Very sad - Cooper firearms

[nittany03]

Something similar can be said for Finland, which has a pretty low crime rate. But there is also universal male conscription in Switzerland and Finland though, something that we don't have here and won't anytime soon. Other countries that have high gun ownership rates also have very high crime and/or murder rates, like South Africa, or are in periodic conflict, like Yemen and Iraq.

Japan also has a very low crime rate and an extremely low murder rate, but has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. And several other countries that have much more restrictive gun laws than here also have lower murder and gun crime rates than us, like Australia and Canada.
And Switzerland does not have the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, we do, at twice the rate too.

Data

Article

Economist Chart

Article on Finnish Gun Ownership

So you've completely eviscerated your own argument. If there is no statistical correlation between gun ownership and crime rates, why should the default position to be to restrict the rights of private citizens until proven otherwise?

 

[Flash]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

Self explanatory.

You need to update your info:

UK Home Office: Gun Crime in England and Wales (2006/07)

 

[Flash]

So you've completely eviscerated your own argument. If there is no statistical correlation between gun ownership and crime rates, why should the default position to be to restrict the rights of private citizens until proven otherwise?[/B]

It has proven quite effective here in this country for certain weapons, the National Firearms Act being the prime example. Why not include something that is an effective anti-armor weapon, in addition to being a 'fun' gun to shoot?

 

[nittany03]

It has proven quite effective here in this country for certain weapons, the National Firearms Act being the prime example. Why not include something that is an effective anti-armor weapon, in addition to being a 'fun' gun to shoot?

"Certain weapons" being automatics? The NFA didn't ban them. $200 tax stamp, permission and background checks from the local gendarmerie, some paperwork to the BATF, and as long as your state law permits, you are now the proud owner of a machine gun.

Personally I find the price and the food bill a bit off-putting, but to each their own. And .50 BMG as an effective anti-armor weapon?? Maybe in 1918. I'm no grunt, but that's flat out ridiculous.

 

[Flash]

"Certain weapons" being automatics? The NFA didn't ban them. $200 tax stamp, permission and background checks from the local gendarmerie, some paperwork to the BATF, and as long as your state law permits, you are now the proud owner of a machine gun.

Personally I find the price and the food bill a bit off-putting, but to each their own. And .50 BMG as an effective anti-armor weapon?? Maybe in 1918. I'm no grunt, but that's flat out ridiculous.

I know it didn't ban them, I never said that, it is the restrictions that seem to have proven effective. And that was the whole point of Represenative Moran's bill, to apply the same restrictions.

Against lightly armored vehicles a .50 cal sniper rifle is effective. And no, it is not ridiculous, it is fact.

It's effectiveness against armored vehicles is demonstrated in this article, fourth paragraph:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_11_47/ai_78900532

 

[C420sailor]

You need to update your info:

UK Home Office: Gun Crime in England and Wales (2006/07)

Not so, according to the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ing-amid-epidemic-of-knife-and-gun-crime.html

Take away their guns and what do they do? They simply stab the shit out of each other. What should they do now, ban steak knives?

 

[Flash]

Not so, according to the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ing-amid-epidemic-of-knife-and-gun-crime.html

Take away their guns and what do they do? They simply stab the shit out of each other. What should they do now, ban steak knives?

Why rely on a newspaper article when the actual data is so easily accessible? Here is the government data, and as you can see the number of murders has dropped since 2002 and somewhat leveled off in the past few years:

Crime Rates in England and Wales 2002-2008(Make sure to read footnote 3 for 2002's high number)

Crime Rates in England and Wales 1898-2002

But if you don't trust government statistics alone, here is a newspaper article from The Times (note that the US murder rate is over 3 times that of the rate in England and Wales):

Times Online article

Does it show that their new gun restrictions have worked? Probably not. But crime didn't rise significantly after they were in put in place either, giving lie to the claim that more widespread gun ownership does deter crime. But what do I know? They are just facts.

 

[Flash]

One thing I forgot to note, .50 caliber sniper rifles have been used by terrorists before. In the 90's the IRA used them to kill up to 6 British soldiers and policemen in Northern Ireland. While they had used smaller caliber sniper rifles before to kill British soldiers, the teams using the .50 caliber rifles were particularly effective, shooting through body armor on at least one occasion.

The SAS caught one team possibly preparing for an operation:

http://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/sas-operations/ira-sniper-team/

http://www.policeombudsman.org/publicationsuploads/Final redacted version.pdf#prof

Does this make them 'evil' weapons? No, but they are not in the same class as a 'regular' rifle. The Brits apparently went to great lengths to counter these particular rifles and the teams employing them because of their uniqueness. Most notably their great range and their effectiveness at defeating body armor at the ranges the snipers were employing them.

 

[Zissou]

Our friend Zissou invited me to join this discussion.

My father invented the Barrett Model 82 .50 caliber rifle and introduced it for sale in 1982. His motivation for designing this rifle was purely related to his hobby of shooting. Though no one realized it at the time, his invention went on to become a useful piece of equipment for our military, and allies.

I was born into this business and this spirit of freedom. I have been designing guns and enhancements to weapons full time since 1996 alongside my father. My motivation is exactly the same as his in 1982. We share a gift for design, and a personal interest in guns and the people who use them for honorable purposes.

On to the topic of "why should anyone own a powerful weapon"

From a practical standpoint, it has benefited our country that free people like Ronnie Barrett, with no taxpayer funding where able to take an interest in guns and later design an innovative new tool to help move us forward. This would have never happened had he been subject to restrictions on things like legal machineguns, "sniper rifles", and the like. Owning and using guns sparks creativity for design, just as a car designer has surely spent a lot of time driving many cars.

That is a logical, practical argument that is easy to understand for most.

What is far more difficult is the sociology, and or psychology that leads to one group of men disarming another group to "protect them".

There has been talk about the true intent of the Second Amendment. Having studied the big picture, and considering the context in which it was written, it is plainly clear to me. The men who formed our government wanted no disparity of force between those who served in government and those who are subject to their leadership and decisions. The final check and balance that protects our consitutional republic from slipping towards other less desirable forms of government.

Fast forward to today. Our society is incredibly peaceful by all standards of the world. Law abiding, respectful people own millions of guns in this country, though most of them never harm anyone. More children are injured by backyard trampolines than an irresponsibly stored firearm.

In some areas of our country crime is a regular occurrence. Some have actually blamed that behavior on inanimate objects, guns. That is far easier than addressing serious problems.

With all that in mind, why would those we have elected to serve, look at the law abiding peaceful group and tell them they need more restrictions on what weapons they may pocess? We know this has no affect on crime (see the results of the 10 year run of the 1994 "crime bill" that banned "assualt weapons")

That is a hard question to ask because the possible answers are all frightening. All of the scenarios point to a sinister motive of the group that wants complete control, un-questioned obediance, and ALL of the power. Why?

Why should some trustworthy citizens not be trusted with with a powerful rifle? Are they lesser humans compared to our brothers and sisters who serve in uniform?

If you don't understand why regualar citizens have the right to own a .50 caliber rifle, please, at least get to know some who do. You will meet some people who have a passion for their hobby, and are generally very patriotic. Many of them like Ronnie Barrett will have a great love for this country and a desire to serve those who risk everything in defense of our nation.

Trust those who are proven to be worthy. Punish people who actually commit crimes, not those who could commit crimes.

BUMP- Cause Flash is kickin my ass

 

[Spekkio]

www.gunfacts.info

/end argument, particularly the misconception that stricter gun laws equate to lower gun violence/gun murders.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Something similar can be said for Finland, which has a pretty low crime rate. But there is also universal male conscription in Switzerland and Finland though, something that we don't have here and won't anytime soon. Other countries that have high gun ownership rates also have very high crime and/or murder rates, like South Africa, or are in periodic conflict, like Yemen and Iraq.

Japan also has a very low crime rate and an extremely low murder rate, but has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. And several other countries that have much more restrictive gun laws than here also have lower murder and gun crime rates than us, like Australia and Canada.
And Switzerland does not have the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, we do, at twice the rate too.

Data

Article

Economist Chart

Article on Finnish Gun Ownership

Well my stats are off, but it still stands that their model works better than our model. That was a point I was trying to make but instead you decided to reiterate the point to me seemingly assuming that I didn't know they had universal conscription for every man.

I'm a proponent of universal conscription following models like that of Switzerland and Finland. It provides a lot of good things, training for every able man to fight in our country's time of need, a sense of pride in many cases, and responsibility as it relates to duty. This is just my opinion of it and whether you agree or not is irrelevant to me.

Moving on Japan is a terrible comparison. Their whole society is based around different ideals than our own. I don't want to degrade into talking about the exceedingly large cultural differences between Japan and the rest of the world. But let's look at not just murder rates but attacks. Japan may not have a lot of gun crime.....but.......

http://www.gulfnews.com/World/Japan/10232973.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1376982.stm
http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=5005
http://www.japannewsreview.com/society/kansai/20080624page_id=4382

Knife crime.

But if we just want to blow all our arguments out of the water let's say all the societies of the world are too diverse to apply the same type of rules and have them effectively work at controlling gun ownership/gun crime/gun education/gun responsibility.

It really doesn't even matter how many restrictions you put on them. Like you have said a .50 could be used in a lot bad ways. Well as soon as it that person is a criminal. Criminals break laws they don't abide by them.

Your argument against them is based on laws that have seemingly been effective at controlling what? The ownership of weapons? They don't prevent crime.

Laws don't prevent crime. They are only there to deter crime and to bring justice to those who have committed it.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

One thing I forgot to note, .50 caliber sniper rifles have been used by terrorists before. In the 90's the IRA used them to kill up to 6 British soldiers and policemen in Northern Ireland. While they had used smaller caliber sniper rifles before to kill British soldiers, the teams using the .50 caliber rifles were particularly effective, shooting through body armor on at least one occasion.

The SAS caught one team possibly preparing for an operation:

http://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/sas-operations/ira-sniper-team/

http://www.policeombudsman.org/publicationsuploads/Final redacted version.pdf#prof

Does this make them 'evil' weapons? No, but they are not in the same class as a 'regular' rifle. The Brits apparently went to great lengths to counter these particular rifles and the teams employing them because of their uniqueness. Most notably their great range and their effectiveness at defeating body armor at the ranges the snipers were employing them.

Two words. Bloody Sunday.

 

[Mumbles]

Dr. Gary Kleck was one of my profs at FSU...
he is a self described life long liberal Democrat, and the author of the most exhaustive gun control study heretofore. I remember him telling the class that he actually debunked his original hypothesis, (curtailing gun purchases would lead to less violent crime). He ended up becoming a true believer that an armed society is a polite society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck

http://www.largo.org/klecksum.html

 

[statesman]

I dont understand why we propose to ban guns (.50 Cal) that have been used in crimes maybe once or twice. I can think of only one crime which a Barrett .50 cal was used and it was never shot during the crime, it was simply present in situation. (Anyone remember the guy who got pissed at his neighbor and made a makeshift tank out of a tractor?)

 

[statesman]

One thing I forgot to note, .50 caliber sniper rifles have been used by terrorists before.

So have garage door openers, cell phones, and pagers. Should we outlaw them? Cell phones are reportedly being 'linked' to cancer, some say that cell phone use at gas pumps can lead to explosions, drivers using cell phones are supposedly just as impaired as drunk drivers.

Kids drown in swimming pools (guarded and unguarded) every year. Ban swimming pools? Hold lifeguards criminally responsible for the death of a child?

Electricity is just as dangerous if not more so than a gun if its not handled properly, but we haven't outlawed power plants. We teach our kids to stay away from power sockets and do our best to respect the power that electricity posses.

Only a few people in this country could provide a reason that they NEED an F-450 SupperDuty, or a Ferrari. But we havent put restrictions on these purchases simply because the population cant provide a legitimate need. Why so with guns? Yes our gun crime rate may be higher than some coutries, but relatively speaking the number of gun murders/deaths in this country, (I think somewhere around 15000 annually? maybe wrong) is a drop in the bucket compared to all the other ways people die. 300,000,000 people live in this country, very few die from guns.