Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / General => Topic started by: X-ray on February 15, 2007, 09:02:55 PM
-
I have been pleasantly surprised by the comments on national TV tonight, concerning the spate of shootings in south London that have left three teenagers dead in the space of only ten days.
David Lammy, MP for Tottenham gave the best summary of the problems and offered the best solutions in my opinion.
In years gone by, the response from the community would have been criticism of the government for not stopping guns falling into the hands of criminals.
However, it is now a widely accepted fact that these London shootings and many of the shootings elsewhere in England are more prominently seen in the black community. Operation Trident has been running for many years and deals with black on black violence here in London. I hate to use the term gun culture, because I think it places too much emphasis on what is essentially a tool, but the general consensus is that better parenting and a reduced gang mentality is needed to stop these teenagers from taking part in revenge and 'respect' killings in the black communities here in London.
Other community leaders have called for more responsibility to be taken by parents, particularly fathers, who are not taking enough interest in their boys' upbringing, and not being appropriate role models for their kids.
Lammy said that the final analysis of a person who takes a gun and shoots somebody dead, is that it is an evil wicked thing to do.
He proposes that the communities themselves must get involved in sorting this problem out.
That's the right path to take, in my opinion.
-
I don't understand?
British politicians took all the evil guns away.
How could anyone possibly get shot in the handgun-free United Kingdom?
You must be imagining things.
-
What's wrong with London?
(Obviously) There are black people in Melbourne, but no shootings.
-
@shillard
No, they made them more difficult to own without a license and less convenient to purchase. They also made it illegal to go walking the streets with them. At no point did they come and physically remove them people, except during arrests of people found brandishing them perhaps.
Making something illegal will never stop someone determined to break that law from doing it. It just deters the waverers.
To turn your pathetically moronic point around:
So, does anybody take hard drugs in Oz? Wow, I thought it was illegal. How could anyone ever OD in hard-drug free Oz?
-
I think Shillard was being sarcastic, but we are all on the same page: a ban doesn't stop criminals getting what they want.
To clarify on the legal angle here in the UK:
1) The only handguns (firearms) that can be licensed here in England, are black-powder pistols (muzzle-loading pistols). These have not been seen in many gunshot incidents of a criminal nature here in the UK (in fact I have not heard of even one such incident here, but there is/was a criminal element in Australia that tends/tended to favour black-powder pistols).
2) Shotguns can be owned if the individual applies for the appropriate certificate from the police. An individual with a valid shotgun certificate can have as many shotguns as he likes. These can operate by any mechanism (break, pump, semi-auto) as long as the shotgun cannot have more than 3 cartridges 'on board' at a time.
3) No semi-automatic rifles can be had. The only exception to this is rimfire rifles (usually this means .22s). Any centerfire rifle must be manually loading (such as bolt action, lever action, pump action etc). There aren't any calibre limits for manually-operated rifles, but range limitations exist.
4) A muzzle-loading pistol can be had on a firearms certificate, same as the rifles. If the shooter wants to practice the original black powder disciplines, he needs two additional licenses relating to explosives. He needs a license to store explosives and another license to transport those explosives from their place of storage to the range. These days people use Pyrodex instead of black powder because Pyrodex is not an explosive.
5) Crossbows are not licensed. Air rifles and pistols under a certain foot-pound energy value are not licensed, but age limits apply to the purchasing of these items. (I'm not sure what that age is, but it is in the teens).
If you want a firearms certificate, the onus is on you to prove to the police why you need that, whereas if you want a shotgun certificate, the onus is on the police to prove why you shouldn't have it.
And those are the laws in a nutshell. There are exceptions, but the requirements to meet those exceptions are usually beyond the ordinary citizen's needs.
-
Heres a ridiculous fact for you from a pal who is a firearms officer, to own and operate a military tank within the UK with a working weapon (turret mounted cannon) under 75mm in caliber you require:
A standard full UK driving licence (as they are not goods vehicles there is no weight restriction)and a standard shotgun licence.
Your vehicle must also be registered with your local police station.
Seems pretty simple, im off a tank shopping!
-
mick_aka wrote:
Heres a ridiculous fact for you from a pal who is a firearms officer, to own and operate a military tank within the UK with a working weapon (turret mounted cannon) under 75mm in caliber you require:
A standard full UK driving licence (as they are not goods vehicles there is no weight restriction)and a standard shotgun licence.
Your vehicle must also be registered with your local police station.
Seems pretty simple, im off a tank shopping!
Are there additional restrictions on purchasing or licensing such a vehicle?
-
"Black Community Leaders" eh?
Which "Black Community" do they claim to speak for I wonder, or is that just a nice tabloid friendly label dreamed up by some PC bra burner?
-
CannonFodder wrote:
"Black Community Leaders" eh?
Which "Black Community" do they claim to speak for I wonder, or is that just a nice tabloid friendly label dreamed up by some PC bra burner?
We have a gunfight to determine which BC's leader gets grand poobah status. :lol:
-
Hey man, T-Bone is back :banana: :banana:
Good to see you again :pint:
-
Karlos wrote:
@shillard
No, they made them more difficult to own without a license and less convenient to purchase. They also made it illegal to go walking the streets with them. At no point did they come and physically remove them people, except during arrests of people found brandishing them perhaps.
Making something illegal will never stop someone determined to break that law from doing it. It just deters the waverers.
To turn your pathetically moronic point around:
So, does anybody take hard drugs in Oz? Wow, I thought it was illegal. How could anyone ever OD in hard-drug free Oz?
And here I was, thinking my sarcasm was about as subtle as a brick in the face.....
-
The problem with your sarcasm is that it is seemingly impossible to differentiate from your normal posting style, if what I have read of your comments here is anything to go by.
-
X-ray wrote:
Hey man, T-Bone is back :banana: :banana:
Good to see you again :pint:
Seconded!
Where the heck have you been, Troy?
-
...and what happened with those kitties?
-
So basically, you are saying that gun crime is the fault of blacks and it's about time they took responsibility for it.
-
Nope, it's the fault of Governments that create consequence-free environments for armed criminals.
Ever wonder why you never get mass shootings (random or otherwise) at police stations, military bases, gun clubs......?
I reckon it might have something to do with the high concentration of armed personnel, and the extreme risk of the offender being blown to tiny bits the second they start harming others - but that's just my opinion.
I've yet to encounter any sensible alternative view, but I haven't closed the door to it.
-
T_Bone wrote:
CannonFodder wrote:
"Black Community Leaders" eh?
Which "Black Community" do they claim to speak for I wonder, or is that just a nice tabloid friendly label dreamed up by some PC bra burner?
We have a gunfight to determine which BC's leader gets grand poobah status. :lol:
It's good you turned up.
I was hoping you'd help the rest of us understand this situation... :lol:
-
I reckon it might have something to do with the high concentration of armed personnel, and the extreme risk of the offender being blown to tiny bits the second they start harming others - but that's just my opinion.
I think it's to do with the way that they recruit people.
Keep the guns, get rid of the weirdo's
-
iamaboringperson:
"Keep the guns, get rid of the weirdo's"
Are there any firearm fans that arent weirdos?
-
Well said Mel_zoom, couldn't agree more.
BTW, welcome back T-Bone!!!
:pint:
-
Depends what you mean by 'firearms fan.'
-
Try www.flashbunny.org for a list of famous gun nuts.
-
PMC wrote:
Well said Mel_zoom, couldn't agree more.
BTW, welcome back T-Bone!!!
:pint:
Should't you update your smiley, to reflect your habit of pissing in another poster's pocket?
-
X-ray:
"Depends what you mean by 'firearms fan.'"
Thats easy. Anybody who finds firearms exciting and fun for their own sake or feels that owning one makes them somehow cool or important. It doesnt.
A firearm is a tool that is solely the end result of people unable to get along.
-
"...A firearm is a tool that is solely the end result of people unable to get along..."
----------------------------------------------------------
Well, many would disagree with you there. Granted, firearms are the preferred weapon in combat between troops today, but men have fought each other with all sorts of weapons throughout the ages. I have firearms and I also have bows. Both classes of weapons have been used in conflicts, and both classes of weapons are currently in use for target shooting and in some instances hunting. I have an assortment of cutlery and tools that can be used as weapons too.
But I get along just fine with our fair citizens, whether I am in South Africa or in the UK.
Just having the tool is not enough to render a man unlawfully dangerous.
-
X-Ray:
I think you misunderstood me. All of the weapons you describe were designed with the sole objective of killing and maiming (and only maiming as a side effect of inefficiency).
It doesnt really matter if they have any other use as these will always be an afterthought. Guns, bows, swords, artillery, bombs, mines, take your pick. Not one of them has any intrinsic redeeming features of any kind. All these weapons are the end product of a species that is incapable of reason beyond a certain point and therefore must resort to violence to settle any dispute.
I see a gun and all I can see is a metallic incarnation of all that is base and wrong with the human race.
-
I see.
So, do you want to come shooting with me, Mel? :lol:
-
X-Ray:
No thankyou but I would be interested in hearing what the attaction is supposed to be. I can see that marksmanship requires skill and a steady hand, but there are plenty of more constructive passtimes you can exercise those exact same skills and gain satisfaction from. Photography is a good example. Shooting at something to me seems to be the exact opposite application of the same skills - destroying something simply for the sake of doing it well.
Can you honestly look at a gun with full knowledge of its intended purpose, knowing how many lives it has ultimately cost and regard it as something positive and worthwhile? Can you admire it as a thing of beauty when you know how ugly its purpose?
-
"...Can you honestly look at a gun with full knowledge of its intended purpose, knowing how many lives it has ultimately cost and regard it as something positive and worthwhile? Can you admire it as a thing of beauty when you know how ugly its purpose?..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Well firstly, no firearm I have owned has ever been a thing of beauty. Not because I don't think a firearm is capable of being a thing of beauty, but because they simply weren't. In fact they were/are dog ugly. :lol:
However, bearing in mind that a firearm is a crafted, engineered item, it is as much worthy of being described as a thing of beauty as any other inanimate object, whether it is an Amiga computer, a fighter jet or a fountain pen. Some firearms are beautifully crafted, and are collector's items (such as Holland & Holland shotguns).
Others are so precisely engineered and have such good ergonomics that they have an aesthetic kind of beauty. Kind of like when form meets function (such as the precision Anschutz rifles).
I can appreciate why some people admire the engraving on a gun and the finely crafted stock, possibly made of walnut. Some of these people don't even fire those, the guns become 'safe queens.'
Well I have to admit that I don't care much about the looks of a firearm. I just want it to be accurate and have good ergonomics and safety features. That's because I want to be able to comfortably aim the thing and hit my target.
Now you say, what is the big deal about target shooting? Surely I can find something to replace that? Well video games are nice, I play darts, I've tried paint ball and laser tag. But none of those require the discipline and skill it takes to hit a target at distance with a precisely-aimed projectile. There isn't a substitute for the real thing. It is like substituting YOU for a sock...see what I mean?
-
"...Can you honestly look at a gun with full knowledge of its intended purpose, knowing how many lives it has ultimately cost and regard it as something positive and worthwhile? Can you admire it as a thing of beauty when you know how ugly its purpose?..."
----------------------------------------------------------
Well, I have firearms, Mel. They haven't cost any lives, don't have an ugly purpose and are definitely worthwhile having.
I think it must be because I bought my guns from a dealer who only sells guns that were brought up by good parents and are not made from cursed metals. I have never had complaints from the authorities about my guns being evil. I guess mine are just well-behaved ;-)
Now these dudes in south London, shooting each other...I feel sorry for them. Clearly they are under the influence of evil guns. They must have got their guns from a dodgy dealer. I bet you if I give them my guns and they give me theirs, then they will become good citizens with no record, and I will become a one man crime-wave :-D
-
X-ray wrote:
I feel sorry for them. Clearly they are under the influence of evil guns.
Now you know this 'argument' you completely made up yourself. The argument against guns is that it's an effect like gasoline on fire (if there is fire).
-
X-Ray:
"They haven't cost any lives, don't have an ugly purpose and are definitely worthwhile having."
Yes they have. Do you think they were manufactured by whatever company and made available soley to provide you and fellow enthusiasts with innocent entertainment?
Every gun made by armaments manufacturers is paid for by sales of these armaments to people that in turn use them to slaughter other people. Each new type of firearm designed and sold is done so to make this process easier and more efficient.
Unless your firearms are made by a company that never produces anything except "sporting" versions and never, ever sells them except to sportsmen, how can you dispute that?
If their ownership were legal would you add other weapons to your collection? Where would you draw the line - personally - on what would be acceptable to own?
Im sure that antipersonel landmines are technically well crafted and engineered too. Again if ownership were within the law would you like a few of those? If not why not?
-
Dear God!
Not one of my guns has taken a life or injured a human being!
Can I take them back to be fixed under warranty or something, as they are clearly faulty?
To save myself the trouble of retyping, you can read my view on firearms - and firearms in the UK in particular - here:
http://shillard.blogspot.com/2006/04/stop-gun-grabbers.html
The links in the entry really say it all....
Something about the argument "violence never solved anything", and a reference to the "city fathers of Carthage" comes to mind....
-
"Not one of my guns has taken a life or injured a human being!"
Why am I not surprised to hear you own more than one?
By buying them, are you not contributing to the profits of companies that thrive on making the process of killing people that much easier?
-
"...Yes they have..."
---------------------
Okay, who did I kill with my firearms?
-
X-ray:
"There isn't a substitute for the real thing. It is like substituting YOU for a sock...see what I mean?"
I must say its a relief to read youd rather copulate with your laundry as you havent a hope in hell of making that substitution.
-
"...Why am I not surprised to hear you own more than one?..."
----------------------------------------------------------
I've never understood why some women need 30 pairs of shoes and several different nail-files so I guess the score is 1-1 there.
By the way I also have more than one firearm. Makes me twice as evil.
:devildance: :devildance:
-
"...I must say its a relief to read youd rather copulate with your laundry as you havent a hope in hell of making that substitution..."
----------------------------------------------------------
Aww Mel, and I thought we would be so good together.
-
X-Ray:
"Okay, who did I kill with my firearms?"
I didnt once say you personally have killed anybody with your firearms only that your firearms have aided the killing of people financially. I am sorry if this concept is too abstract for you but I will try to explain.
Assuming your firearms were produced by any major armaments manufacturer, the money you paid for them has doubtlessly been used to produce more weapons that in turn have been used to kill people - in exact accordance with their intented purpose. Be honest: using their products to shoot at inanimate targets is a tiny sideshow for them but as with all manufacturers any sale is good and supports their main business. And that business is producing devices that are designed to kill. Whatever else they may be good for is not really their concern.
Is your personal amusement worth the price of supporting this?
The way you make it sound its the zenith of satisfaction.
Whatever did you do before you discovered the joy of shooting things?
-
The day they design ladies shoes and nail files to be efficient, lethal weapons you can make that comparison.
For what its worth I dont hoard such things. Though I do have several pairs of shoes - Id be lying to say otherwise.
-
Gun owners:
Here is a thought. Assume your gun was stolen in a robbery and then used to kill someone in a subsequent crime. Can you honestly say you played no part in making that weapon available to the killer (even in this opportunistic example)?
Where do the illegally owned firearms in the hands of criminals come from originally?
-
"...I didnt once say you personally have killed anybody with your firearms only that your firearms have aided the killing of people financially. I am sorry if this concept is to abstract for you but I will try to explain..."
----------------------------------------------------------
Oh, so it is financially that I have assisted the slaughter of the innocents, is it?
Really?
I thought my taxes were being used for that, not the £9 profit the gun manufacturer made from my two sales. ;-)
Well, seeing as I have contributed much more than £9 to charitable causes, I guess I am in the black morally.
It's just as well, because you had me thinking I was a lost cause :lol:
-
So easy to absolve yourself once you look at it financially.
If someone knowingly donated money to a charity or bought goods from an organisation that used some of those funds to support groups that were into killing people - eg a terrorist organisation for example, would you condemn them for doing so?
Or would their other deeds put them morally in the black?
Wether you like it or not it is the same equation. The only difference is that armaments manufacturers can legally sell their wares but morally they are no better than anybody else that profiteers from conflict.
If a company produced something you liked - maybe some favourite snack or something - but it was wrecking the environment and getting away with it, would you consider giving up that product?
If you would on principle - even though you knew your abstinence would go pretty much unnoticed - why not apply this same rationale to owning firearms?
Your guns may only have made £9 profit for them. What of the ammunition you have to buy to use them?
-
"...Here is a thought. Assume your gun was stolen in a robbery and then used to kill someone in a subsequent crime. Can you honestly say you played no part in making that weapon available to the killer (even in this opportunistic example)?"
-----------------------------------------------------------
If the weapon was stolen because I failed to take due precautions to store it in a secure manner then I would definitely be at fault and would have to accept responsibility for the negligent loss of a firearm.
"...Where do the illegally owned firearms in the hands of criminals come from originally?..."
----------------------------------------------------------
Multiple sources:
1) Locally stolen legally-held firearms (not applicable to the subject at hand in the London scenario, because the weapons cannot be legally held as they are banned.)
2) Illegally modified Brocock air pistols. A Brocock air-pistol is made purely for sport and target shooting, so that is excluded from your manufacturer's contribution to evil. These are no longer available here in the UK, anyway.
3) Home made. You can make a shotgun with two pieces of plumber's pipe, a 50p coin and a bit of epoxy adhesive. Who said knowledge isn't dangerous? Maybe we should lock up all the budding engineers and burn all the books.
4) Guns that were legally manufactured overseas and were smuggled into the UK. This is what I call a universal donor. These guns are always going to be available as long as countries have a need and means to defend themselves. Almost every country in the world manufactures small arms.
If we could press a magic button and make them all turn into dust, that would be great. But then we as a nation would become subservient to the first group of chavs who armed themselves with a bunch of £4 axes bought legally from B&Q.
-
But then we as a nation would become subservient to the first group of chavs who armed themselves with a bunch of £4 axes bought legally from B&Q.
Would you use your handgun to shoot a chav with an axe that broke into your house?
-
"If we could press a magic button and make them all turn into dust, that would be great. But then we as a nation would become subservient to the first group of chavs who armed themselves with a bunch of £4 axes bought legally from B&Q."
Id rather take my chances with someone holding an axe than a gun. One thing you fail to address in your argument is that the easier a weapon makes it to kill someone the cheaper life gets.
If you tried to kill someone with your bare hands your instincts fights against you. You know what you are doing is wrong and because it takes time you can stop before you actually do kill them.
Put a blade in your hand and it becomes slightly easier (physically) to kill but you still have to be close enough to the person to do it and it would generally not be a quick death. Again youd struggle to do it.
Put a gun in your hand and you can fell a person at a distance, often instantly. It is both easier physically and emotionally because you have become more abstracted from the reality of what you are doing.
The more sophisticated and efficient weapons get the less immediately responsible the user is made to feel and consequently the cheaper life gets.
For the criminal a gun gives him a quick way to stop a victim from struggling. Its easier for him to terrorize the victim because both he and the victim knows that the consequences are likely to be lethal. If the victim offered any serious resistance it is also easier to kill him.
Without any access to guns criminals would doubtless use knives - as indeed many do - but not all criminals who feel sufficiently "hard" with a gun would feel quite as formiddable armed only with a knife.
-
mel_zoom wrote:
"Not one of my guns has taken a life or injured a human being!"
Why am I not surprised to hear you own more than one?
By buying them, are you not contributing to the profits of companies that thrive on making the process of killing people that much easier?
Put those rocks down, Mel - you're in a moral crystal palace.
Ever flown on an airline using Boeing or Airbus aircraft? If so, you are "contributing to the profits of companies that thrive on making the process of killing people easier".
If you've ever used the products of Boeing, Airbus, IBM, Toshiba, TEAC, Honeywell, General Motors, Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, Bolle, Ray Ban, Microsoft, etc - you have, and I quote:
"Contributed to the profits of companies that thrive on making the process of killing people easier".
So I do hope that you'll refuse to be hauled aboard a Eurocopter rescue aircraft after the ambos cut you from your wrecked car, becuase to patronise a service using equipment from a core military supplier would compromise your otherwise impeccable moral record when it comes to arms suppliers.
Mel, you are quite simply a clueless hypocrite.
-
mel_zoom wrote:
Gun owners:
Here is a thought. Assume your gun was stolen in a robbery and then used to kill someone in a subsequent crime. Can you honestly say you played no part in making that weapon available to the killer (even in this opportunistic example)?
Where do the illegally owned firearms in the hands of criminals come from originally?
The assumption is unlikely to be translated into reality. In a robbery, I'd be inclined to shoot, stab, clobber or otherwise deal with the robber.
In a burglary, you'd need world-class safecracking gear or a few kilos of High Explosive to access my arms. Plenty of more worthy targets around for the few with the skill and the means.
Here's a question for you - a couple of iced-up thugs start smashing your door down with the clear intention of pack-raping and (probably) subsequently murdering you.
Do you....
a) Shoot them.
b) Call 999 and pray the cops come faster than Pizza Hut.
c) Get raped and die.
Hint: My wife answers "a".
What do you do, Mel?
-
"...Would you use your handgun to shoot a chav with an axe that broke into your house?..."
----------------------------------------------------------
You mean if I actually had a handgun and was allowed to keep it at home here in the UK?
Well let's see now, a chav with an axe broke into my home. What would I do?
I would tell him: "I say, sir, that is a simply marvellous axe. You wield it with such skill and with such vigour that I instantly warm to your derring-do and I feel a surge of bravado and machismo overtaking me, to the point that I feel compelled to challenge you fairly and squarely just as in the chivalrous duels of old.
However, I must say at this point that it is hardly a fair match: notwithstanding the fact that you have a substantial melee weapon and could probably fell me with one swift blow to the upper cervical region, I have here in my hand a firearm that can readily and more efficiently dispatch you by virtue of the fact that it can expel lead projectiles at more than 1000 feet per second. I therefore propose that you come into my kitchen and avail yourself of a cup of tea and a freshly-made scone while I pawn this firearm with all haste and purchase for myself an axe of equal character to yours, so that we may more equally discuss the future ownership of my possessions and the quality of my physical constitution."
-
Would you use your handgun to shoot a chav with an axe that broke into your house?
Yup - unless I didn't have a handgun handy, in which case I'd kill him with one of my axes - or a knife, or a rolled-up newspaper, or my bare hands, or whatever was handy.
-
"...One thing you fail to address in your argument is that the easier a weapon makes it to kill someone the cheaper life gets..."
----------------------------------------------------------
Maybe for you it does, but not for me.
Perhaps you were the type of citizen they were thinking of when they banned handguns here in the UK.
-
mel_zoom wrote:
Id rather take my chances with someone holding an axe than a gun. One thing you fail to address in your argument is that the easier a weapon makes it to kill someone the cheaper life gets.
If you tried to kill someone with your bare hands your instincts fights against you. You know what you are doing is wrong and because it takes time you can stop before you actually do kill them.
Put a blade in your hand and it becomes slightly easier (physically) to kill but you still have to be close enough to the person to do it and it would generally not be a quick death. Again youd struggle to do it.
Put a gun in your hand and you can fell a person at a distance, often instantly. It is both easier physically and emotionally because you have become more abstracted from the reality of what you are doing.
The more sophisticated and efficient weapons get the less immediately responsible the user is made to feel and consequently the cheaper life gets.
For the criminal a gun gives him a quick way to stop a victim from struggling. Its easier for him to terrorize the victim because both he and the victim knows that the consequences are likely to be lethal. If the victim offered any serious resistance it is also easier to kill him.
Without any access to guns criminals would doubtless use knives - as indeed many do - but not all criminals who feel sufficiently "hard" with a gun would feel quite as formiddable armed only with a knife.
Typically mindless stuff - no wonder the West is in free-fall.
Have fun explaining how in Australia, where 20 million people legally own over a million guns (and there are probably at least that many illegal ones laying about) firearms are used in less than 20% of murders.
The leading instrument of homicide is the knife, closely followed by blunt instruments and bare hands. Firearms rate well down at number 5 on the choice methods of death.
The tool used is irrelevant - it's the intent of the human utilising it that matters.
Nobody designing a motor vehicle intended it to become the leading killer of the 20th Century. Nobody designing cigarettes intended that the users of the product would be riddled with cancer and inflict a cost of untold trillions on health services.
Nobody designing a 767 intended it to be flown into a high-rise office building with the specific intent of killing thousands of people.
Inanimate objects are morally neutral - to think otherwise is to embrace some primitive animistic notion that belongs to apes and monkey-men.
-
"I love my MX5"
Oh dear:
"Mazda began as the Toyo Cork Kogyo Co., Ltd, founded in Japan in 1920. Toyo Kogyo moved from manufacturing machine tools to vehicles, with the introduction of the Mazda-Go in 1931, although they produced weapons for the Japanese military throughout the Second World War."
-
X-ray:
""...One thing you fail to address in your argument is that the easier a weapon makes it to kill someone the cheaper life gets..."
----------------------------------------------------------
Maybe for you it does, but not for me.
Perhaps you were the type of citizen they were thinking of when they banned handguns here in the UK."
A very poor "argument" consistent with not even bothering to read the remainder of the post. Other than to attack me for disagreeing with your POV, how can you possibly conclude from my points I would ever have the slightest wish to own a gun?
Back to my point, are you seriously suggesting that criminals armed with firearms exercise more restraint than those that have to physically engage with their victim? A five foot weakling with a knife and any sense of self preservation would think twice about attempting to attack someone considerably larger and more powerful given there is considerable risk to himself.
The same person armed with a loaded gun complete with the ego boost its force multiplication brings would feel more confident.
shillard:
Im sorry but your entire argument is seriously flawed. Armament manufacturers directly profit out of armed conflict and produce items specifically designed to assist in waging of armed conflict.
The same is not true for the majority of the other organisations you mention even if people are accidentally killed as a by product of their activities.
Regarding my mx5, the comandeering of civilian manufacturing infrastructure during war is not something which you can blame on the company itself. Blame war and for that blame overly aggressive, unreasoning attitudes quick to escalate disagreements to violence. It sounds like you ought to be able to identify with that sentiment.
You can make a case for tobacco production - now the effects are known nobody can really say tobacco companies are helping anybody but themselves. However as you say, they did not design the cigarette as something intentionally lethal. The same is not true for arms manufacturers - the majority of their profits come from the design and sale of devices that are intentionally lethal.
-
"Do you....
a) Shoot them."
That is not an option. I don't own a firearm and have absolutely no wish to do so. Even if I did, shooting someone, even in self defence, in the UK is likely to get me imprisoned.
-
mel_zoom wrote:
shillard:
Im sorry but your entire argument is seriously flawed. Armament manufacturers directly profit out of armed conflict and produce items specifically designed to assist in waging of armed conflict.
The same is not true for the majority of the other organisations you mention even if people are accidentally killed as a by product of their activities.
Bzzzzzzzzzt. WRONG.
Let's look at the products of come of the companies I listed:
http://www.boeing.com/ids/a_to_z.html
http://www.eads.com/1024/en/Homepage1024.html
http://www.allpar.com/history/military/index.html
http://www.gogglesgiant.com/bolmilandtac.html
Good to see that you think fighter jets, tanks, guided bombs, laser targetting equipment and parts for nuclear submarines don't fall into the "specifically designed to assist in the waging of armed conflict" category.
Best quit while you're ahead, Mel.
Here's a funny little site for those trying to stake out the moral high ground. I wonder how many actually practise what they preach....?
http://peace-action.inbyron.com/lists.html
-
Mel I think you have serious misconceptions about the use of guns in crime, and guns vs knives vs axes etc from a tactical point of view. There isn't much I can do to help you see the reality of the situation because you obviously have no experience in this regard.
You've made up your mind that guns are evil, but you can't back it up with a reasoned debate.
Oh well, who says we all have to agree, eh?
Now where did I put my evil gun(tm) ?
-
X-Ray:
"Mel I think you have serious misconceptions about the use of guns in crime, and guns vs knives vs axes etc from a tactical point of view. There isn't much I can do to help you see the reality of the situation because you obviously have no experience in this regard."
Wrong. I was attacked at knifepoint about 4 years ago. I resisted and I got away relativey unharmed You are doubtless thinking that he never intended to use it other than to intimidate me but you would be wrong again. He lunged with it several times aiming for my upper body.
I have no doubt that if he had a gun I would be dead - even if I managed to get away as before he could have shot me down as I fled.
-
"Good to see that you think fighter jets, tanks, guided bombs, laser targetting equipment and parts for nuclear submarines don't fall into the "specifically designed to assist in the waging of armed conflict" category."
I was talking about your tobacco company example but never mind. If it makes you feel comfortably superior to take my reply completely out of context and use it to insult me see how much I care.
-
Wrong. I was attacked at knifepoint about 4 years ago. I resisted and I got away relativey unharmed You are doubtless thinking that he never intended to use it other than to intimidate me but you would be wrong again. He lunged with it several times aiming for my upper body.
Oh, I'm pretty sure I'd rather wrestle a handgun, or especially a rife, out from a persons hands than a knife. I wouldn't get cut that way.
---
Edit:
Hey you like MX5? How about Toyota Celica? Because my sister owns one.
-
" Oh, I'm pretty sure I'd rather wrestle a handgun, or especially a rife, out from a persons hands than a knife. I wouldn't get cut that way."
If someone levels a gun straight at you and its clear they wont hesitate to use it how quickly do you think you can move yourself out of its path and trap their arm compared to their squeezing the trigger at the first sign of trouble? Whilst you are correct that you could get cut in the struggle, how confident are you that an accidental discharge in the struggle wont wound you just as badly? Once an arm is trapped it becomes a lot more difficult to use a knife but it is still quite easy to fire a gun you are holding.
I dont like those odds one bit. A person holding a knife has to lunge at you with it having gotten reasonably within reach. Timing wise you are more evenly matched.
Also, unless they are an expert knife thrower you are more likely to get away safely too.
-
Inanimate objects are morally neutral - to think otherwise is to embrace some primitive animistic notion that belongs to apes and monkey-men.
Who/what are a monkey-men?
-
CannonFodder wrote:
Inanimate objects are morally neutral - to think otherwise is to embrace some primitive animistic notion that belongs to apes and monkey-men.
Who/what are a monkey-men?
Those who believe that inanimate objects are not morally neutral.
And those who worship Bono, drive Volvos, fail to keep left (or right, in the States and continental Europe) unless overtaking, people who use their vehicle's fog lamps when no fog is present, and those who think Mike Moore is a really cool bloke who always speaks the truth.
I apologise if I've left anyone out - I'm sure I'll make up for it later.
-
shillard wrote:
CannonFodder wrote:
Inanimate objects are morally neutral - to think otherwise is to embrace some primitive animistic notion that belongs to apes and monkey-men.
Who/what are a monkey-men?
Those who believe that inanimate objects are not morally neutral.
And those who worship Bono, drive Volvos, fail to keep left (or right, in the States and continental Europe) unless overtaking, people who use their vehicle's fog lamps when no fog is present, and those who think Mike Moore is a really cool bloke who always speaks the truth.
I apologise if I've left anyone out - I'm sure I'll make up for it later.
Ever wonder why your life isn't as content as you'd like it to be?
-
shillard wrote:
Those who believe that inanimate objects are not morally neutral.
Shall we hand every terrorist on the face of the Earth a neutron bomb, on account of the fact that it's inanimate and morally neutral?
Gun laws are there for people, not guns. This has to be the dumbest, most petulant pro-gun argument I've heard in a long time.
-
"...Shall we hand every terrorist on the face of the Earth a neutron bomb, on account of the fact that it's inanimate and morally neutral?..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't hand a terrorist a pair of pliers, never mind a neutron bomb.
"...Gun laws are there for people, not guns..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
That's the point, old bean. The suitability of the person to own the firearm is the ultimate question, not the question of whether a firearm will render a person a danger to society. In all cases here in the UK, you have to satisfy the authorities that you have a legitimate need for that firearm.
If someone has issues about how that suitability is assessed and verified, that is a legitimate concern. But that goes to the quality of the individual, not the gun.
-
Do you....
a) Shoot them.
b) Call 999 and pray the cops come faster than Pizza Hut.
c) Get raped and die.
Hint: My wife answers "a".
Yeah, like you have a wife :-P If you do, she must be one very patient woman!
Anyway, you said earlier that your guns are totally locked down and secure and so on.
How the hell are you supposed to crack them open, load them and fire them at your assailants in any situation where they break in without disturbing you immediately?
Unless your guns are easy for you to get hold of and load in an extremely short space of time I fail to see how option "a" could be enacted except in the case the guys are stood there making a massive disturbance for however long before getting in. Let's face it, that's not exactly what happens in the majority of cases.
Of course, if your guns are easy to get hold of quickly, they are that much easier to steal too.
You realistically can't have it both ways. You can have them properly secured or you can have them ready to use in a genuine emergency.
-
@Chris
This has to be the dumbest, most petulant pro-gun argument I've heard in a long time.
Indeed. However it seems the standard posting MO for our antipodean troll here. Hmmm, I can't think who that reminds me of...
I apologise if I've left anyone out - I'm sure I'll make up for it later.
As well you should. All those people that for whatever reason think you are an OK guy are hurting at your forgetfulness.
-
Karlos wrote:
How the hell are you supposed to crack them open, load them and fire them at your assailants in any situation where they break in without disturbing you immediately?
Unless your guns are easy for you to get hold of and load in an extremely short space of time I fail to see how option "a" could be enacted.
That's why you have a gun rack in your truck ...
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000AU6LMQ.01-A3AZEU1266GEG2._SCMZZZZZZZ_V46887456_AA160_.jpg)
permits are for concealed weapons ...
:lol:
-
@ Karlos
"...Unless your guns are easy for you to get hold of and load in an extremely short space of time I fail to see how option "a" could be enacted except in the case the guys are stood there making a massive disturbance for however long before getting in. Let's face it, that's not exactly what happens in the majority of cases.
Of course, if your guns are easy to get hold of quickly, they are that much easier to steal too.
You realistically can't have it both ways. You can have them properly secured or you can have them ready to use in a genuine emergency...."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Not so, my good man. You wouldn't be aware of it (most UK people probably don't need to be aware of it), but various safes exist that are secure and very fast to open. These are mainly of use in SA or the US where you can have a gun in a safe at home, the gun being in a loaded condition.
In the majority of burglaries that I am aware of, some time and effort has been expended by forcibly gaining entry to the premises. Of course if you leave your doors unlocked and windows open then you may have no warning that someone is breaking in (this assumes you are at home when it happens).
Hypothetically speaking, a farmer who heard a door or window being broken could indeed get to his safe (which in most instances is in his bedroom, before the intruder could get to him. This would be more likely to happen if he locked the bedroom door behind him ;-)
Having said that, the situation in countries where firearms are a legitimate weapon for self defense is usually like this: the guy will have the gun accessible but concealed in the house while he is at home. If he leaves the house, he either takes it with him or he locks it up.
However, even in SA and certain states in the US, it is not an automatic signal to come out with guns blazing because you hear somebody breaking in. The advice in a case like that is as follows:
1) Take yourself and your loved ones to your designated safe room and lock yourselves in.
2) Call the police and tell them you are being burgled, how many innocents there are and which room you are in. Advise them that you are armed and are waiting in the room.
3) You wait for the police and let them deal with the burglars/home invaders. You only fire on the burglars if they bust into the room that you are in. The advice is to let them steal what they want and let the police try to apprehend them.
There is a misconception that a firearms owner is a blood-thirsty psychopath just looking for an excuse to kill somebody. I know gun owners in countries all over the world and the majority of them are not interested in escalating a situation to the point that shots are fired. This is logical, because a law-abiding citizen doesn't want to lose his firearms or his freedom because he acted illegally in the use of deadly force, with his firearm. The majority of these people (and certainly ALL the people I shoot with) value life and don't want trouble.
I have been shooting various firearms since I was knee-high to a grasshopper. I have fired a total of ONE shot in a situation that was related to defense. In that case I prevented a man from stabbing a woman to death in Johannesburg in 1995. I also used the same gun to arrest that man.
So I guess the score is X-ray 1, Goblins 0
(Comment for Mel: I took the pistol that was involved in the above incident to a psychiatrist. This was to check whether the pistol had a bloodlust or had developed a bad attitude because of firing that shot. This was a good thing for me to do, because although my pistols are quite well behaved, one can never underestimate their capacity to corrupt or render their owner a wicked person. You'll be glad to know that under very detailed questioning, the pistol promised to never countermand any of my orders, and to never exude a miasma of evil or malice as long as it is registered to me. :-P )
-
How did this turn into a guns thread?
Anyway, what are hunters supposed to do? Dang, I suppose nobody cares about them, anyway.
-
"Comment for Mel:..."
Hmmm. I wonder why you are still single.
:-P
-
nowt wrong with owning guns, the majority of people own them simply for recreation not to shoot people dead.
-
mick_aka wrote:
Heres a ridiculous fact for you from a pal who is a firearms officer, to own and operate a military tank within the UK with a working weapon (turret mounted cannon) under 75mm in caliber you require:
A standard full UK driving licence (as they are not goods vehicles there is no weight restriction)and a standard shotgun licence.
Your vehicle must also be registered with your local police station.
Seems pretty simple, im off a tank shopping!
:idea:
sounds like a larf - would make parking in wolvo a lot easier ! (not sure how I'd get it into the Wulfrun Centre car park though...
-
mel
while i agree that military grade weapons and automatics should not be in the pubic hands guns do serve a purpose.
in the country where there are no (or few) grocery stores you must hunt for your food or fish for your food. for hunting you must shoot or bludgeon the animal to death. also i would much rather shoot a rattlesnake to death than to walk up to it with a knife or axe and try to kill one that way.
also if you have a mob on your doorsteps an axe in your hand won't affect things in the least but if you have a shotgun in your hand they will think twice before attacking (even if they have guns too)
i hate to fall back on the old saying but it is true. guns don't kill people, people kill people. you can get rid of everything(guns, axes, brooms, pipes, wire, rope, etc) and this will still be true.
as for your situation you were lucky that person was incompetant or you would have been dead anyway. he could have thrown something at you(including the knife) to stop you from fleeing then killed you.
btw just to dash water on your theory about gun fanatics are the only ones for guns. i don't own a gun. they scare me(same with knives). i have used them though when i needed to(coming face to face with rattlesnakes regularly kinda wakes you up to that.)
-
You realistically can't have it both ways. You can have them properly secured or you can have them ready to use in a genuine emergency.
yes you can. you just have to be creative. put a small pistol in a place that nobody would think to look but a place that you can get to easily.
btw anyone that thinks a lock will stop a thief is sadly mistaken. locks are there to keep an honest person honest.
-
in the country where there are no (or few) grocery stores you must hunt for your food or fish for your food. for hunting you must shoot or bludgeon the animal to death. also i would much rather shoot a rattlesnake to death than to walk up to it with a knife or axe and try to kill one that way.
Where do you get your ammunition from? Seems odd that a gun store would take precedence over basic amenities like food etc.
-
i see you have never packed your own bullets then.
you can get the materials mail order. and gunpowder lasts a long time when properly stored.reloading cartriges (http://www.thegunshop.co.uk/reloaders-supplies/rsinfo.htm)
also as for the stores, yes you can buy dried or canned foods but if you want fresh meat and vegetables you have two choices drive 30-40 miles to the nearest grocery store(if you are not lucky to have one nearby) or grow it, shoot it yourself.
where i lived the nearest grocery store was 15 miles away. the post office was 5 miles away.
-
i see you have never packed your own bullets then.
No, but then I don't have a gun either :-)
-
i have no gun either. however i knew someone who took a 410 and reloaded the cartriges but instead of putting the metal shot he instead put rocksalt in it. that way if it was fired it would not be lethal(except point blank range) but when you shot it the person or animal will have lots to think about. it seriously burns as the salt is in an open wound.
he saved the lethal shots 12 gauge for emergencies and hunting
-
@ Karlos
"...Where do you get your ammunition from? Seems odd that a gun store would take precedence over basic amenities like food etc...."
----------------------------------------------------------
I don't hunt, but I also don't turn down meat that was harvested from a hunt. I've enjoyed quite a few game meat dishes and I discuss these with members of several firearm forums. I prefer it if the meat is made into biltong.
A lot of these guys live way out in the middle of nowhere and they tend to have a stockpile of ammunition so that they can hunt all season. That's the nice thing about ammo: it doesn't spoil.
For those who still hunt even though they have access to grocery stores around the corner, they are saving money by eating these wild animals. Of course they have to pay for hunting permits, but there is quite a lot of meat that can be had from a deer and the cost of buying that same amount of beef would be more.
It may also surprise you (it surprised me) that there are some people who go on squirrel hunts and bag about twenty squirrels at a time. They cook those and eat them. There is even a company that buys the tails for about 20 cents. The parts of the animal that aren't eaten go to the scavenging animals.
I guess worms and buzzards have to eat too.
-
I believe all young ladies should follow this girl's philosophy on self defence:
(http://tonova.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/minigun.jpg)
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
I believe all young ladies should follow this girl's philosophy on self defence:
(http://tonova.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/minigun.jpg)
Oh yeah!
I suppose it beats trying to get their keys out of their hand-bag and aiming for the guys eyes.
-
I still want to hear about hunters and hunting.
What are people who hunt supposed to do?
-
iamaboringperson wrote:
I still want to hear about hunters and hunting.
What are people who hunt supposed to do?
shoot!! :lol:
srry i just had to say that.
-
by iamaboringperson:
What are people who hunt supposed to do?
Become vegetarian and live a life of low cholesterol and high libido?
(http://www.lollipopanimation.com/images/gallery/small/lady_bugs_bunny_elma_fudd.jpg)
:-D
-
Or just keep eating an enjoyable food.
-
I suppose 12-gauge lead pellets are an acquired taste. Myself, I prefer a good plate of macaroni cheese... or curry & chips!
As for street guns - I bet half the tribal/turf disputes are coming from aggresive rap music which turns already disillusioned fatherless teenagers into wannabe gangsters.
Rip up the ghettos and the 60s housing estates, crack down on drugs and start building dance/sports arenas.
As another personal thing - people under 18 should not be allowed the cigarette, the car or the mobile phone. One promotes dependance on a substance, one promotes laziness and machoism at too early an age and the third breeds a generation of little spies/bullies (not to mention the cancer risk from prolonged phonecalls on a microwave emitting device).
Too many times have we seen news of playground bullying with camera phones, text messages of hate etc. and such devices have no doubt lead to increased gang mentality.
The social security system needs reforming too, where are these kids getting 900 GBP for a .38?
The school rules should be ripped up too. If I was a teacher and some kid started mouthing off and acting 'da man' I'd kick his friggin' arse. These days though young kids can make accusations and the teachers are scared. We need bad-ass teachers who can also inspire kids with martial arts, engineering and money discipline.
It's the boys that are suffering in school these days. Girls are far outsripping boys academically and I believe this is caused by a system that doesn't take into account the way a male mind works. Too much emphasis on parrot-learning and not on creative thinking, adapting and physical management.
Another sensitive thing is the imbalance of ethnic groups. In Britain the asians stay together and the black people stay in their area. Too much immigration and isolationism leads to far-right fascism.
-
(not to mention the cancer risk from prolonged phonecalls on a microwave emitting device).
Hyperspeed, what 'microwave emitting device'? They don't emit microwaves, and you can argue all you want, but there's no evidence that they are causing cancer. (Else, why hasn't there been any correlation between mobile usage and cancer?)
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
I suppose 12-gauge lead pellets are an acquired taste. Myself, I prefer a good plate of macaroni cheese... or curry & chips!
As for street guns - I bet half the tribal/turf disputes are coming from aggresive rap music which turns already disillusioned fatherless teenagers into wannabe gangsters.
Rip up the ghettos and the 60s housing estates, crack down on drugs and start building dance/sports arenas.
As another personal thing - people under 18 should not be allowed the cigarette, the car or the mobile phone. One promotes dependance on a substance, one promotes laziness and machoism at too early an age and the third breeds a generation of little spies/bullies (not to mention the cancer risk from prolonged phonecalls on a microwave emitting device).
Too many times have we seen news of playground bullying with camera phones, text messages of hate etc. and such devices have no doubt lead to increased gang mentality.
The social security system needs reforming too, where are these kids getting 900 GBP for a .38?
The school rules should be ripped up too. If I was a teacher and some kid started mouthing off and acting 'da man' I'd kick his friggin' arse. These days though young kids can make accusations and the teachers are scared. We need bad-ass teachers who can also inspire kids with martial arts, engineering and money discipline.
It's the boys that are suffering in school these days. Girls are far outsripping boys academically and I believe this is caused by a system that doesn't take into account the way a male mind works. Too much emphasis on parrot-learning and not on creative thinking, adapting and physical management.
Another sensitive thing is the imbalance of ethnic groups. In Britain the asians stay together and the black people stay in their area. Too much immigration and isolationism leads to far-right fascism.
Welcome Mr Clarkson. Do wipe your feet on the way out. ;-)
-
by iamaboringperson:
Hyperspeed, what 'microwave emitting device'? They don't emit microwaves, and you can argue all you want, but there's no evidence that they are causing cancer. (Else, why hasn't there been any correlation between mobile usage and cancer?)
Mobile phones (/cell phones) do not operate on UHF/VHF. They use 0.4W microwave energy. When a phone is switched on it will keep in touch with the mast in order to receive call information, SMS updates. When you make a phonecall a mobile phone will use 30x more power output than when you are TXT'ing.
There have been correlations made between mobile use and cancer. Trouble is the experts are fighting each other because the industry is worth so much.
In mice the constant radiation from a mobile heated up the brain and caused tumours. It made the mouse's sperm inactive too.
I recently obtained a leaflet from an Orange shop (a service provider in the UK) and it showed a diagram of radiation intensity in relation to a mast. Basically, stay away from the cone around the bottom.
Some people have been known to hear and taste microwaves, some people feel light headed in their presence and one group of majorettes all passed out after marching through the immediate 'cone' around the base of a mast. In fact whenever someone TXTs me my computer speakers beep-beep-beep even when the headphones are in and I've noticed a friend's CRT monitor flicker too.
I once read about microwave ovens and how a Swedish professor was threatened after he established facts about microwaves. These ovens deplete vitamins and damage molecules. There have been recorded incidences of hospital patients having their blood transfusion warmed from the blood bank and they end up dying. Same for babies receiving milk placed in a microwave.
Combine these interesting theories with the junk food, industrial pollution, contraceptive pills, household chemicals (washing up liquid can mess up your hormones), constant air traffic noise and the fact most kids are now wearing small magnets in their ears (24Hr iPod anyone?) then it's no wonder a load of them are jilted killers.
The biggest problem ultimately is poverty though. Has Tony Blair's 'New Labour' solved this? Do monkeys fly out of my butt?
Have University fees been imposed? Are dentists all going private? Are the '10%' getting richer? Is the UK's debt now in excess of 1-Trillion pounds? Are we the European capital of cocaine, teenage pregnancy and illiteracy?
(http://www.health-safety-signs.uk.com/productimages/Non-Ionising-Radiation.gif)(http://images.easyart.com/i/prints/rw/lg/7/2/Maxi-Posters-Little-Britain---Vicky-Pollard-72240.jpg)
-
damn that post makes the lone gunman seem tame by comparison.
i bet that mouse was rigged to hold the cellphone in one spot consistantly. when was the last time you held a cell phone perfectly still for say 24/48 hrs? answer: no you haven't. you have it strapped to your waist/pocket/purse/or bag. you only use it when you recieve a phone call. under these conditions there is no risk of cancer.cancer study (http://www.betanews.com/article/No_Cell_PhoneCancer_Risk_Large_Study_Says/1165435999)
now if you abuse your phone the risk increases
study 2 (http://www.betanews.com/article/Study_Tumor_Risk_from_Cell_Phones/1143823783)
the fda is re-evaluating the claims atm thofda re-evaluation article (http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2848)
but really let's put this in perspective a microwave oven is running at anywhere fron 800 watts or higher while a cellphone is only .3-.4 watts. not even one watt!! you won't be cooking a turkey with a cellphone dude. now if there is damage from using a cellphone it would be miniscule and would take forever to get any damage significant enough to be a problem. so as long as you don't abuse the phone you are relatively safe. i say relatively since even drinking too much water can kill you. should we restrict water usage for kids?too much water bad? (http://chemistry.about.com/cs/5/f/blwaterintox.htm)
-
X-ray wrote:
"...Can you honestly look at a gun with full knowledge of its intended purpose, knowing how many lives it has ultimately cost and regard it as something positive and worthwhile? Can you admire it as a thing of beauty when you know how ugly its purpose?..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Well firstly, no firearm I have owned has ever been a thing of beauty. Not because I don't think a firearm is capable of being a thing of beauty, but because they simply weren't. In fact they were/are dog ugly. :lol:
Don't you have at least one 1911 incarnation? Talk about a handsome gun! :knuddel:
-
@ T-Bone
Unfortunately I had to buy cheap. I have two pistols and neither one is a thing of beauty:
1) A Baby Browning with a serial number in the 60,000s. It was manufactured sometime in the 1920s or 1930s. Bought second-hand from a little old lady.
2) A Vektor CP1.
However, I have something in the pipeline here in the UK. Not a pistol, of course, but a rifle. When I get it (if I get it) I will be sure to make a thread on it, mainly for Mel's benefit :lol:
-
"When I get it (if I get it) I will be sure to make a thread on it, mainly for Mel's benefit"
Well I hope it keeps you warm at night :-P
-
"Guns don't kill people... the government does!"
(http://www.animationartgallery.com/images/KOT/KOTH6.gif)
-
"...Well I hope it keeps you warm at night..."
----------------------------------------------
Night shooting isn't my thing, toots, but I suppose 500 rounds through it during the day will warm the hands :-P