heard that they shot a million birds in one day.
~~~~~~~~~~
Number (2)( c ), the problem of getting shot with your own gun by an attacker, has a peculiar quirk happening at present. Anyone with sense that wanted a gun to defend themselves, would yearn for a gun that couldn't be used to shoot its owner and much work is going on at present to develop 'intelligent guns' which either recognise the owners grip (very difficult) or more recently, are disarmed if they are more that a few feet from the arming radio, which will be in a wristwatch worn by the owner. However the really really keen pro-gun persons in the states the avid defenders of the "Right to Bear Arms" are avid opponents of such 'intelligent' guns, because they FEAR THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD DEVELOP A RADIO TRANSMITTER WHICH WOULD DEACTIVATE ALL SUCH GUNS.
One such person on FaceBook/Twitter/somesuch recently said that he would happily kill the leading saleswoman of that 'Intelligent' Gun company, because she was attempting to disarm the citizens of the USA, by stealth. In my opinion anyone expressing such a statement should be banned from ever owning a gun licence.
Soime cartoons for both sides of the arguement
Quote: billwill @ 25th May 2014, 3:19 PM BSTOne such person on FaceBook/Twitter/somesuch recently said that he would happily kill the leading saleswoman of that 'Intelligent' Gun company, because she was attempting to disarm the citizens of the USA, by stealth. In my opinion anyone expressing such a statement should be banned from ever owning a gun licence.
Obviously, anyone making death threats towards innocent people should be banned from owning a gun. As for the 'Intelligent' gun, how long would it take enterprising humans to hack the safety feature? As for people making death threats on the Internet - I don't think it's limited to gun owning Americans.
As for your other points, there are far too many ifs, maybes, it coulds, etc. As has been reported, he killed three people with a knife - basically, if you want to kill lots of people, you'll find a way.
But he got what he wanted, his picture and name plastered all over the media, so the next copy cat has something to look forward to.
If someone read a book and decided to kill people, as has happened, would we ban books? It's all about the price of freedom.
Quote: sootyj @ 25th May 2014, 2:48 PM BSTAnd what a modern fellow this Farmer John is as most hunters I believe still use bolt action rifles. Perhaps the deer are especially mean and organised in his part of the world.
In this country maybe, but everywhere else semi-auto rifles and semi-auto shotguns are very common for hunting and protecting live stock.
How many guns do you own, RP?
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 25th May 2014, 4:34 PM BSTAs for your other points, there are far too many ifs, maybes, it coulds, etc. As has been reported, he killed three people with a knife - basically, if you want to kill lots of people, you'll find a way.
It always come back to this bogus point. Because there are barely any successful gun free massacres.
Quote: billwill @ 25th May 2014, 4:18 PM BST
Candlesticks? Pitchforks? Baths of acid?
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 25th May 2014, 4:34 PM BSTObviously, anyone making death threats towards innocent people should be banned from owning a gun.
I guess that includes you then RC, because not so long ago in another persona on Facebook, you said you would like to see street hoaxers stopped by having one of them shot dead, two bullets in the chest.
>As for the 'Intelligent' gun, how long would it take enterprising humans to hack the safety feature?
You are just being as ridiculous as the NRA., I can just see this mugger wrest a smart gun from a victim and then say hang on a minute, while he goes to his car, get out his screwdrivers & soldering iron and hack into the gun so that he can fire it at the victim.
Why would anyone want to hack into their own smart gun?
They can already fire it.
Sure, if a thief steals the gun and just wants to sell it on or use it later, they could remove the disarm mechanism, but that is not intrinsically different from filing off the serial numbers. An that is not the problem that the invention of the smart gun addresses.
The national front all set for victory in France!
Ffs
We should have left the bastards in the hands of Adolph