Mossman combat shot gun and an AR-15.
Sorry Helaman mate.... I think its Mossburg... Although the image of a Sloane ranger in her twin-set and pearls, doing the school run in the Range Rover from her fabulously palatial home in Mossman on the North Shore to drop off her sons Reginald and Beaufort at Kings armed with the latest pearl handled gold encrusted Mossburg, so she could shoot wild westies and bogans if they got close... had me rolling around on the floor laughing.
Mossman = exclusive suburb on the north side of Sydney Harbour.
Sloane ranger = a particular style of rich housewife.
Kings = Expensive boarding school
Westie = suburb dweller
Bogan = like a redneck but not.
Your comment above is heavily bigotted and ignorant.
And not every new yorker is a wine sipping anti gun advocate. Individuals vary but the trend exists.
In many areas, concealed carry is legal with a license. So, you have your pistol with you, you don't have to go walk to your car.
I'm aware of that. I'm questioning the necessity of this.
coyotes? More like bears.
are you reading my replies? I specifically said that was in regards to a very specific incident.
Black bears or brown?
And why is a pistol, specifically a pistol as opposed to a rifle or shotgun, necessary?
Every morning I get up to go to work, I have to keep an eye out for bears hanging around the trash.
If they stop getting in they'll stop coming around.
Or going to the firing range. Some people are gun collectors. There is nothing wrong with that.
There is nothing wrong with blowing away watermelons with a high caliber machine gun. The problem is that the insistence that high caliber machine guns be legal for that purpose means that high caliber machine guns are then available for other less legal and less Ghalliger esque purposes.
I don't think that fun is reason enough to keep something that dangerous legal. Its people's lives against a recreational activity.
I've got a black belt and, at one time, was a martial arts instructor. I've, also, only just in the last couple of weeks been able to walk again after months of being bed ridden due to an injury. I've got no delusions that I could fight an animal or criminal off with a melee weapon. Get a clue.
Did i say lets ONLY make melee weapons legal? No. I said EXTEND.. not exclude. Make it an AND. Guns AND melee weapons, not guns NOT melee weapons. You can't KO someone with a club? NP. Someone else can ko them with a club let them do it.
Do you know of a lot of people who have argued that they should be allowed to carry their 45's into a trial? I don't. This looks like a straw man to me.
http://www.gunweek.com/2003/indiana0620.html
I don't know if its common but it does happen.
BNW you almost quoting the very arguments that site completely tears apart -- I again recommend you visit the knife fighting section of that hub.
No, I'm making the call to common sense that the site ignores in order to stir up hysteria to get you to buy their product. Its a website selling something, not gospel. If apostrophes and gratuitous italics made something true we'd have to obey the chic tracts and stop playing dungeons and dragons!!!!!!!!!!
the draconian knife laws we have in place he is pretty unlikely to be armed...Can you still carry if its cultural.... As I made my grooms-men wear kilts at my wedding - I gave them a sgian-dubh and a hip flask full of Glenfiddich each for grooms gifts.
We had a discussion about the legality (a few lawyers at the wedding)"concealed" knife and all... none of the lawyers were criminal law somebody mentioned religious or national costume as an exception... I then raised another question would my replica 18th Century basket hilted Claymore be illegal as it was a blade of greater than 18cm.
I was guessing private property and it being a wedding... the boys in blue would have better things to worry about.
Well there's a real lot of grey in that, and the Police could well have made an issue of it, however given it was a wedding and people are generally responsible adults, the Police are 99% likely just to handwave it as a non-issue. Hanging out at 3am down at the local 7-11 might have been a bit different, especially if it was 'Mr Fullysik and his Hektik mates'.
The part about being 'reasonably necessary in all the circumstances' would have been the test applied, and I think it would be tough arguing necessity.
Its not an official uniform, nor was it genuine religious need.
11C Custody of knife in public place or school
(1) A person must not, without reasonable excuse (proof of which lies on the person), have in his or her custody a knife in a public place or a school.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.
(2) Without limitation, it is a reasonable excuse for the purposes of this section for a person to have custody of a knife, if:
(a) the custody is reasonably necessary in all the circumstances for any of the following:
(i) the lawful pursuit of the person’s occupation, education or training,
(ii) the preparation or consumption of food or drink,
(iii) participation in a lawful entertainment, recreation or sport,
(iv) the exhibition of knives for retail or other trade purposes,
(v) an organised exhibition by knife collectors,
(vi) the wearing of an official uniform,
(vii) genuine religious purposes, or
(b) the custody is reasonably necessary in all the circumstances during travel to or from or incidental to an activity referred to in paragraph (a), or
(c) the custody is of a kind prescribed by the regulations.
(3) However, it is not a reasonable excuse for the purposes of this section for a person to have custody of a knife solely for the purpose of self defence or the defence of another person.
(4), (5) (Repealed)
(6) The regulations may provide that this section does not apply to or in relation to any specified class or description of knife.
Its a website selling something, not gospel.What are they selling?
The books in the rightmost window
I must be trained to ignore banner ads.
Tunnel vision.
There's probably a section on that... :)
|
If they stop getting in they'll stop coming around.
Actually no, this is not necessarily true. The various bear-proof trash cans tend to just prevent a bear from getting into the trash, but it does not always prevent them from smelling it...
There is nothing wrong with blowing away watermelons with a high caliber machine gun. The problem is that the insistence that high caliber machine guns be legal for that purpose means that high caliber machine guns are then available for other less legal and less Ghalliger esque purposes.
When someone says "machine gun" they usually mean some sort of fully automatic firearm. Is that what you mean?
If so, these are legal in most states, and all that is required to purchase one is to fill out a few federal forms, be able to pass a fairly standard background check, pay the Federal government $200 for the Tax Stamp, and wait about 4-6 months for the forms to be processed. Of course you have to have the money to buy the NFA firearm in the first place which could run a couple of thousand to several thousand dollars...
I don't think that fun is reason enough to keep something that dangerous legal. Its people's lives against a recreational activity.
I think that if someone is willing to jump through the various governmental hoops in order to have a full-auto firearm (or other NFA item such as a sound suppressor or "sawed-off" shotgun) then I say let them have one...
Now, if you meant to include the various semi-auto only versions of such firearms as the AR-15 and the like, then I'd have to disagree with you. As I've stated up-thread, one can do just as much damage and cause just as much fear and panic with a revolver or bolt action "hunting rifle". In fact, most bolt action "hunting rifles" are of a much higher caliber than the typical AR-15 and are capable of doing much more collateral damage...
True, but if the government banned them (high capacity magazines), then only criminals and the police would have them. Besides, the Federal Government DID ban high capacity magazines. This was the same ineffective ban that was supposed to make those "evil assault weapons" go away but failed (1994-2004)...
California and a couple of other states have an active ban on them, and yet they still make their way into these states freely...
Criminals do not care about the law!
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I think that if someone is willing to jump through the various governmental hoops in order to have a full-auto firearm (or other NFA item such as a sound suppressor or "sawed-off" shotgun) then I say let them have one...
And I say don't. There's no reason to allow the manufacture of either machine guns or the civilian AR-15 (which you can uncivilian with a piece of "scrap metal" and a bench grinder)
You have to realize that unless you're advocating that people be allowed to keep nukes that you're striking a balance between individual rights and public good. You, like I, agree that the government has a legitimate right to keep some things out of private manufacture, ownership, and use, as fun as it would be to build a cowboy town and film it being blown to smithereens in a nuclear explosion.
I'm not saying this to be factitious, I'm just trying to cut off the usual response of one absolute extreme is right, and anything even slightly left of that is automatically wrong. You can't advocate an absolute right for people to defend themselves against the government if you deny them some weaponry.
What we have is on one hand, someone's right to have fun. What we have on the other hand is a real danger to people by allowing these weapons to be manufactured and sold here. Do you see why I might consider peoples lives more important than people's fun?
Now, if you meant to include the various semi-auto only versions of such firearms as the AR-15 and the like, then I'd have to disagree with you. As I've stated up-thread, one can do just as much damage and cause just as much fear and panic with a revolver or bolt action "hunting rifle".
You can say it all you want, it won't make it true. You simply don't have the same rate of fire or number of rounds. Skilled person + bolt action > idiot with semi auto but idiot with semi auto> idiot with bolt action.
Mass shootings Like Loughner aside, many fatalities in the drug battles in the cities are from the sheer number of stray bullets being popped off in rapid succession hitting stray targets. If the only result of preventing similar deaths in the future is ruining someone's weekend it seems like a good swap.
Criminals do not care about the law!
That is correct, but manufacturers do. That's where i think the law should be concentrated.
While I respect and support the idea that we need to encourage safety and respect for our fellow person, we don't do that by removing rights in how people live their lives hundreds if not thousands of miles away from us.
Is it living a life or is it living a fantasy?
If they actually are living their lives that way, then its not a fantasy.
Having a gun on you is not living a life or a lifestyle choice. It just means you have a gun on you.
Its the same reason they sell four wheel drive pick up trucks to surburbanites: it sells the fantasy of living in the wilderness/wild west when you're actually an accountant or soccer dad.
A lot of horrible decisions are made for the "greater good of society".
Why would this be any different?
By the US model of rights, rights belong to the people and are given to them by God.
Yes, rights belong to the people, no, they're not given by god. Deities are notably absent from the constitution.
You've not made such a justification.
Humor me. Justify banning the private ownership of nukes.
Rights aren't absolute. I cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre. I cannot stand in front of dick cheney's house with 20 foot stall stereo's blasting a continual loop of "My hump" at 120 decibals.
0 -No sciccors allowed!
1 -Safety siccors only
2
3
4-England
5
6
7-Usa's current position
8
9
10- Tanks and nukes for everyone!
The misuse of an item does not justify removing it. If that were so, we'd make cars illegal for anyone to drive.
Its not the misuse. Its the cost of allowing it vs the benefit of allowing it. The benefits of car ownership are innumerable, our entire society basically runs on them.
A lot of horrible decisions are made for the "greater good of society".
Why would this be any different?
A lot of good decisions are made for the greater good of society. Why would this be any different?
Who are you to decide what is or is not a lifestyle choice?
A user of the english language who thinks that words should accurately describe the concept. A lifestyle choice affects your entire life. Owning a pistol does not.
Belonging to a gun culture does affect a person's entire life.
It shapes everything from the friends and social contacts a person has to the values and metanarratives that person has.
Could you elaborate?
|
I disagree that owning a gun makes you part of the "gun culture" or that it is a lifestyle choice. It is merely a tool used to protect yourself. I don't recommend people pick up a powersaw or a nailgun without someone showing them how to use it. I believe that gun training should be a requirement for owning a gun but I also disagree about a certain number of hours per week/month of training. A training course and test for initial purchase and maybe a once a year testing is more that adequate in my opinion. Anymore and you are forcing a person into a lifestyle choice. A gun doesn't define who you are and shouldn't be forced to do so.
For example, you have asserted that people with physical disabilities should just try to coordinate their schedule with able bodied people when the physically disabled people want to get something done.
1) I think you have me confused with another poster.
2) I think being physically disabled is a very good and very valid reason for owning a pistol.
On what?
Could you elaborate on how owning/carrying a gun shapes everything from the friends and social contacts a person has to the values and metanarratives that person has.
|
Did the British system manage to keep people from killing each other, or did people just start killing each other with pointy things instead of guns?The second. People still get shot, though it's less common, but the violent crime rate is just as high as before the ban, if not higher.
Which ban?
I'm thinking about the system we've had since before my parents were born.
Owning a gun is a lifestyle choice -- no it doesn't make you a 'gun nut' but it does mean you have a potentially very dangerous too available. One you need to protect as you don't want it getting into the wrong hands.
Do you drive? That's a lifestyle choice -- you have decided to put up with having to get insurance (if required) fill up the car regularly (pay for the gas even), get a license and obey the rules of the road in order to do so legally. IF you don't do it legally you are choosing to live an illegal life. Owning the car, becomes a major factor in your life. It changes where you can live, and where you can work and where you can shop and go in relation to where you could do those things without the car. Yes you could just walk, yes you could take public transportation -- but in order to do so you must live in a place where those options are available -- not some place where the nearest anything is 30+ miles away and doesn't have public transportation.
Owning a gun is much the same way. However that doesn't mean that it's a choice you can't ignore to some extent. If the gun is simply a 'showpiece' locked up safely in your house and never comes out heck you might as well bought a piece of art (and maybe you did), much like the guy that buys cars just to have them sit around. However if you are going to take it out and shoot it you have to consider where you are going to do so, how to transport it, how to get the ammunition what ammunition to use and so on.
Now if you decide to regularly carry it for self defense it limits you almost as much as owning a car. You are carrying -- that means you have intent to use lethal force. So unless you want to use lethal force you should stay away from places where you might have to use lethal force. Don't go out in the Bronx at night loaded with cash. Don't go to the bar and get smashed. Don't sit around your house waving the gun randomly and shooting. Be aware of what could happen if you fail to deploy and get killed (namely someone could take your gun from you and proceed to use it in crimes) -- so you need to be more vigilant than a person without a gun would have to be so that you maintain your draw distance with a potential threat (so you have the time to draw if needed).
You also have to take responsibility for drawing that gun if you do so. If there are people around you and you pull a gun you are automatically going to become the center of attention in most places, even in the USA (don't be cute -- I said most places for a reason, a gun convention isn't most places). Much like yelling fire in a theater you can't be doing that everywhere you go.
You have to consider many factors when you own a gun and these factors can easily change the ways you were doing things, and what your habits were before you owned that gun.
That is a lifestyle choice.
A gun doesn't define who you are and shouldn't be forced to do so.
Owning a gun for the purpose of self defense is you defining yourself as a person willing to kill another person.
At that point you have defined yourself as a potential killer, and need to recognize the baggage that comes with it. Including the fact you could kill on accident and unintentionally kill the wrong person through lack of training and preparation.
On the "gun control" side, guns are a significant cause of accidental death...So... I am not reconciled to either extreme. Which means I've wasted a lot of text here...
Should read 'misuse of guns'. I am currently looking at 8 fine guns that are likely never to cause a death (all antiques that merely firing would drop their values from $50 to $1000 if they didn't misfire...), primarily due to there being no ammunition locally available, secondarily due to only 2 being big enough to use as crappy clubs...once. Derringers are a tidy, low space collectible! The case is more likely to hurt someone by falling on their foot.
Second, you stated the 'middle ground' quite well. Never fault yourself for bringing in a clear statement of facts
I think we are actually still covering the reasons for gun control laws.
By the US model of rights, rights belong to the people and are given to them by God.Yes, rights belong to the people, no, they're not given by god. Deities are notably absent from the constitution.
Re read the Declaration and Constitution, available from the Heritage Foundation. Got mine for free...
Relevant text: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ..."
For us heathens, 'Creator', capitalized, means the Deity. Belonging to an ancient mid-eastern death cult that practices ritual attempted murder, symbolic vampirism and cannibalism, and self sacrifice, I may be out of the mainstream.
By the US model of rights, rights belong to the people and are given to them by God.Yes, rights belong to the people, no, they're not given by god. Deities are notably absent from the constitution.Re read the Declaration and Constitution, available from the Heritage Foundation. Got mine for free...
Relevant text: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ..."
For us heathens, 'Creator', capitalized, means the Deity. Belonging to an ancient mid-eastern death cult that practices ritual attempted murder, symbolic vampirism and cannibalism, and self sacrifice, I may be out of the mainstream.
Of course you are out of the main stream -- our creators are vastly superior space aliens that place humans here in accordance with intelligent design and now keep and eye on us with their flying spaghetti monster.
Beyond that the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution.
Did anyone claim that the Declaration of Independence is the Constitution?
Of course you are out of the main stream -- our creators are vastly superior space aliens that place humans here in accordance with intelligent design and now keep and eye on us with their flying spaghetti monster.
Beyond that the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution.
I misread a reference and didn't catch the part where he included the Declaration in his initial post.
However the declaration of independence is actually not a part of the frame work of the USA. It is a nice historical document though.
The declaration is one of war -- not one of government design and theory.
...choosing to carry a weapon for the purpose of killing* is taking a huge step towards being a potential killer...Yeah, I'll definitely agree with that point. I have a disturbing feeling that I'd be a blunt-instrument kind of guy - but the fact that I don't carry a club with me everywhere does reduce the odds of it happening.
*I'm going to try very hard to stay out of the founder's intent questions and stick to the weapon and self defense side of the issue.*
Actually if you are to defend yourself a blunt tool could be a good decision in self defense for a couple of reasons:
1. Unless you are carrying a baton, billy club or other such intentional weapon then what you are using is highly likely to be an improvised weapon. This means you weren't looking for trouble but it found you and you simply grabbed something to defend yourself with. This helps remove intent.
2. Finding an improvised self defense device usually means grabbing a club like object -- and there are a lot of such objects out there.
3. Many club like devices are a lot better for blocking than a knife or gun will ever be. This is one of the main functions of a self defense weapon (the other being stopping them before they get to where they can hurt you).
4. You are less likely to hurt yourself or someone else unintentially -- unlike a bullet a club doesn't travel far, and a club doesn't have a sharp pointy end that you can accidentally land on or cut yourself with in a grapple.
5. Blunt objects deal some pretty nasty damage in themselves as well which means whatever injury you inflict with one is likely to keep the aggressor down.
I still don't understand how you derived that God didn't endow Man with the right to own other weapons.
To be fair the inalienable rights are:
1. Life2. Liberty
3. The pursuit of happiness
4. The right to alter or abolish a government and institute a new government.
5. Undisclosed others.
The bill of rights does not state that the rights that it contains are inalienable or god given.
Of course, the Bill of Rights doesn't grant any rights. It imposes restrictions on what the government can do. It assumes the rights already exist without the Bill of Rights.
Which isn't to say other organizations or things can't remove those rights -- such as businesses, religions, or a few others that I'm not completely certain about at this minute.
Without a guarantee of the rights you don't actually have them -- what you have is restrictions on government functions. The two aren't the same.
A business or religion can't remove your rights. They can only make association with them contingent on you not exercising your right.Of course, the Bill of Rights doesn't grant any rights. It imposes restrictions on what the government can do. It assumes the rights already exist without the Bill of Rights.Which isn't to say other organizations or things can't remove those rights -- such as businesses, religions, or a few others that I'm not completely certain about at this minute.
Without a guarantee of the rights you don't actually have them -- what you have is restrictions on government functions. The two aren't the same.
If you are going to state that the right existed prior to the Bill of Rights and didn't need them to exist I'm good with that.
If you are then going to tell me that restricting your ability to use those rights isn't the same as taking those rights away we are going to have issues.
Because these are two sides of the exact same thing.