GStwin.com GS500 Message Forum

OK was the 2nd amendment written as a way to overthrow a tryannical govt ?

Sadly if that is true, its the biggest joke ever perpetrated on the citizenry of any country.
You have assault rifles, as an extreme lets say, you're like I am so cool, I can protect myself against the gubbamint's tyranny and the gubbamint has tanks, air craft and drones and nuclear bombs.

I think sadly the only thing the 2nd amendment does is more colorado, virginia, columbine etc etc.

Seriously I have rifles and wifey got a girl glock, that I traded audio equipment for no less.
I still dont believe I could put a scratch on the tank that rolled through my neighborhood yesterday <- That is a joke.

The 2nd amendment needs to be amended to have people buy tanks and B52 bombers and aircraftcarriers (and no the 100 yr old rust bucket that shows up on fleabay every month doesn't count), and drones to even out the game. And yes they need to be cheap, I want myself a bradley fitted with a LMG turret for starters.

Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on July 26, 2012, 07:52:07 AM
I think sadly the only thing the 2nd amendment does is more colorado, virginia, columbine etc etc.

No need for guns. an IED will work just fine and can be made from readily available materials.

Quote from: The Buddha on July 26, 2012, 07:52:07 AM
Seriously I have rifles and wifey got a girl glock, that I traded audio equipment for no less.
I still dont believe I could put a scratch on the tank that rolled through my neighborhood yesterday <- That is a joke.

Again IED

And one more thing. The term assault weapon, a hammer or baseball bat can be used to assault somebody so that makes them assault weapons.

:cheers:

Yes I am going today to a movie theater and plan to kill and wound over 50 people and guess what my weapon of choice is gonna be ... a carburetor rack off a GS500. Watch the news from charlotte baby. 50 dead/maimed/greivously wonded people atleast baby dam.

And on the way I plan on digging up the roads with this fork I have here and place a few 100 IED's.
That will show them tanks rolling through the hood who's boss.

Dude, speed and ability to conceal is where guns are without parallel, IED's are huge and weigh 30-40lb. We have roads of tarmac and concrete, Iraq is sand, and the country hates US, so they work in teams and as a team they can bury an IED in 5 mins.

Anything is a weapon, heck nothing is a weapon, I can strangle people, how effective, how many and how quick can the bodies pile up is the question. Dont blame guns for the actions of morons, blame guns for the speed @ which bodies pile up. In the absence of a gun this fool will have wandered into the theater and well, strangled 1, stabbed another and hit the third with a baseball bat - 100%, however that would be the end before the rest run away or rush the bugger and beat him to pulp.

Cool.
Buddha.

(http://forgifs.com/gallery/d/126362-4/IED_removal_fail.gif)

Well said though Buddha,....

agreed. buddha well said :bowdown:

If everyone had a gun, it would be hard for a killer to kill so many.

Notice they never walk into a cop shop to go on a rampage.

Michael

That "if everyone has a gun" idea, well, its been toted around for 200 years, and all it did is start the arms race and keep it going. If you look at this this way, in the UVa massacre couple years ago, they did say yea someone in the classroom should have had a gun and the massacre will have been a smaller massacre. However, get this, by arming everyone in the room, you're assuming one of them wont initiate a massacre the week after. Also the idea of "if everyone has a gun there will be no gun crime" only flies when the shooter cares for his life. In the age of suicide killers there is no reason why the fact that everyone is armed makes much of a difference, OK it will turn a 50 dead people massacre into a 25 dead massacre. Not to mention some of the crowd will shoot other people by accident. There is a reason why a gun rampage doesn't happen in a police station, and its not only cos every one in there has a gun, its also the fact that they make you give up your gun @ the door cos you have to go through metal detectors and security and what not, same with courts and other federal/govt buildings.
Sadly one more reason we will not ever be overthrowing a tyrannical govt ... ever no matter how many people have guns.

However going in the opposite direction, If we start now maybe in a 100 years we will have this problem solved. Maybe ...

In 1776 maybe there was a 3 month window where the people could have overthrown the federal gubbamint ... after that forget it. After that, the second amendment isn't worth the paper its written on ... not even in Syria can rebels with ak47's hold a town against tanks and aircraft. And they dont even have drones and nuclear bombs. Quaint idea, but if the gubbamint wanted to do the simpsons thing and drop a dome over Charlotte, a few 1000 rednecks with guns aint gonna make a scratch in that dome.

The only way out of this as I see it -
Stop sales of weapons and I dont mean baseball bats or leather belts. just ones that you cant use from over 3 ft away ... and ammo to the public. Cops and military only, and security personnel (like the ones that drive armoured trucks etc.
The second step is to stop sales and tightly document and limit the sales of chemicals that are needed to make bullets. Sorta like the ephedrine thing pharmacies do.
There is enough ammo and guns to last 30-40 years ... after which they will need to be made. Right there they will start to become valuable, no one is going to make a 1000 and shoot indiscriminately. Besides anyone with skills to make bullets aint gonna be a worthless criminal. He's likely gonna be a machinist or other skilled laborer. Maybe he can make katana stems for GS people. Anyway, let that pass another 20-30 yrs and we should truly be free of random gun violence. In a way the shelf life of bullets are gonna determine what the duration of the ban will be.

Oh yea once we clean the streets of the guns, we only make and supply the cops with rifles, and the smaller weapons are only for military. In India cops have rifles, no one else has guns. Yes there is still crime, but its usually perpetrated by a knife or a bottle or a stick or a bat. 1-2 hits and the criminal has to run cos there will be a mob running him down at that point.

It took us 100+, like 200+ years to get here, we cant solve it in a week.
Cool.
Buddha.

And 2nd amendment is to overthrow gubbamint, not shoot the guy shooting at you. Serious ... but damn well insane.
Cool.
Buddha.

Motorcycles kill many people every year in the US.  Maybe we shouldn't allow anyone to buy them either.

I disagree that the 2nd amendment is to overthrow the government but is a part of the checks and balances that keep any person or group from having total control over the people.

If there are no guns or weapons allowed then there would be no hunting. Just think of how many more deer there would be for motorcyclists to try to avoid :icon_eek:

Dictators love gun bans.

If they were to ban "assault" weapons tomorrow who would enforce it? Surely not the police as they'd be out-gunned. Show up and ask me about any of my "assault " weapons and I'll gladly tell you about how I sold them to that guy, you know,  that guy who i sold them to.

Dictators who have tanks and aircraft could care less if people have guns.

Checks and balances ... I guess that worked out well in the last few years for the columbine, UVa and aurora. Here is a check and balance for you, people will go nuts and kill people. The check is to slow down the rate.

Killing deer etc for food, well that is a rifle, not a problem, we will keep those.

We're not gonna ban nothing, if I had my way, we'd just stop supplying guns and ammo to civilians. Cops and govt can get ammo. However as the ammo supply dwindles for the high speed guns, the ammo supplied to cops should slowly get more towards the rifles. The final shift is when no one has any guns, and the cops have rifles.

This will never happen, the solution as the people see it is, oh yea he shot up 50 people, so if everyone in the theater had a gun, someone would have shot him before he got to 25. Seriously that is correct. No disputing that, however given that people will go nuts, and they can pile up bodies in a few seconds with high speed weapons, only way to make a dent in it, allow everything to phase out. No new bullets, and when the supply dwindles we dont worry about it.

An armed public wont make a damn difference if the federal govt wanted to grind you into dust unless you own tanks and aircraft and the other navigation and intelligence capabilities.

Cool.
Buddha.

really dangerous stuff is really easy to make. the problem is that we have emotional idiots making laws. people legislating against things they know nothing about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U


p.s. virginia tech and UVa are not the same.

Quote from: Roxtar on July 27, 2012, 08:41:34 PM
really dangerous stuff is really easy to make. the problem is that we have emotional idiots making laws. people legislating against things they know nothing about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U


p.s. virginia tech and UVa are not the same.

+1
It's really easy to get into a personal attack driven argument on this subject. Quite surprised it hasn't, which in and of itself speaks volumes.

An armed man is a citizen
An unarmed man is a subject.

Buddha, since the gun ban in the UK gun crime has gone UP. Meanwhile, every house in Switzerland has a gun and their gun crime is amonst the lowest in the civilized world.

Don't blame guns, blame the people, the culture.

Govts generally do not like to visibly display their force outright. It reveals to the public what they are really about. So what they do is play a balancing game.... let you think your a re free with enough Entertainment to keep you Entertained and enough Distractions to keep you Distracted while controlling you with pieces of paper and threatening letters if those pieces of paper do not work. Resorting to physical confrontation is the Last Resort.

I have been through a gun rule change and Forced thing where suddenly my quite legal activity which bothered no-one was made criminal for no good reason. Where the govt Stole my own money then used that stolen money to Buy my guns off me. Gee thanks very fukking much. When you are mugged by your own government you lose all respect for the process entirely. When you see and hear politicians say they disagree with the proposed legislation and that their constituents also disagree with it, but they then vote that legislation in, then you KNOW you are in a corrupt system that cannot be changed by anyone doing anything or by anyone voting.

The Supposed Logic used to remove/restrict guns would have fair more effect when applied to other things which exact a greater death toll on the population. BUT, guns are so easy to be the boogeyman.

Michael

So, as everyone on here should know,  I'm a gun-toting redneck with more firearms than is reasonable for one person to possess .  However, in seeking facts regarding gun laws and there effects I can come to the conclusion that almost all studies done are very biased. The one that seems pretty straightforward (I'll post a link ) shows that even though there are many millions of more guns in the U.S. since the 80's the rate of gun violence is half. That's not saying there is less violence but there is less per person. Comes from a professor at George Mason.  I'll find it again

We dont need a gun ban. That doesn't make sense, well unless you melt down all the guns in existence what sorta ban is it.
I was talking about a bullet supply cut off. The short term situation will get worse no doubt.
Yea the truth is that the system and culture create the nuts that run on killing rampages ... However It is a lot harder to change that culture, heck we cant stop mexicans wandering over the borders every night. It is a heck of a lot easier to slow down the rate @ which the bodies pile up.

Once again its about the 2nd amendment. I have heard it said as - You are supposed to bear arms to have the ability to overthrow the gubbamint. It doesn't even matter what they have us entertained with, what they are distracting us with ... it makes no difference, try to over throw the gubbamint, it dont even work in syria.
Unless we have tanks, aircraft carriers, those B2's, drones, and the intel they have there is no way any group of individuals overthrows a gubbamint, not even Syria's govt.
Else all I can say is - Guns are great, when the tanks roll over them, they make a nice crunch sound ...
Other than that, they are useful to kill people, element of surprise works well even when the other people are armed, like walk into a crowded subway and rain bullets works good, then they can be used to rob banks, mug people walking down the streets, and well as do break in's and catch people in their beds.
Element of surprise trumps guns, a 10-20 second reaction time at best puts atleast 50 bullets in play before the best of marksmen take out the shooter. That even discounts the misses from the defensive shooters.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people, and people with guns kill people a lot faster. There is plenty of guns out there for this fool to assume someone in the theater could be armed. He just didn't care, he player numbers and psychology, midnight screening of a movie with violence, yes the window of surprise goes from 20 sec to about 60, so I rain bullets and I should take out 50-60 people.
The fact that guns prevent gun violence ends when we stop assuming the perpetraters of the crime expect to walk away from the scene of the crime and sit in jail @ tax payer expense for 20 years.
Yes guns will reduce those 1 on 1 crimes. This, columbine and the Va Tech (thanks Roxtar) were crimes of surprise as much as gun crimes.
An armed person is a citizen - 100% true however the unsaid addition to that rule is (if he's armed with comparable weaponry) Like someone pointed out everything is a weapon. So you have keys in your pocket, yes you're armed, you can easily stick it in someone's eye and take him out, you're armed with a lethal weapon. And in reality that will work as well as a gun if you're trying to claim your rights as a citizen when the gubbamint dont want to give you something.

Dont take a fist to a gun fight, and your ak47 against a B2 is just that. Seriously no one is overthrowing any govt with only armed rebellion. Not syria, not libya, not tunisia. The succesful rebellions were done by screaming people and not by shooting people.

You want the gubbamint to do or not do something, bring 10-20 million of your closest friends, and be armed with pencils and paper and todays equivalents - smart phones and blogs and watch it happen.
Dont bring a gun to a pen fight my friend and the second amendment will never be accomplished with guns.

Cool.
Buddha.

I guess if there was metal detectors everywhere, @ offices, @ movie theaters, @ subway and bus stations @ everyplace people gather and many schools already have em ... so then we'd only have to worry about people going berserk on crowded streets and other places like playgrounds and what not ... yea that wont do it. It will do something, not all that we need.
Cool.
Buddha.

I could see that but for the fact it's still all but impossible to enforce it at the point. If a ban or restriction on guns or ammo would've been put into law about 1890 it'd work. But for their to be 90 guns for every 100 people, all of which have plenty of ammo, it just can't logistically happen with our extremely inefficient government process. Are the cops and military, both current and former, going to turn in their personal weapons? Or is there some unheard of technology changes that can track down the 1000's of rounds of ammo on my closet? I know the 2nd amendment is for us to be able to overthrow a corrupt government and that it's unfeasible to do so with any sort of small arms, but I personally have seen the devastation a couple derka-derka assholes with AK-47s can do to a overwhelming force of trained infantry marines in an ambush situation.

for a gun ban to work there would have to be a search of every single home and property in hte US. i bought 30 extended mags, when clinton banned them. since grandfathered in, they brought a premium.  but guns can be hidden. ive got a cave on the property i could hide them in.

Guns are irrelevant, bullets are the choke point. Bullets have a shelf life, as that shelf life runs so do bullets. 100 year fix IMHO.
Here is the issue other than that element of surprise I refered to earlier.
Law abiding citizens should have guns, and can have all the guns and ammo they want.
A law abiding citizen would never think of going to a movie with enough artillery to make the movie look like a walk in the park. Criminals will. If you can ever tip that balance with legislation, let me know.
Choking off bullets and the chemicals to make gunpowder etc will just make bullets very very $.

Lets see how many gun rampages happen when you have to put in your ID and pay $30 for each bullet, which you need to buy 1 at a time and 1 per day, cos it is made by a machinist by hand. Puts those sparkplugs of adidas to shame huh.
In 1890 if we had done it, we wont have had any of these shoot em up sprees today. We do it today and in 2112 we wont have these sprees. Right now if we were to legislate bullets so they cost 10X as much, these sprees will get a lot less bloody in a few months. Its a lot less "empowering" to blow away 50 random, unarmed, clueless and defenseless people when that could cost you 5 grand and the fact that you have put in your name and ID in that "purchasing system" before you even tried to walk into the theater. Heck I'd make it so each subsequent bullet purchase will cost more, unless you turned in the spent shell casings. Something like that. Sorta comparing the fence on the border vs an electronic verification system for illegal immigrants.

Cool.
Buddha.

Except someone willing to rampage out doesn't care about cost. So the only ones you hurt are those who like to shoot often and legally. As far as a shelf life on ammo, store properly it last a very very long time. You might be right about the 100 year timeline.  In which time the political landscape would change because everyone would want bans and laws lifted so they could legally dedend themselves from the criminals shooting smuggled bullets at them.

Numbers sir Huff, numbers. If you turn in shell casings, cheaper, so the ones that shoot for fun will not be affected that much. Remember this is an idea in progress. 100 years yes, but if in 3 months bullets cost 10 bones a piece, I can see that 100 year number get close enough to it in 1yr. Then those that have a stockpile will be tempted to hoard and sell them instead of shoot em.

People who have 5g or equivalent sitting around dont quite feel the need to throw it all away killing random bystanders. True they want to kill one particular person, their ex's lawyer, the cop who gave them a 300 buck ticket for parking in the handicapped spot etc, not random people.

People will go nuts and want to kill other people, they will do it, only thing we can do is slow down the rate @ which the bodies pile up. Also the drive should send people toward rifles and large guns, not small and easily concealed ones. A rifle is good defense against intruders (not motorcycles but people) and good to shoot deer etc, but not that useful as a random bystander mass killing spree. So use bullets 1 at a time, keep and return shell casings and be documented as you buy and turn in these etc.
Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on July 27, 2012, 05:43:22 AM
...
Oh yea once we clean the streets of the guns,

that right there is the problem.
It will happen as #4 in "the list".
#1, 2, and 3 being:
1. that "world peace" thing
2. end hunger
3. get rid of all drugs and alchohol

Quote from: The Buddha on July 27, 2012, 05:43:22 AM
I guess if there was metal detectors everywhere,

If it was impossible to effectively hide metal guns any more... then the criminals would then just have sufficient incentive to start making guns out of plastic/ceramic/kevlar, etc.

Right now, it should be doable, but has insufficient "return on investment". ie: $$$$$
Part of the cost being that the government has apparently banned non-metalic gun production.
but if they ban ALL public gun production... This would be the obvious next step to happen.
If the manufacturing shop is illegal anyway, may as well go all out on it.

So how would a grad student purchase an AR-15 a 12gauge and a pistol? Not to mention all the ammo. Even if all we had were bolt action rifles you just run into sniper rampages ala D.C. sniper a few years back. It would be much more simple to fire off a few rounds of .270 from 500yds a get away,  only to have another go later. All the while the community is freaking out. Guns and ammo are very expensive as it is and it doesn't stop anyone.

Quote from: Huff1371 on July 30, 2012, 11:14:29 AM
Even if all we had were bolt action rifles you just run into sniper rampages ala D.C. sniper a few years back. It would be much more simple to fire off a few rounds of .270 from 500yds a get away,  only to have another go later. All the while the community is freaking out.

This is just another indication that these bloodbath shooters are just stupid, and deranged.
They want to do the whole close-up gore and ick, and get covered in it, so to speak :(

If they were interested in just invoking low-level fear in the general populace, over a long amount of time,  they would act like actual snipers do, who want to "terrorize" a target area, as you say:

do nasty things from a distance, then quietly walk away scott-free... to do it another time.
again, and again, and again.


But they seem to want "short, limited count, extreme" fear, rather than a wider area of effect.


it's kinda surprising that the actual terrorist organizations havent done this.
but I guess they suck at training marksmen.  Thank goodness.

Or maybe their recruitment techniques dont play well in their target audience.... who WANT to die, rather than walk away and do it again/   :cookoo:

I'm guessing none of us are scholars on the subject, but if the intent was to arm the people against an equally well armed government, shouldn't we be allowed to own tanks, missiles and bombs? A city filled with people carrying guns can't stop a few 1500 pound bombs.

Practically speaking, I have no problem with a city overflowing with gun violence choosing to outlaw guns. Conversely, I have no problem with a city with low gun-crime rates choosing to be very pro-gun.

Quote from: Juan1 on July 30, 2012, 03:41:53 PM

Practically speaking, I have no problem with a city overflowing with gun violence choosing to outlaw guns.

It. Doesnt. Work.

Washington D.C. has very strict anti-gun laws.
It also has a horrendously high rate of gun related crime.
even after over *30 years* of a gun ban.

Here's a source to back up that claim. from none other than... the washington post, you will note.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201818.html

Gun laws only make it harder for law abiding citizens to own them. That is the bottom line.

The kind of people that commit crimes with guns are...you guessed it! Law breakers. Make all the laws you want, try to control guns all you want, it's ONLY going to make it harder for people who WANT to go through the proper channels to own them.

Again, I'll say that laws only work on people who wish to obey them. Laws don't stop law breakers.

Quote from: Kijona on July 30, 2012, 07:53:09 PM
Gun laws only make it harder for law abiding citizens to own them. That is the bottom line.

The kind of people that commit crimes with guns are...you guessed it! Law breakers. Make all the laws you want, try to control guns all you want, it's ONLY going to make it harder for people who WANT to go through the proper channels to own them.

Again, I'll say that laws only work on people who wish to obey them. Laws don't stop law breakers.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^

As mentioned.... England has a handgun ban. Check out their stats.... marked increase in handgun crime since the ban went in.

Most... I don't know, 99.98735%.... of confiscated guns from crimes in Australia have no record of being sold in this country. Which means, they msyeriously entered the country and ended up in the hands of the criminals. Maybe those crims didn't get the memo they are't allowed to own guns without a license and without registering that gun with the police.

Michael

Guys you're talking about what I call see-saw laws. I am not talking about 1 guy getting killed, 1 at a time. I can do that with a baseball bat and element of surprise. A squeeze law will take 30-100 years.

So a sniper did it with a gun and a bigger element of surprise. Big Ficking deal. 1 at a time, not 50. Sure swap that rifle for a ak-47 and it could have been 50 per incident.

You cant stop it in 1 year, or even 4. Heck if you preferred you might as well go all the way the other way. Have zones where you need to be carrying. Heck make it so that the streets are carry zones.

A plastic gun, lovely, when you have guns that can fire off 100 rds a sec and not melt and run, be made of plastic, I'd love to get my hands on some, I think I need to make engine cases and other stuff. And, my plastic containers full of food show up just fine @ airport scanners. What next, guns out of air ?

You guys are all scraping round the edges. We want law abiding people to own guns. My idea is just to document that process. Use up bullets and show it as such and you get bullets cheap. 1 at a time, use up a clip shooting @ the range, well, just pick up the casings. Rifles and revolvers anyway have casings in the chambers. Law abiding citizens get bullets cheap. Criminals dont. Simple.

Dont just say no no no, if you see a problem say what is the problem and how to solve it. No one is going to listen to us and do squat, so I guess fire away (he he no pun intended).

Cool.
Buddha.

here's the thing...lots of you are making valid points...heres mine...no guns wont do much about tanks...no we cant buy tanks...but dont think for a second that if it came down to a revolution for our freedom from a tyrannical govt (which is what the 2nd is about, remember they just had to do that to gain OUR freedom) 1/2 the military would defect to the cause of freedom and bring their tanks with them.  however i do agree it was entirely easier in 1776 with their oppressors on the other side of the atlantic with nothing but wind power to get here/there.  but if the need arose it could still be done

Buddha,

You want to Squeezer the forced change over 100 years? In that time you could also change the culture so that people would still have guns but would have greater respect for them etc.

Michael

Robtech - If 1/2 the military will breakaway and bring their weapons with them, then we're even with the govt, so we dont need weapons now. BTW we still wont be even, nuclear weapons are under the presidents thumb via launch codes.

Mister - culture change will occur over 100 years, yes, except it is likely to get worse ... think its bad with 8 billion on the planet, try 10 billion or 12 billion. We cant legislate it and we cant get a useful change now. Pushing the small arms ammo out of circulation will right now turn ammo into $$$. A guy with a few cases of it can sell it and get by a few months instead of shooting up a theater.

I want to move towards big guns. Rifles and the like. Rifles also need you to have discipline and training etc etc. Heck carry those buggers strapped to your back. More useful than a little gun in your pocket. Shooter loaded up with 5K in bullets walks into a theater, where waiting in line he sees every man woman and ... well child older than 18 carrying a rifle. Heck mandate training etc etc and a license like a car.

Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: Huff1371 on July 30, 2012, 11:14:29 AM
So how would a grad student purchase an AR-15 a 12gauge and a pistol? Not to mention all the ammo. Even if all we had were bolt action rifles you just run into sniper rampages ala D.C. sniper a few years back. It would be much more simple to fire off a few rounds of .270 from 500yds a get away,  only to have another go later. All the while the community is freaking out. Guns and ammo are very expensive as it is and it doesn't stop anyone.

afaik this grad student had or was on a govt research grant. hard to get, btu very LOOSELY controlled once obtained. got to go thru hell and high water, to get said grant. once obtained yoyu could disappear for the msot part. and jsut submit a piece of paper once ona while

One more "see what a big man I am with these guns blowing away unarmed people".
Seriously guys, I dont see an end to this.
The reason these things dont happen @ a police station. Its those metal detectors in the front lobby, no one can get in with a gun.

Cool.
Srinath.

Quote from: The Buddha on August 06, 2012, 08:28:42 AM
The reason these things dont happen @ a police station. Its those metal detectors in the front lobby, no one can get in with a gun.

Dont be silly. It's not the metal detector that stops them. It's the armed police officers STANDING NEXT TO the metal detectors.

They dont try it because people are armed and waiting for them.

Any place that has a serious concern about weapons based violence, never just puts "a metal detector" there.
They put a metal detector *with an armed guard* there.

It is pointless to blame an object for the act of an individual.

Quote from: dam on August 06, 2012, 10:19:48 AM
It is pointless to blame an object for the act of an individual.

+1000

Quote from: Phil B on August 06, 2012, 10:06:37 AM

Quote from: The Buddha on August 06, 2012, 08:28:42 AM
The reason these things dont happen @ a police station. Its those metal detectors in the front lobby, no one can get in with a gun.

Dont be silly. It's not the metal detector that stops them. It's the armed police officers STANDING NEXT TO the metal detectors.

They dont try it because people are armed and waiting for them.

Any place that has a serious concern about weapons based violence, never just puts "a metal detector" there.
They put a metal detector *with an armed guard* there.

Correct good point ... however I dont believe they dont try it because people are armed and waiting for them ... they dont try it cos people are armed, waiting for them and they are not armed.

Essentially unless we see metal detectors everywhere and armed guards next to them (thanks Phil B) this sorta crap will keep happening.
However there is another way to get this under control.

If you're killed/injured by a bullet made by say luger, you can sue luger for loss of life or limb, like tobacco.

I dont know guys this seems to happen on a large scale every few months. My whole point of attack is not to do un control, that is futile. Bullet control is far more effective. Cut off the chemicals/materials that are used to make bullets and make bullets harder to get for criminals and at the very least make it rather $$$ to dump untold 100's into some random passers by.
Cool.
Srinath.

Sorry, but I would think it's a whole lot easier to make bullets, than guns.
Specially if you dont do it legally. Then you can skip details like "full metal jacket", blah blah, and do it old school:

make your own gunpowder, or canibalize from fireworks
cast your own lead bullets (trivial!)
hand-load into old shell casings (which should be trivial to get. You cant, after all, make shell casings illegal. Aint no way that law's gonna passs)

And, if you're talking about a shotgun, instead of a high precision weapon.. ammo for that should be even easier to make.

Quote from: Phil B on August 06, 2012, 12:16:54 PM
Sorry, but I would think it's a whole lot easier to make bullets, than guns.
Specially if you dont do it legally. Then you can skip details like "full metal jacket", blah blah, and do it old school:

make your own gunpowder, or canibalize from fireworks
cast your own lead bullets (trivial!)
hand-load into old shell casings (which should be trivial to get. You cant, after all, make shell casings illegal. Aint no way that law's gonna passs)

And, if you're talking about a shotgun, instead of a high precision weapon.. ammo for that should be even easier to make.

Making shotgun shells is one thing. Making rifle/pistol rounds is another. It's not nearly as simple as you put it.

The -easier- and -legal- thing is to make a cannon. Did you know that's legal? Providing it uses a fuse and loads from the muzzle, it's completely legal to make and produce your own cannon(s) - any caliber, any size. Why? Because in the U.S. they are considered archaic technology. Make no mistake, however, they have all the same laws as any other firearm - you cannot fire it in your backyard if you live within X number of miles from the city and Y number of feet from your neighbor. You also cannot legally have, possess, or manufacture such a device if you are prohibited by either law, age, or local governing authority, from owning a firearm.

Did you also know that Gatling guns are NOT considered "automatic" weaponry? Reason: because the weapon itself is not sustaining fire from a single pull of the trigger. Instead, it is using a device to aid in pulling the trigger over and over again in rapid succession.

Knowledge is power. Gain all you can.

Choke points - lets see how many there are.

Gunpowder is not exactly fireworks explosive, I have played with fireworks explosive since I was a baby. The thing is 99% of fireworks comes from asia, India and china to be precise. Dont let in as many or make it cost a lot more.

Lead is rather valuable as it is, which is why batteries have a "street value" Doube it or triple it or quadruple it. Heck make it so you cant buy without turning in a core. Also lead is mined most of it in australia if I recall, where ever it is, it will have to be tightly controlled which will happen if we were to artificially tax lead @ 400% or 1000%.

Shell casings - we should mandate it so you have to return a casing to buy ammo, turn in 10 and you get 10 turn in 5 and you only get 5.

Guess what, some random bystander victim only needs to sue the bullet or gun maker and some judge only needs to let it go forward that it will automatically cause the ammo companies to regulate all of this.

Tobacco companies denied they were causing cancer as late as the 60's. I dont think bullet companies can deny it even for a day. 1 lawsuit and all of this will happen.

I'd rather see a truck with a cannon loaded on it. Atleast if you were to pull up to a police station you could blow away their pesky metal detector along with the armed guard next to it.

Cool.
Buddha.

You know, decades ago in australia the govt to encourage us to use less gas by raising the price. Didn't work as intended but made them heaps in tax revenue.

Increasing bullet cost will have zero effect as well. These crazy peeps seen to acquire rather expensive firearms with little money. Darn odd. Martin Bryant in aust was the same. Toughest state for gun laws. But some how this unlicensed guy acquired bloody expensive guns without evidence off how he acquired them.

Michael

no matter if made illegal in any way shape or form, they still will be acquired

Once again guys you're thinking short term. You pass 1 gun law and the next shooting that occours ... bam "See I told you gun laws dont work"
This is like killing a person by sending mosquitos to suck their blood. Will take 30-40 years but will happen.
Implement all of these and in 20-30 years I would see a difference, assuming nothing else happens to reverse it. Gun bans dont work cos you can spend the $ and make a gun, 1 time expense. Has to be bullet based.
Cool.
Buddha.

How long have street drugs (cocaine, herion, meth, etc.) been illegal in the US?  How much money have we spent trying to enforce drug laws?  Yet, we still have drugs all over the streets of the US.  I have a hard time believing that gun laws would be any different.  The only difference is that then you just took a group of law abiding citizens, and made them into criminals that you have to spend money to prosecute just because they don't want to give up their guns or AMMO.  Prohibition didn't work, drug laws (however necessary) haven't worked, and bullet selling bans would most certainly not work.  Except to keep ammo out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

So take away all bullets. Problem solved? Not quite. Put some chemicals into a bottle and toss it into a crowd. No metal for the detectors to find and can be made from common readily available materials. No bullets or firearms required. A person intent on hurting or killing people will find a way regardless of any solution you might dream up. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Bombsquad: I am not talking about trying to stop the chemicals that are needed, I am trying to make them more $$$. Once more time, 10 years before it starts to show any effect. Drug war isn't that simple. Its comming across the border. OK we gotta stop that. Cos pretty soon ammo will come across too.

Dam: Numbers man, numbers. Yes bottle into a crowd can hurt ... except its hurt vs kill, and its a few people instead of dozen and up.

Cool.
Buddha.

Buddha, you can call it bullet ban all you like and still be like a politician saying "But you can still keep your guns we aren't denying that" but the end result will be the same... the honest law abiding citizen is the one hurt by it.

Apparently there are no handguns in the UK. But handgun crime is rampant.

Gun crime in Aust is caused by guns which records show never even entered the country - ie, licensed importers didn't bring them in. In Aust we also need to show a Weapons License to buy ammo. Somehow the criminals without such a license are not only acquiring guns but also your precious ammo.

Now, if you want to save some lives.... go after Doctors!

Here's a couple of videos for you to mull over...

Why doctors are more dangerous than guns http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jhj3u3LoooM

How to stop a massacre http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epZod2qyyN4

Legitimate Govts don't like to Use Force on their home territories because it exposes them for what they are. They NEED the people to Voluntarily go along with them. Even though they have Tanks and the like that doesn't mean they are unbeatable by people armed only with small arms. In countries run by Dictators things are different. But even then, a military dictator with tanks and stuff doesn't necessarily have a peaceful existence and the next Coup is just around the corner.

A govt is less likely going to resort to total 100% control of everything, from a situation not already like that, when the people are armed.

PLUS, and this is often forgotten... an armed populace makes a country not likely to be invaded, or invaded well. Governmental military conflicts costs a LOT of money and can bleed countries dry very fast.

Michael

<rant>
Not to get too political here, but what we need is not more laws that infringe on our freedoms.  We need lawmakers that are less interested in getting re-elected, and more interested in what's best for this country.  We need politicians that realize that people have to learn to be responsible for their own actions, instead of having their hands held.  Sure it's popular to extend jobless benefits and disability benefits to more and more people.  We are creating a culture with too large of a safety net.  With no incentive to succeed, people will continue to subsist.  Eventually you have more people on government handouts or payroll for all of these "entitlement" (don't get me started on the word "entitlement") programs than people paying taxes to support them.  At that point we are bound to fail, with no way of electing officials who will do what's actually in the interest of the country.  Ultimately it brings down more and more of those who have decided to try to work and succeed in life.
</rant>

What were we talking about again?

Quote from: bombsquad83 on August 07, 2012, 02:11:11 PM
Eventually you have more people on government handouts or payroll for all of these "entitlement" (don't get me started on the word "entitlement") programs than people paying taxes to support them.

I heard we actually just reached that point. 50% of the population in in the US is now receiving some kind of "government aid"

Now the question is how many of those people have any morals and work ethic left, to vote the aid away?

PS: specific references: 49%, reported as of 2010. But given the constant growth, seems like we should be at 50% today.
http://mercatus.org/publication/nation-government-dependents

I've heard something similar Phil.  Scary stuff.  Our entire society is being rotted away by the lack of responsibility created by the entitlement atmosphere.

Phil; Bomb

If you haven't read it I think you'll find the 1922 work "The Revolt Against Civilization" an Interesting read. Free PDF version here http://www.solargeneral.com/library/revolt-against-civilization-lothrop-stoddard.pdf

Summary: Stoddard analyses why past, advanced-for-the-time civilizations collapsed and examines whether the same signs are present in our societies. Quite insightful.

Michael

Yes 50% on gubbamint aid, and as soon as we can prevent people from getting older and getting to that pesky social security receivable age we should be able to cut it off, and yea there is the people on unemployment - (sorry I am guilty here atleast till the 13th) they should just get off their asses and work I say ... I mean I did, so the rest are still unemployed, sorry they are just lazy.

I think Mitt should just get over to the white house and put americans to work, by cutting off their dole. It just makes people lazy and dependent on govt.

Anyway back to guns and gun crime etc ...

Yea we have a damn porous border, so the guns will end up here, only the drug dealers will have guns cos they are smuggled along with drugs.
No one has legislated bullets. Yes a bullet ban wont be a gun ban. You use bullets, and turn the casings in, it wont affect you at all, so you get onto your porch and shoot off a few rounds ... it will affect you only in the sense you need to keep those casings. Same with a gun range or with self defense in your house.

It will just be impossible to effect a drive by but you can well return fire when it happens.

I am only looking to stopping large quantity bullet purchases and subsequent use.

Once again nothing is gonna happen with our ideas here, so dont just say no no no no ... some ideas need to be floated.

Cool.
Buddha.

but large quatitities can be purchsed in small amounts ;)

Quote from The Revolt Against Civilization....

Compared to the vast differences between mankind and other life forms, human differences sink to insignificance and mankind appears a substantial unity.  Compared with each other, the wide differences between men themselves stand out, and mankind becomes an almost infinite diversity.
   
If these distinctions had been clearly recognized, democracy and aristocracy would have been viewed as parts of a larger truth, and there might have been no deep antagonism between them.  Unfortunately, both concepts were formulated long ago, when science was in its infancy and when the laws of life were virtually unknown.  Accordingly, both were founded largely on false notions: democracy upon the fallacy of natural equality; aristocracy upon the fallacy of artificial inequality.

Thus based on error, both democracy and aristocracy worked badly in practice: democracy tending to produce a destructive, levelling equality; aristocracy tending to produce an unjust oppressive inequality.  This merely increased the antagonism between the two system's; because one was continually invoked to cure the harm wrought by the other, and because social ills were ascribed exclusively to the defeated party, instead of being diagnosed as a joint product.

For the past half century the democratic idea has gained an unparalleled ascendancy in the world, while the aristocratic idea has been correspondingly discredited. Indeed, so complete has been democracy's triumph that it has been accorded a superstitious veneration, and any criticism of its fundamental perfection is widely regarded as a sort of lese-majeste or even heresy.

Now, this is an unhealthy state of affairs, because the democratic idea is not perfect but is a mixture of truth with errors like "natural equality" which modern science has proved to be dearly unsound. Such a situation is unworthy of an age claiming to be inspired by that scientific spirit whose basic quality is unflinching love of truth. In a scientific age no idea should be sacrosanct, no facts above analysis and criticism.

The above comes from later in the book. I suggest this Work because it is a Good read.

Michael

indeed it is michael. were seeing this passage almost daily in many places in the world

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on August 07, 2012, 07:01:22 PM
but large quatitities can be purchsed in small amounts ;)

Not unless you show proof that the previous small quantity you bought has been used up as per my restriction.
In fact we can implement this right now. Core charge for bullets, $10 per. That will make old bullets worth a lot of $$$ and we will see a big drop in people wanting to dump 1500 bucks into random crowds.
Of course someone with a huge stock pile they bought for nothing could still do it, but think about it, the core alone is worth $10, they have 1000+, obviously they will also be faced with a dilema, sell it ... or shoot into a crowd ?

Mister: Anyone can theorise something and write a book or article. I remember reading a well regarded article in 2004 which basically said "do you know of a dirt manufacturer in the US manufacturing more land ?" So what is available is all that there is ? so it is a limited supply right ? so to make $ you need to buy as much of it as you can cos it will be worth more and more and more."

All these theories and the books that explain what they are are based on a some assumptions. So is mine - namely, people with guns cant over throw a govt with tanks and aircraft, and people wont make bullets out of compressed air and rocks - really I thought about it too, sorry I cant prevent someone from doing a paint ball thing but use polished sharpened rock/stone or even moulded plastic or something like that. Anyway that will still hurt or injure good but not kill. anyway the theory under lying any of these eloquent books could be flawed, and all the author accomplished is to sell you a big collection of words. Seen many many many ... including the ones that our economy was built on for decades till it collapsed ... Ayn Rand.

Its not quite like increasing gas prices to curtail driving ... and turning around as saying the next day that its making revenue for the govt but people still driving as much ... Increase gas prices and people will start slowly changing to using less and less. BTW in the 80's in india the jap manufacturers were all the rage. All of them had a 100cc bike they were making.Southern india had a suzuki partnership and they made a Tvs-Suzuki, yeaaaaaaayyy we bought it in droves, then came northern India's Escorts with yamaha, and that bike made more power but tirned in 40 k/l instead of the 50 of the suzuki, it was luke warm, then came bajaj with kawasaki which promised 60, people went nuts for it. Then came Hero a bicycle company with literally no experience bigger than a moped, but they had a honda CD100 motor - 4 stroke the only one in the bunch ... and they literally killed the market. They took up over 40% by the late 80's. Why - 80 k/l.

10 years if you want to change behavior of people with $. If gas cost $10 and I didn't have a 60 mpg bike I'd tell my boss to kiss my a$$ I'm working from home 4 days out of 5. By that point all the rest of my team mates will have done the same thing. Yes govt makes $ in the mean time but in the end we will behave differently.

Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on August 07, 2012, 08:22:18 PM
Core charge for bullets, $10 per. That will make old bullets worth a lot of $$$ and we will see a big drop in people wanting to dump 1500 bucks into random crowds.

People who do this, usually know they're going to end up dead at the end.
As such, they really dont care bout the cost of bullets. It could be $1500, $3000, or $10000.
Wont make a difference.

Quote from: The Buddha on August 07, 2012, 01:35:31 PM
Dam: Numbers man, numbers. Yes bottle into a crowd can hurt ... except its hurt vs kill, and its a few people instead of dozen and up.

Cool.
Buddha.

You're the one stating small numbers from anything other than bullets and saying that a few people would only be hurt not killed. A cloud of toxic fumes could easily kill a large number of people in a very short time. I'm just trying to point out that bullets and guns aren't a requirement.

Quote from: dam on August 07, 2012, 09:19:15 PM

Quote from: The Buddha on August 07, 2012, 01:35:31 PM
Dam: Numbers man, numbers. Yes bottle into a crowd can hurt ... except its hurt vs kill, and its a few people instead of dozen and up.

Cool.
Buddha.

You're the one stating small numbers from anything other than bullets and saying that a few people would only be hurt not killed. A cloud of toxic fumes could easily kill a large number of people in a very short time. I'm just trying to point out that bullets and guns aren't a requirement.

Yup. A walk into any supermarket will see you with enough ingredients to create something On The Spot that could kill many people.

What did this guy in the theater have, like $20k worth of gear? Martyn B down in Oz used some of the most expensive firearms possible down here instead of an elcheapo readily available AK47. As I said and has been said, price means nothing to these people. Price will not stop another such event. When a person is bent on killing lots of people they will Always find a means to the end they desire.

Once again.... an expensive bullet is just hurting the law abiding.

Michael

Quote from: The Buddha on August 07, 2012, 08:22:18 PM

All these theories and the books that explain what they are are based on a some assumptions. So is mine - namely, people with guns cant over throw a govt with tanks and aircraft..

Here's where you're wrong.  The points that mister and I are making are based on the history of our world.  Facts that are only disputable by saying that what happened before won't happen again this time.  Take some time and look at the failed governments of the past.  Study it.  Heck, you don't even have to go back more than two years!  Look at how the revolutions that occurred recently in Libya and Syria will succeed, when they started out with nothing but an angry populous with guns and the will to fight against a government with tanks and planes.  It might be a trite phrase, but I really believe that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

End up dead after a killing spree - hell no, Exhibit A Jared Loughner - Life in prison for killing a bunch of people.
Cost wont matter - are you stupid - OK lets see who can show up with 2g for the 20 bullets ... 2g in cash is a good incentive to stay atleast to get drunk/stoned. The sikh temple shooting guy was a white supremacist. He may have still gone on a killing spree, but think about this ... 99% of people wont ... the colorado shooter wont have, he was shooting into a crowd of random people.

History of the world: As interpreted by someone ? OK you're referring to libya and syria you do know that India kicked the british out and we never had guns ? If there is enough numbers, guns wont matter. If 90% want it, its easy, no one needs to be armed, heck @ 60% no one needs to be armed. @ 60% in US we can easily vote the ones that we want in, its winner take all politics.

Guns will help against the govt in the US if there is more than 50% who're against the govt but less than 60%. Really that's when you want to use them ? So that 60% of people can impose their will on 40% ? Heck I'd say fine that is valid. But you need to recognize that window. Past 60% its vote them out, under 50%, you're not the majority and you dont deserve to be the govt.

All the arab spring countries have had minority govt's in place who are a aristocracy for decades. Its not even close to 60%, its more like 75% get crushed by the 25%. Not applicable to the US.

Supermarket weapons: Really - really, OK please post me a recipie ... and be mindful of the fact that you can kill people in 6" of water if you have their face in it and have your foot on their neck ... I consider myself one damn fine chemist, I came up with the muriatic acid and acetone tricks to treat rust - copying Kreem kit of course, however I was good enough to recognize the chemicals in their bottles and get it cheaper and easier. Post a recipie.

Cloud of fumes: Again a supermarket chemical weapon, or are you referring to an industrial accident like chernobyl ?

Once again, expensive bullets are only for those that cant turn in a core. Keep cores and you're fine for cheap bullets.

The group of people that want to kill a bunch of people and dont care for their own life is a small subset of the population, and to that add in the cost, 2g and up and its a easy 90% reduction. I know one guy that fits the description easy. You see a shootout @ a mexican grocery store/restaurant I'd watch the news closely to see if it is my friend.

Cool.
Buddha.

Post a recipe?  Sorry, but with $50 one could kill 50 people with materials readily available. From my EOD experience, its surprising how easy this can be accomplished. And these materials will always be around. Just need someone to really look for it.

Quote from: Huff1371 on August 08, 2012, 11:16:41 AM
Post a recipe?  Sorry, but with $50 one could kill 50 people with materials readily available. From my EOD experience, its surprising how easy this can be accomplished. And these materials will always be around. Just need someone to really look for it.

Yes an when that starts to happen when we have choked off the supply of bullets we can worry about that, and seriously I still call bullshit on the chemical bomb from a grocery store ... as long as your recipie doesn't involve "hold vicitim in till she/he stops kicking"
I can send a few 100 people scurrying out into the open air with what I got, and dont think its that easy to do much better.
Cool.
Buddha.

Buddha, are you being disagreeable just for the sake of it?

I show you some FACTS that cost meant nothing to such gunmen and you dismiss it.
I show you how gun bans have had the opposite effect and you dismiss it.
I show you how people are acquiring weapons not legally imported into the country and you dismiss it.
I tell you the Aust govt the fuel price increase and you dismiss it - I bloody well live here man and I am telling you, it had Zero effect on Gas usage and has had zero effect since the higher prices have been introduced over 30 years ago. How much longer you want to wait? Even taking one lane of a highway away and making it a 2 or 3 people in car only lane has not encouraged more cars with 2 or 3 people. Turning vehicle lanes into Bus Only lanes has not made people jump on buses. Adding cycling lanes has not increased cycling to work. So how many decades you want these failed things to run before you will accept it?

I am not posting IED recipes or techniques of there use here for all the world to see.

Now, imagine there are no bullets, no guns, no chemicals in supermarkets, nothing like that. And so the next crazy decides.... hop in hummer, mow people down on busy sidewalks etc., and keep doing until stopped by police or something. Will you then suggest to Ban Cars to stop these peeps? Nope, probably "increase the price of gas to $1000 a gallon" hurting the regular folk but just making the crazy come up with a Different way, like hijacking someone's car or stealing a car.

Michael

Quoteseriously I still call bullshit on the chemical bomb from a grocery store ... as long as your recipie doesn't involve "hold vicitim in till she/he stops kicking"

You must not what to use. Which I do believe is a good thing. While a chemical agent in some sort of dispensing device is just a dumb idea it is not impossible in the least. It is much much much easier to make an explosive device. I have made and used a few explosives whose ingredients are available in most large stores. Before anyone freaks this was done in a Marine Corps training environment. The REF (relative effectivness factor) on the most common was about 0.8 on a scale based on TNT being a 1.0 and C4 being 1.34 .This is relative to weight so one pound of C4 is equal to 1.34 pounds of TNT . This is a strong explosive with a "pushing" force that throws shrapnel around 3000 meters/second. I have yet to see any gun that can fire a single round that speed. Laws outlawing guns, or ammo, or drugs, or anything else will always be broken. The "crazies" that want to kill will still kill. Would it be harder for them if ammo was $200 a bullet? Maybe. Would it stop them at all? VERY doubtful. Would charging that hinder the 99.99999999999999999999% of responible gun owners? Definitely. I realize that most of society has never been through the thousands and thousands of hours of explosives handling or the hundreds of hours of training, but the sad fact is that the information is out there and we can only hope that they only blow themselves to shaZam! trying to manufacture it.

Quote from: The Buddha on August 08, 2012, 12:09:45 PM

Quote from: Huff1371 on August 08, 2012, 11:16:41 AM
Post a recipe?  Sorry, but with $50 one could kill 50 people with materials readily available. From my EOD experience, its surprising how easy this can be accomplished. And these materials will always be around. Just need someone to really look for it.

Yes an when that starts to happen when we have choked off the supply of bullets we can worry about that, and seriously I still call bullshit on the chemical bomb from a grocery store ... as long as your recipie doesn't involve "hold vicitim in till she/he stops kicking"
I can send a few 100 people scurrying out into the open air with what I got, and dont think its that easy to do much better.
Cool.
Buddha.

nitrocellulose.
Nitric acid (you can make yourself)
Sulfuric acid (you can get from auto-zone)
cotton balls (available anywhere)


thermite.
aluminum powder (easy to buy)
iron oxide (easy to make)

countless incendiary devices can be made with over the counter components. (model rocket parts, garage door openers, pressure vessels, electric sprinkler valves, spray nozzles, etc)

really, if you wanted to take out a load of people, guns are the least effective and most expensive method.
for less than $100 worth of stuff from the home improvement store, you could do a lot more damage.

who among us hasn't made a flame thrower out of a lighter, a super soaker, and a half-gallon of kerosene?

Quote from: mister on August 08, 2012, 02:47:11 PM
Buddha, are you being disagreeable just for the sake of it?

I hope I wasn't being disagreeable. I hope I was only disagreeing with the conclusions you have drawn from the facts.
Here is the individual caveats I have for each of these you have mentioned in this post.

Rising gas prices didn't cause a drop in driving. How could people drive less, dont they have to get to work, dont they have to get food, dont they have to do all the same tasks they have assigned to them ? If so how could they stop driving.
BTW India hinges their vehicle descisions on gas mileage, if gas were to go up and stay up so would we. May take 10 years but it will be a permanent ... BTW you do know that in the 60's cars would get you 5-6 mpg and not even bother people. Now we scream bloody murder if we get under 20. Like I said, years, not a few days to make such a huge change.

Raising bullet prices will suck the fun out of it and cut down on bullet purchases though - opposite of driving, it isn't a neccesity. BTW that is called inelastic demand (gas, cigarettes, food etc) vs elastic demand (movie tickets, bullets etc) and not really much to do with anything else.

I however I was only asking for shell casings. Not raising prices at all.

Illegal guns came in, yes and by extension illegal bullets too ? Its gonna have to be a lot of bullets and those take up space and weight. Yes we have a porous border and there is that risk it will happen here. But I would still say most weapons flow into the south from the US, so conceivably it will take a long time to reverse course. Maybe by then we can clamp down on it. Australia may be different from US cos you dont have a border with a country that anyone with a bicycle and a dream can cross and disappear.

Mowing people down in hummers - already happens. I can see that happening in a market like that 95yr old guy did few days ago. Not in a mall or theater. Inherently walls and steps preclude that. Anyway we still have cars, so as a weapon it does exist and we have very little violence related to that.

Guns are second to none in their ability to conceal and for their effectiveness in getting into tight spaces and causing damage. Combine it with the element of surprise and you have unparalleled destructive potential, even if there were armed people in the area, though that can limit the damage, turn a 20 body pile to a 10 body pile.

Huff1371: OK fine 80% of tnt with chemicals from the store. OK I'd say OK. Now here is the question I have. What will happen to the velocity of the shrapnel say 20 ft out. Then further what is the penetration power of the shrapnel compared to a bullet. More over, how hard will that grocery store devise be to setup and detonate. If you have to walk into a crowded area and set up a box and power it up and arm it, and walk away, you see most people will see it and easily walk away or get behind a barrier or call the cops.

And thanks, you decided to use the metric system, I was educated in the metric system and have not given it up yet, to me gravity is still 9.81 m/sec sq.

See this is a good example of using numbers to misinterpret effectiveness - 3000 meters a sec  BTW is that even accurate - sound travels @ 340 m/sec and grenade shrapnel @ around 600-700 m/sec. So your homemade grocery store explosive has shrapnel travelling @ 3000 m/sec ? Faster than a standard issue grenade ? 4-5 times faster ? so why doesn't the govt just use these instead of a grenade ?

OK fine that aside what is the penetration power and the ability to cause damage at 10 ft? how about 20 ft ? 30 ft ? Now remember the detonation force will be a sphere leaving atleast 50% useless cos it goes up, or down into the floor.

Bullets essentially in the hands of a maniac are going to be shot in the body level, held @ waist/chest level and shot level ... none into the air or floor, and they start out at 1500 m/sec, but they have rifling and suffer very little loss in penetration 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 ft or even more.

Heck they can kill people miles away cos they are still going over 500 m/sec.

Hindering 99.99999999999999% - I actually would be very very disappointed if the .00000000001% was left out. It should be hindering 100% of law abiding gun owners. Afterall I am making them pick up their shell casings. However a legit gun owner should do that because it prevents illegal gun owners from getting bullets. You want lawabiding citizens to have access to guns and not criminals, I think its a smart idea to have people bring back the casings. You do a drive by you're not gonna have the time to stop and get your casings. No more driveby's for you. You're sitting @ home, you return their fire - its your house, you can get the casings, so you have bullets and the driveby guys dont.

Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: Roxtar on August 08, 2012, 07:05:48 PM

nitrocellulose.
Nitric acid (you can make yourself)
Sulfuric acid (you can get from auto-zone)
cotton balls (available anywhere)


thermite.
aluminum powder (easy to buy)
iron oxide (easy to make)

countless incendiary devices can be made with over the counter components. (model rocket parts, garage door openers, pressure vessels, electric sprinkler valves, spray nozzles, etc)

really, if you wanted to take out a load of people, guns are the least effective and most expensive method.
for less than $100 worth of stuff from the home improvement store, you could do a lot more damage.

who among us hasn't made a flame thrower out of a lighter, a super soaker, and a half-gallon of kerosene?

Nitrocellulose - yes OK a component of gun powder, then what would you use to do things - other than make bright sparky fire ? A homemade grenade ? anything else ? remember you need to kill people walking down a street or hanging round @ a mall. You cant say I'll set this huge metal box here light up the fuse and force people to get close to it.

Thermite - Yes I have actually seen this used to weld rail road tracks in India on site. It burns good and hot and leaves a nice flowing steel layer. Grind off the parts on the top and contact faces and you ahve a nicely welded railroad track. So unless you plan on shoving people onto that flame to kill them you're looking at a nice education of field work as a railyard tech.

Incindiary devices - yea cool, I'm sure you can kill quite a few people by lighting up a few matches and shoving it up their nostrils.

And a flame thrower with kerosene and a lighter - like in the first scene of lethal weapon 2 ? Oh yea easy, that wont attract any attention. Matter of fact I went to the store today in that attire. Got some beer, beer I haven't seen in years. Anyway you can hit someone with a flame, they will run away and be burnt but well, horror of horrors, live. Yea 3rd degree burns, but 1 person is all you'd get. BTW even a massive tank and huge 50 ft flames that guy still carried a mac 10 if I recall. get close and he'd shoot you.

I admire y'all for trying to make guns as less lethal than other forms of weapons you can assemble.
But, remember the rules are - you need to be able to get the device you build into a crowded place like a mall, classroom, theater, restaurant etc without alerting people and set it off and kill them. We all know you can kill people with a bucket of water. Can you kill 20-30 free roaming people in 1 location before someone takes you down ? Just like you can with a pair of glocks in your pockets.

Cool.
Buddha.

then theres calcium carbide. a few rocks of that, some water, starts gassing, 1 flame= boom. aka tennisball cannon. no matter what laws are passed anywhere they can NEVER disarm this society

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on August 08, 2012, 09:29:15 PM
then theres calcium carbide. a few rocks of that, some water, starts gassing, 1 flame= boom. aka tennisball cannon. no matter what laws are passed anywhere they can NEVER disarm this society

You will never get that into a crowded space and light it up without people scurrying away. You got nothing without the element of surprise to be honest. I dont care about disarming them, we are taking away the element of surprise. You cant dump 300 bullets into a crowd if you have to spend 3,000,000 to get those 300 bullets. Or the pool will shrink by nearly 500,000%.

Cool.
Buddha.

Budda seems to think that people who are bent on a murderous rampage are like him and lack ingenuity.

i mean, what could some fertilizer and diesel fuel POSSIBLY do?
(http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/crime/national/1995/oklahoma_city_bombing/murrah2.jpg)

And you'd never get anything that big near a crowd light the fuse and walk away, right?

Quote from: Roxtar on August 09, 2012, 05:53:54 AM
Budda seems to think that people who are bent on a murderous rampage are like him and lack ingenuity.

i mean, what could some fertilizer and diesel fuel POSSIBLY do?
(http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/crime/national/1995/oklahoma_city_bombing/murrah2.jpg)

OKC right ? well there was no stealth involved in that, and on that scale where they had to buy chemicals and rent trucks and have serious help, all of those have the same potential to happen though after that incident they have clamped down on that type of fertilizer, anyway it is not stealth, and say you see the guys assembling that device, OK you having a gun in that situation aint gonna do much of anything, you would have better luck calling the cops.
Anyway yes it was pretty devastating, however its not as personal as being shot at point blank range by a stranger. That bombing took a lot of work by a lot of people. I know a few people who can repeat any of these recent rampages at the drop of a hat/beer bottle.

Like I said you dont need any planning and you will never get found out ahead of time if you decided to walk into a mall tonight and started shooting.

Cool.
Buddha.

Can we just be done so we don't have to read these ridiculous replies to every single one of our points?

Quote from: bombsquad83 on August 09, 2012, 08:10:57 AM
Can we just be done so we don't have to read these ridiculous replies to every single one of our points?

Oh yea name calling, the last resort of one whose logic is flawed.

Pics of a homemade fertilizer bomb and its effect ? So what does that do to a discussion about guns ?

Is your point - ban guns and they will do this ? Well yes and even without banning guns they are, it takes a good bit of organisation, $ and luck to pull it off. Guns - anyone with a 3rd grade education and $20 can take out 20-30 people. Walk into a mall, pull em guns out and shoot.

Or,
Is your point, they are doing this and so we need guns for protection ? That dont hold up water either. You see a guy assembling the bomb you're better off calling - ironically the bombsquad. The other "car loaded with explosives driving through a crowd and detonating, I really dont see how having a gun, or not having a gun makes any difference there.

You're trying to throw unrelated sensationalism in place of logic. I do agree there have been some good points, like what do we do about smuggled weapons and ammo etc. But this isn't one of em.

I have a bad net connection, I may not reply for hours, so y'all can breathe easy. It may be a while between posts.
Cool.
Buddha.

I didn't call anyone a name.  I think it's appropriate to call things as they are, and I think it's a bit ridiculous when you try to explain away every well supported point that everyone but you in this thread is making with fake statistics straight out of your brain and through your keyboard.  I'm all for discussion.  I'd like to hear a response that is well researched, and has some historical precedent to back it up.  Until then, it's not worth discussing.

Here's the deal.  You think it's worth the cost of freedom to take away peoples guns to attempt to prevent a few bad actors from killing people, and the rest of us don't.  We can at least agree to disagree.   When there is a riot/revolution/crime wave, you can still come to my house for protection if you want.  That is of course unless the government has already taken my guns.

I beieve we may agree, or at least I hope so, on the FACT that regardless of any reasonable governence crazy ass people will try and unfortunately suceed in killing others. A homemade explosive device works and is easy to employ, from the manufacturig to the execution, with the CORRECT info. while looking into this I found that about half of sources on the web are incorrect, making me happy that some @$$hole is about to burn his garage down while worrying about the 13 year old that will do the same. And to be clear, grenades were more powerful at one point but for multiple reasons (collateral damage, weight, ease of use, fragmentation materials, etc.)  have been made smaller and more accomodating for the troops that use them. A M67 has a 15m casualty range yet frag can be thrown 175m+. The frag inside is designed to disipate its energy in this range.

But back on guns. Without knowing your exposure to guns, I won't assume anything. But have you ever been out shooting? The hardest thing about it isn't hitting the target, it's picking up ALL the brass. I reload most of the ammo that I fire and make a strong attempt at finding all my brass. Are you saying that I should accept a large monetary loss if I can't find a casing? Or would I just attach a catch to my AR-15, and yes these already exist, to catch every round I fire? In which case the drive-by dude can hang one on his. And as far as somebody with $20 taking 20-30 people....Have you priced a gun in the last 150 years? But really, assuming said @$$hole has the gun, $20 in ammo would take a very skilled person to come close to that figure. I doubt many police officers could have that kind of "success". The answer is not gun/bullet control. It's not driving up cost of everything to un-attainable prices. And I agree it's not "arm everyone". The answer is to find a way to identify these people before they attempt this. And how do we do that? Well, if I knew I would not be posting about gun control, IEDs, bullets, and bull$h!t.

Quote from: Huff1371 on August 09, 2012, 04:12:27 PM
The answer is not gun/bullet control. It's not driving up cost of everything to un-attainable prices. And I agree it's not "arm everyone". The answer is to find a way to identify these people before they attempt this. And how do we do that?

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. in practice, they arent".

Yes of course the "ideal" solution, "in theory", is to identify these things before they actually happen.
*But THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE, AND ALWAYS WILL BE.*

So then in practice,  you are left with "okay, it's gonna happen, so lets attempt to minimize the damage when it does."

Now, are you(and other rabid gun control) people capable of admitting that something IS a potentially solution, even when it is one you dont particularly *like*?

"Arming everyone" *is* one solution.  You dont like that solution, okay. but that doesnt make it "not a solution". It just makes it "not one you personally will support".
To rewrite it otherwise, is being, shall we say in polite terms, "intellectually dishonest".

I think it's been shown enough that "increase price of bullets" will not "solve" things.
I dont recall seeing any facts behind the claim that arming everyone is "not a solution", in the path to minimizing damage when the inevitable occurs.
In contrast, there *are* facts and statistics supporting the argument that arming everyone does, indeed, reduce violent crime.
For example,

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/18/us-usa-crime-shooting-town-idUSN1719257620070418

"When the (mandatory gun law) was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime ... and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then," :thumb:



Yet somehow, anti-gun crusaders never seem to let any inconvenient FACTS, get in the way of their religious crusade.
Sheesh. :cookoo:

I seriously hope nobody thinks I am anti-gun. I would wager i probably own more than anyone involved in this thread. But "arm everyone" is only a way for all idiots who have not the ability, maturity, or care to handle a firearm properly to show how dangerous a gun can be. To think otherwise would only be putting yourself into that category.  I've taught many people how to properly handle a firearm, and without that instruction i have no doubt there would be serious consequences. It's not a solution. It's kinda along the lines of "i don't know how to fix it, but i can tell you it's broken. "

Quote from: bombsquad83 on August 09, 2012, 11:18:08 AM
I didn't call anyone a name.  I think it's appropriate to call things as they are, and I think it's a bit ridiculous when you try to explain away every well supported point that everyone but you in this thread is making with fake statistics straight out of your brain and through your keyboard.  I'm all for discussion.  I'd like to hear a response that is well researched, and has some historical precedent to back it up.  Until then, it's not worth discussing.

Here's the deal.  You think it's worth the cost of freedom to take away peoples guns to attempt to prevent a few bad actors from killing people, and the rest of us don't.  We can at least agree to disagree.   When there is a riot/revolution/crime wave, you can still come to my house for protection if you want.  That is of course unless the government has already taken my guns.

I cant provide statistics cos its never been tried. I also am only showing flaws in other posts using numbers from other things to conclude about guns. Bullets are not like gasoline, food or cigarettes. Using stats from the effects of raising prices on those are irrelevant.

When there is a crime wave - Well bombsquad, you seem to have missed the boat with that one, by a few years atleast. You should have stopped the guy in VTech, and in arizona, and in colorado and in wisconsin.

Finally I wont be taking away your guns, or your ammo, or even making them cost more. Did you even read my post. You interpret any regulation as bad, and that results in all the wrong people getting guns and ammo easily and cheaply. Your ammo is all yours and easily refilled, you only need to keep your shell casings. Is that an extra burden - definetly, however it will make sure only people who are law abiding get more ammo.

The whole idea of "only guns can stop gun violence" is flawed. The idea that guns can stop home made IED's is also very much so. Guns help in one small section of violent crime - home invasions if the owners are home. To that end, rifles, or any big gun - non concealable weapon will work. Which is why I have one of those.

Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: Huff1371 on August 09, 2012, 04:12:27 PM
I beieve we may agree, or at least I hope so, on the FACT that regardless of any reasonable governence crazy ass people will try and unfortunately suceed in killing others. A homemade explosive device works and is easy to employ, from the manufacturig to the execution, with the CORRECT info. while looking into this I found that about half of sources on the web are incorrect, making me happy that some @$$hole is about to burn his garage down while worrying about the 13 year old that will do the same. And to be clear, grenades were more powerful at one point but for multiple reasons (collateral damage, weight, ease of use, fragmentation materials, etc.)  have been made smaller and more accomodating for the troops that use them. A M67 has a 15m casualty range yet frag can be thrown 175m+. The frag inside is designed to disipate its energy in this range.

But back on guns. Without knowing your exposure to guns, I won't assume anything. But have you ever been out shooting? The hardest thing about it isn't hitting the target, it's picking up ALL the brass. I reload most of the ammo that I fire and make a strong attempt at finding all my brass. Are you saying that I should accept a large monetary loss if I can't find a casing? Or would I just attach a catch to my AR-15, and yes these already exist, to catch every round I fire? In which case the drive-by dude can hang one on his. And as far as somebody with $20 taking 20-30 people....Have you priced a gun in the last 150 years? But really, assuming said @$$hole has the gun, $20 in ammo would take a very skilled person to come close to that figure. I doubt many police officers could have that kind of "success". The answer is not gun/bullet control. It's not driving up cost of everything to un-attainable prices. And I agree it's not "arm everyone". The answer is to find a way to identify these people before they attempt this. And how do we do that? Well, if I knew I would not be posting about gun control, IEDs, bullets, and bull$h!t.

I have no problem getting all the casings. However I dont shoot out of an ak 47, or a glock with a high capacity mag. You use one of those, I would guess you need something that catches it all, or maybe the range owner can certify you used 10 when you only got 8 casings.  Remember this is about slowly bleeding away the illegal supply of ammo to criminals.

We can I would think leave IED's out of this, those are going to be nearly independent of the guns and ammo situation.

And thank you for saying "arming everyone is not the solution" Better you said it than me. I was trying hard to not say that. We only need to arm the law abiding citizens. Now guns are a 1 time deal. Have it  and you have it. We cant coltrol it that way. In fact I'd cut that whole legislation out, we dont care who gets a gun, we're going to choke off bullets, however we can't do that as yet, there is a lot of bullets out there. If we start to choke off bullets we will get a handle on this.

And the biggie, and I agree with this idea though "We need to identify and treat these people before they do this" - do you realise how big a program that will have to be and conversely how expensive, how hard to account and how easy it will be to say that that "govt agency" failed ?
Think the TEA party is an army of loud, crusading activists now ... wait till someone proposes this.

I however have 1 candidate they need to start with. Poor guy has been suicidal, homicidal, well armed, drunk, DUI X 5, unlicensed and unemployed for nearly 4 years and worse yet, his wife has just completed a year being unemployed, and she recently got turned down for a McD's job cos she wasn't spanglish speaking. WTF ... America was built by immigrants. True. However all those immigrants didn't all come from 1 country. We got what 80 million mexicans, that should be split to maybe 30-40 countries. What we need to do is have an "Island" category of immigration. The countries that are about to go under water due to sea level rise need to be first pulled out of there. lets see if we cant get a few million people from some of those and they can do the jobs "americans wont do".
BTW that is lie #1 bandied about. "Jobs americans wont do" No such thing. I'd gladly mow the yard of everyone in my street and in fact the whole neighborhood, or even the whole zip code. Somethings the mexicans seem to think they are "entitled" to, cos ever other week someone wants to mow my yard. The problem is $$$ ... I aint mowing someone's yard the size of mine for under 50 bones, it is over 2 hrs work. Its not a question of wont do ... its a question of wont do for $10 an hr.
Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on August 10, 2012, 06:38:00 AM

Your ammo is all yours and easily refilled, you only need to keep your shell casings. Is that an extra burden - definetly, however it will make sure only people who are law abiding get more ammo.

Cool.
Buddha.

Um.... you seem to forget what I have pointed out previously....

In Aust you need a Weapons License to buy a firearm (including an airrifle) - and - you also need to show your Weapons License to buy Any kind of Ammo (including a tin of slugs for your airrifle). This is what honest law abiding citizens are required to do. No Weapons License no gun or ammo buying.

YET

The criminals have guns which show no record of having ever entered the country - and - a supply of ammo to shoot through those guns.

Point... requiring an honest law abiding citizen to return empty shell casing to replace with loaded ammo does not stop non law abiding people from having ammo.

ALSO... the bloke in Aust that went on a killing spree in the state of Tasmania... one weapon used was an Armalite M16 (which is a Prohibited Import - not allowed to be brought into the country) and the police can find no trace from any gun store of where the ammo was obtained.

Proving, again, that a person hell bent on killing people with guns will find a way to acquire the guns and the ammo.

You can talking about Planning all you like with regards to other ways to kill people in largish numbers, but it ignores the fact that these supposed spur of the moment shootings are actually planned by the killer as well.

And finally.....

(http://i.imgur.com/kTJB3.jpg)

The Swiss population is almost Double the gun ownership numbers.

By contrast, Australia has 20 million people, less than 500,000 have guns, yet we have gun crime problems with one of the toughest gun laws in the modern world. And has been shown, England has a handgun ban but high handgun crime.

Again, Proving, there is no evidence to suggest whatsoever, that restricting guns or ammo has any bearing on those who want to acquire them illegally.

Michael

(http://m.ak.fbcdn.net/a1.sphotos.ak/hphotos-ak-ash4/418636_230569727028607_1186380375_n.jpg)

Australia has guns smuggled in - is that cos the manufacturers are all in the US ?
US doesn't have that particular issue - for now.
We are a net exporter of guns and ammo, most of it into mexico, most of it illegally into mexico after being bought legally in the US. Will the tide reverse - if it gets lucrative to reverse - absolutely, and heck I guess we need that damn border fence 2 X as much now.

Switzerland also has a good social framework as well as a large scale gun training and education system. Everyone has military enlistment and they have gun use and safety training etc etc, see in the us, we cant even get people to see where they are going. They had on trial somene who killed 2 people on the sidewalk cos she was reaching for her cigarettes. Besides that we have illegals, criminals, and increasingly marginalised people with guns.

Much like tiered licensing ... a 16yr old can buy a busa and fly down the road if he has the credit.
Europe very much makes you learn on small bikes before jumping onto a busa. Same with guns. In the US arming everyone will only make the gun crimes 10X or a 100X as much. You'd see kids get a hold of daddy's gun and shoot other kids and various horrible occourances like that. US general populace is careless, undisciplined and rather averse to educating themselves be it bikes or guns. The criminal population is all that plus criminal.

Cool.
Buddha.

according to obamas camp we dont have illegals , we have undocumented immigrants. and every way to stop them is shot down by someone. found an easy way to build fence. if they want in, easy way, send em back with a brick and mortar, as they cross, place brick and mortar in place, then get in line. they foem back in legally, as fence is being built

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on August 10, 2012, 10:29:03 PM
according to obamas camp we dont have illegals , we have undocumented immigrants. and every way to stop them is shot down by someone. found an easy way to build fence. if they want in, easy way, send em back with a brick and mortar, as they cross, place brick and mortar in place, then get in line. they foem back in legally, as fence is being built

Some illegals actually came through legally and just stayed beyond the visa. Fence wont do any good for actually stopping illegals, ron paul's idea is a lot better and cheaper for that. However no guns and ammo came through that way, and will ever come that way. In the context of guns and ammo the fence will be needed, especially when the flow starts to reverse.
Cool.
Buddha.

I think mister has the best point there. Its not about gun control its about attitude control. Stop trying to band aid the solution with gun control, ammo control,licensing etc. You need to get strong social change. People need to understand they are accountable for their actions whether its shooting a gun, driving a car, smoking around small children or cyber bullying.
Till you change the social aspect gun control is a myth.

Here in Australia the attitude of the people is crap. I know of someone who sold a scope just before that style of scope became illegal to own. Was used on a assault rilfe in a shooting by bikies. He is now charged with supplying weapons. He was a very law abiding citizen who liked target shooting. Yep fairness really makes the population support the acts of government.

Its a whole system change and lets face it, in most western countries it will never happen. EVER.

Civilisation needs to collapse before we can change it. Either way the talk fills the gap.

Quote from: mister on August 10, 2012, 04:03:50 PM


The criminals have guns which show no record of having ever entered the country - and - a supply of ammo to shoot through those guns.

I am a bit slow man, I didn't seem to "get" this ... see in the US not only do we know how the guns were made (cos we made them) we also know how they got to the crime scene, heck we know how some drug related murders in South america and mexico were done - yea using american guns legally bought in america from proper legit gun dealers.
In places with tight gun laws, like NY or DC, they have these things called iron pipes - refers to highways from loose gun states, GA or SC and transported to NY via I 95. That is our idea of gun control, and the bloody thing does not work. Criminals get guns, law loving citizens dont and they're easy pickins.

The uneven gun control laws dont work. Handing everyone a gun also doesn't work, even the biggest gun fans would see the issues with those. I'd suspect we cant ever go to the england level
of gun ownership so documenting bullets is all I can think of in the time we are waiting for the collapse of civilisation.
Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on July 26, 2012, 07:52:07 AM
OK was the 2nd amendment written as a way to overthrow a tryannical govt ?

Sadly if that is true, its the biggest joke ever perpetrated on the citizenry of any country.
You have assault rifles, as an extreme lets say, you're like I am so cool, I can protect myself against the gubbamint's tyranny and the gubbamint has tanks, air craft and drones and nuclear bombs.

I think sadly the only thing the 2nd amendment does is more colorado, virginia, columbine etc etc.

Seriously I have rifles and wifey got a girl glock, that I traded audio equipment for no less.
I still dont believe I could put a scratch on the tank that rolled through my neighborhood yesterday <- That is a joke.

The 2nd amendment needs to be amended to have people buy tanks and B52 bombers and aircraftcarriers (and no the 100 yr old rust bucket that shows up on fleabay every month doesn't count), and drones to even out the game. And yes they need to be cheap, I want myself a bradley fitted with a LMG turret for starters.

Cool.
Buddha.

I don't know about you, but i can build a drone for about $500 or so. Not to sure about the tank, but we tried to put treads on my friends F250 once (turns out you cant turn with treads :dunno_black:) anyways, we should totally work together and make a turret mounted drone  :icon_lol:

and to quote Jon lajoie
Guns don't kill people, I kill people... With guns. POW

here, have a rat gun
(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k2/yamahonkawazuki/ratgun.jpg)

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on August 13, 2012, 05:19:31 PM
here, have a rat gun
(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k2/yamahonkawazuki/ratgun.jpg)

my uncle has about that many guns, my grandpa to! my family has a bit of a gun obsession

I on the other hand, don't own a single gun (yet)

Quote from: iclrag on August 13, 2012, 09:51:35 AM

I don't know about you, but i can build a drone for about $500 or so. Not to sure about the tank, but we tried to put treads on my friends F250 once (turns out you cant turn with treads :dunno_black:) anyways, we should totally work together and make a turret mounted drone  :icon_lol:

and to quote Jon lajoie
Guns don't kill people, I kill people... With guns. POW

Oh what sorta drone ? I meant unmanned aircraft - no way you can make one for under several mill I think.
Cool.
Buddha.

I made a paper aeroplane once :dunno_black:

Quote from: iclrag on August 14, 2012, 09:30:10 AM

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on August 13, 2012, 05:19:31 PM
here, have a rat gun
(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k2/yamahonkawazuki/ratgun.jpg)

meant the ar50 a1 circled in red
my uncle has about that many guns, my grandpa to! my family has a bit of a gun obsession

I on the other hand, don't own a single gun (yet)

Quote from: mister on August 07, 2012, 02:09:12 PM
Buddha, you can call it bullet ban all you like and still be like a politician saying "But you can still keep your guns we aren't denying that" but the end result will be the same... the honest law abiding citizen is the one hurt by it.

Apparently there are no handguns in the UK. But handgun crime is rampant.
<snip>

Michael - I keep finding holes in your arguments.

Here it is from the first sentence of wikipaedia -

In the United Kingdom firearms are tightly controlled by law, and there is little political debate and no strong public opposition to control. The United Kingdom historically had one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world even before gun control legislation became stricter from the late twentieth century. [1] In England & Wales in 2009 there were 0.073 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher, and for Germany 0.2.[2]

The link is - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

I know the gun ownership rate in the US is about 300 m guns total and its about 150m owners. Essentially 1 per person ... owned by maybe 1/2 the population.

UK is about 1/50th of that. And they have 1/40th the gun crime. Huh, weird its rather close huh.

Cool.
Buddha.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-19074694

Quote from: bombsquad83 on August 17, 2012, 08:51:36 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

Come on you should do better than that - You do realise that that is a 2001 article right - see more of these outdated and out of context statistics that show nothing.

And it rose 40% in 2 years after a ban, I wonder what it is like now vs pre 2001, cos what I saw on wikipaedia was up to 2009 - the last year numbers are available has to be newer than that I would imagine.

However world wide crime rose through the 90's and started dropping from the mid 03-04 time frame through the end of 2010, and in 11 it went up a little ... 12 ... we dunno yet. Crime cycles sorta follow economic cycles but with a shift in time frame. Or some like that.

In a way the "prosperity" cycles create a class that is prosperous ... in the 90's it was tech workers, and the 04-07 was financial and real estate investors, and it creates a underclass that is desparate cos they are either missing the boat or getting robbed by the prosperous class. I freaking love recessions. Especially the ones where the govt has recognized that there is a recession and have expanded the net. I would have liked to see some of the financial criminals go to jail, for that the enforcement has been very very toothless, but otherwise recessions are IMHO where no one is "making out like bandits". Well atleast they are quiet about it.

Cool.
Buddha.

I had linked two other articles which are more recent as well.  Also from your own wikipedia source:

QuoteCompared with the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80.[57]

I wonder if this has anything to do with the criminals counting on an unarmed populous?  In fact, some of the articles I've linked point to that.

QuoteSince 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[58] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. Most of the rise in injuries were in the category slight injuries from the non-air weapons. "Slight" in this context means an injury that was not classified as "serious" (i.e., did not require detention in hospital, did not involve fractures, concussion, severe general shock, penetration by a bullet or multiple shot wounds). In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. In 2007, the British government was accused by Shadow Home Secretary David Davis of making "inaccurate and misleading" statements claiming that gun crime was falling, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries.[59][60] In 2007, Justice Minister Jack Straw told the BBC, "We are concerned that within the overall record, which is a good one, of crime going down in the last 10-11 years, the number of gun-related incidents has gone up. But it has now started to fall."[61]

That's interesting.  Some say gun violence had increased 4 times since the ban, and that reporting is inaccurate.  It also mentions that gun related incidents are starting to go down, but it doesn't seem to say they have gone down to below pre-ban levels anywhere I can see.

QuoteIn 2008 The Independent reported that there were 42 gun-related deaths in Great Britain, a 20-year low.[62] However, in late 2009 The Telegraph reported that gun crime had doubled in the last 10 years, with an increase in both firearms offences and deaths. A government spokesman said this increase was a result of a change in reporting practices in 2001 and that gun crime had actually fallen since 2005. Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary (an opposition party spokesperson), attributed the rise to ineffective policing and an out-of-control gang culture.[63] Writing in the British Journal of Criminology, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no measurable effect detectable from the 1997 firearms legislation with ARIMA statistical analysis. [9]

Also interesting that someone who works for a Journal of Criminology should find no measureable effect after the ban.

The UK leads the USA in ALL violent crime bar one... murder - BUT - what the UK calls murder and what the USA call it for Crime stats varies. In the UK, murder is recorded only for a conviction of murder, in the US it is a murder stat even if it is a final conviction of manslaughter. But muggings, rapes, bashings, etc., are all higher in the UK per capita.

Also of interest... in Australia there is  Tourist Mecca known as The Gold Coast. The crime stats show there is a murder at The Gold Coast every week to 10 days. The number which are reported in the newspaper or on the TV is... maybe two three a year. Cannot scare the tourist dollar away.

Also of interest.... Knife Crime in the UK is through the roof. So much so, some org called Doctors Against Knives or some such, want all knives sold to be round tipped. Dumbasses think peeps won't take a knife to a grinder and make it a sharp pointed one and then stab as per usual.

Michael

Murder happens a lot easier with guns, especially ones that can dump 100+ in seconds. Its particularly easy to shoot down strangers in a crowd with that.

The blunt knife ... you do know when stabbed with a blunt knife, you still die but in a lot more misery ...
Cool.
Buddha.

Quote from: The Buddha on August 19, 2012, 09:09:44 AM
Murder happens a lot easier with guns, especially ones that can dump 100+ in seconds. Its particularly easy to shoot down strangers in a crowd with that.

The blunt knife ... you do know when stabbed with a blunt knife, you still die but in a lot more misery ...
Cool.
Buddha.

very true my friend. as hte old saying goes though, "outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns. " and knives too it may seem. the law abiding citizen, will surrender said weapons to oblige, the criminal wont. they wont care about the concequences. even if hte punishments were made severe. say get caught with a gun, and get automatic life in prson w/o parole. then someone else will complain about the skyrocketing costs of incarceration. unless one as an automatic weapons permit, having thsoe is illegal in most, if not  all places in the us. heres the thing though, semi auto weapons can be made fully automatic weapons in minutes, with LEGALLY available kits. just the two cannot be sold together in the same business. if loopholes were clsoed, many problems would decline

hmm .. I thought that british anti knife group was Doctors Against Lawless Evil Knives ....

they quite keen on it too.. want to exterminate them altogether!  :icon_rolleyes: :thumb:

Yup. And after they Exterminate, it will be pointy sticks on the agenda. But that will be a Cyber program launched by those Men.

Michael

I am not talking about anything that takes 10 mins to kill 1 person. You can kill somone with a toothpick if you stuck it in their ear and let them bleed till dead. I can assure you, if you were to do that you would be committing just that 1 murder for the year ...

The real battle is to stop the mass killing that happens in 30 sec or less.
Heck the swiss style "encouraged to carry a firearm in open view" would even work, except there are a lot more nutcases in the US who will mis/abuse it. The swiss are far more disciplined and trained. You may stop mass killings but easily pile up that many or more when people kill each other over parking spots or other trivia.

Cool.
Buddha.

Well after a while of nut-cases shooting each other over a parking space there will be far fewer of them (nut-cases) and there will be more parking spaces available. Then the rest of us will have a more peaceful life.

You kidding ... there will be an explosion of nuts.
Cool.
Buddha.

Make it a requirement to do two years military service for EVERYONE, no exemptions. Would change people's attitude towards weapons, would make everyone fitter and the nutcases would stay in the Military or get sent to a ward with padded walls a little earlier.

I actually think would should bring compulsive service back into Australia. I did reserves and it was one of the best decisions. It sucked but it did give me skills.

Well, let's see.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It seems to clearly state that United State's citizens have the right to bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed.

According to thefreedictionary.com, Arms: 1. A weapon, especially a firearm.

So, by definition, United States citizens have the right to own guns, and that right cannot be taken away.

So, on to what this thread is actually about.

I've seen most of the anti-gun points in this thread too many times, and the logic behind them is lacking.

Let's start with personal firearms for protection, and work our way up to the whole militia ordeal.
My hometown has somewhat-active gang activity in the less-than-desireable areas. Yes, there are a few gun crimes, and just about all of those involve someone breaking into someones house and shooting them, shooting someone over a car, or shooting someone for no reason.

Not once have I read of these incidents in which the victims were carrying firearms, bsides gang shooting each other.

However, there are also multiple incidents of armed citizens scaring the bajeezus out of a would be robber, even though sometimes the robbers were armed themselves. One account for example:

2 local gang members showed up at a man's house (the reasons for this were not disclosed by the police department), and threatened to shoot him. He, in turn, went and grabbed an assault rifle (which he had the necessary permits to own) from his closet, and told them if they came in his house, he would shoot them both. They broke in his front door, and he fired on them. One was killed instantly, the other tried to run away, shooting as he ran, and later died at the hospital. The homeowner was unharmed.

I've had friends have knives pulled on them in robbery attempts, only to flash a concealed handgun, and have the idiot robber run scared.

I know crime rates are not the same in every area, but given the time it takes a police officer to respond to an incident, guns invariably protect people as a first line of defense.

Now, on to the militia point.

Yes, an assault rifle will not do much to, say, an M1A1 Abrams. A shell of 12 guage buckshot will just piss off a humvee driver. Regular firearms won't do much to stop a well regulated military.

I've recently been studying up in the old military handbook for guerilla warfare tactics, troop placement, rigging and other...things.

If anyone has ever paid attention to the news, you will notice that the US has been supplying rebel faction in other countries with weapons for years, and they have overthrown armies without United States military intervention.

I saw a post a few pages back about IED's being heavy and bulky.
I can make "something" that will burn through depleted uranium and steel plate armor in 15 seconds flat, and is about the size of a notebook binder. I can rig a rather destructive item from a model rocket and other things that don't need to be mentioned.  :icon_mrgreen:

There are ways for civilians to stand against an organized military, but they themselves must be organized.

An organized militia. With soldiers, people gathering intel, pilots, engineers, and all of them happily smiling and in the same clothes as Plain Joe over there.

It wouldn't be easy to oppose a military force, but it could be done with time, the right minds, and in secrecy.

One point that I haven't seen, but I may have missed, is the assumption that all military and police personnell would stand against the civilians in a government vs the people war.

Oh, the mass shootings issues.

Batman shooting: No concealed firearm carriers
Columbine: lol U CANT HAS GUNS AT SCHOOL
Texas shooting incident...wait....that one wasn't on the news. Something about a teacher having a hunting rifle, and shooting the gunman and saving students lives.....hm.....

Well armed civilians can prevent disasters that are being caused by well armed idiots.

My college campus has been pushing for concealed carry on campus. The local police have been backing it. The former school President was pushing for it up until he moved. It's failing because people are too scared of guns.

My cop friend gets weird looks from people when he's in off duty clothes carrying his gun, even though his badge is strapped over the holster.

Quote from: Shaddow on August 20, 2012, 07:05:38 PM
Make it a requirement to do two years military service for EVERYONE, no exemptions. Would change people's attitude towards weapons, would make everyone fitter and the nutcases would stay in the Military or get sent to a ward with padded walls a little earlier.

I actually think would should bring compulsive service back into Australia. I did reserves and it was one of the best decisions. It sucked but it did give me skills.

I seriously wish this were possible in the US. However we'd need a special branch just for the unbelievable amount of pussies/ax-wound, hippy, self-entitled, weak, morbidly obese pieces of shaZam! that make up a sadly large(no pun intended) part of our society. There's nothing tougher than Parris Island (I might be a little biased ) and the aforementioned have NO place there. We could also consider reinstating military service for young able bodied offenders. Wanna steal a car? Go your ass to Afghanistan and get shot at along side all the other societal drains. Maybe then people would appreciate how motherfucking easy we have it. Sry for ranting

i do remember the texas incident.