<< "NOTORIOUS CONSERVATIVE" OUT OF BRITAIN ~ MAIN ~ LABOR SELF-DESTRUCTION WATCH II >>

GUNS DO GOOD

Further to this week’s Howard-correcting pro-gun column in The Bulletin—much thanks for all positive mail received, by the way—here’s something from Arizona:

The 56-year-old woman was walking near East Fort Lowell Road and North Country Club Road when a man dressed in black approached her and demanded money, said Officer Dallas Wilson, a Tucson Police Department spokesman ...

Thinking her life was in danger, she drew a Smith & Wesson revolver and pointed it at the robber, who ran away.

The woman — whose name was not released by police — had a concealed-weapon permit, Wilson said.

“She was in fear for her life and she defended herself appropriately,” he said.

Yes. Yes, she did. And in Ohio:

[Great-grandmother] Eleanor Lynn, 75, said she keeps her .380 handgun loaded and nearby at all times.

“I already had the gun out,” she said. “Somebody was breaking into my house so I took the gun out and went to the door. They flew.”

That’s why she was ready when the suspects entered her west Akron home Monday morning.

She’d been robbed before and wasn’t about to let it happen again.

“All I got to do is hold this trigger and it goes six times without stopping,” Lynn explained. “I just bought this one and this one has never been used. I’d like to have a chance to use it.”

Think anyone will try robbing her again?

Posted by Tim B. on 03/09/2006 at 11:07 AM
  1. She’s either inarticulate or she urgently needs to get that thing to a gunsmith.

    “I just hold this thing and it goes six time without stopping,” sounds like a defective sear.

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 09 at 11:43 AM • permalink

  2. Guns don’t kill people….bullets do.

    And bombs, and staircases, and lightning strikes, and bird-flu infected KFC, and President Bushes, and lies kill people, too, apparently, and cars kill people, and cigarettes, and booze and deep-fried turkey…

    There’s always the legend of the Texas town where it was illegal NOT to own a gun and the murder rate dropped to zero-ish.

    Is it true that murder-by-gun deaths have actually increased in Australia since Howard de-armed the nation of World War II mementos in 1996?

    Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 09 at 11:44 AM • permalink

  3. Yeah she’ll get robbed again, by a crackhead exactly like the last one who has no idea she’s armed and will probably get shot six times in the balls while she was aiming at his head.

    The thing I like about guns is that they introduce a hilariously random factor into the mugger/old lady equation.

    Posted by Amos on 2006 03 09 at 12:01 PM • permalink

  4. These stories ended peacefully, as do the majority of defensive gun uses.  And they ended well, with no robbery taking place.  But I must admit, I prefer the stories where the criminal gets shot.

    Posted by sjens on 2006 03 09 at 12:05 PM • permalink

  5. “one of the things I don’t admire about America is an almost drooling, slavish love of guns. I think they’re evil.”

    He’s right. I’ve had four of them hanging on my study wall, and a couple more in the closet, for twenty years. They just sit there, silently. Menacing.  Scheming.

    They’re waiting for me to let down my guard before they strike.  KA-POW!

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 03 09 at 12:13 PM • permalink

  6. #1: You don’t suppose she had it modified to full-auto, do you? That would be one lethal granny!

    Posted by paco on 2006 03 09 at 12:17 PM • permalink

  7. Stories like these are more common in America than many Australians realise. Home invaders shot, carjackers shot, etc.

    Posted by daddy dave on 2006 03 09 at 12:17 PM • permalink

  8. I liked the story in Munich some years ago. Policeman moonlighting at a filling station was held up by some hoodlum and shot him dead. Apparently he could carry his service weapon off-duty…...............then again that was in the days before the new Walther PP9 pistol proved such a disaster that it is having to be re-tooled.

    Posted by Voyager on 2006 03 09 at 12:20 PM • permalink

  9. Semi-related, as far as Americans and
    Australians go.

    The US State Department has hammered the Howeird Government for locking up people without charge and violating human rights.

    Say whaaa???

    Cough-cough-gitmo-cough-cough-hicks-cough-
    cough

    Howard slams Americans for their “drooling” love of guns, the US buckets Howard over sending children insane in razor wire desert ‘integration’ camps.

    Who’s trying to pick a fight with who here?

    Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 09 at 12:26 PM • permalink

  10. Your column is right on the money, Tim. Restrictive gun laws concentrate weaponry in the hands of people who use them for the purpose of committing crimes. In Washington, DC - which has possibly the most draconian gun control laws in the country - firearms recovery has increased from 1,982 weapons to 2,065 to 2,344 in 2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively. I doubt that most of these “recoveries” were from honest but nervous citizens.

    Posted by paco on 2006 03 09 at 12:40 PM • permalink

  11. #4: Try this one on for size.

    Overlong url deleted by the Management.

    Posted by paco on 2006 03 09 at 12:47 PM • permalink

  12. I have to say, I agree with the old adage that Guns don’t kill people- people kill people, and the view that Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be a corner store, not a govt agency.

    # 2- I’ve heard the same legend. Leftist logic says its true, because 2 people have heard it. Excellent.

    I can only imagine how the Port Arthur massacre would have played out if not owning a gun were illegal - - I’ll tell you one thing, we wouldn’t be paying taxes to have a disgusting vile excuse for a human being- and probably Green voter- locked up just a few K’s away from where I’m sitting… Come to think of it, we should probably introduce retroactive legislation allowing executions- Boonie can axe him to death as far as I’m concerned.

    Posted by anthony27 on 2006 03 09 at 12:47 PM • permalink

  13. Black Man with a gun

    Posted by monkeyfan on 2006 03 09 at 01:12 PM • permalink

  14. #11 - Paco, you made my day.

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 03 09 at 01:24 PM • permalink

  15. #14: Dave - there are scores of stories like that. And with regard to Mr. Tillman, it couldn’t have happened to a “nicer” guy.

    #13: Very sound advice. I prefer a revolver, too, for home protection because of it’s simplicity (not likely to jam, as a pistol sometimes does). And you can use a speed loader if you actually need more than six bullets (but, as the author points out, if it takes you more than six, you’ve probably got the wrong tool anyway).

    Posted by paco on 2006 03 09 at 01:35 PM • permalink

  16. Another good reason to own a gun:

    http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=MACHETES-03-02-06

    If you have the professionals on your side what more could you want?

    http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=61785

    Posted by Franklin on 2006 03 09 at 01:57 PM • permalink

  17. Focus on the front sight but keep your heart on God.

    I like that.

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 03 09 at 02:01 PM • permalink

  18. 11.  In that photo, is Larry wearing lipstick or what?

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 03 09 at 02:33 PM • permalink

  19. Stoop Davy: He probably liked to wind down after every burglary with a Cherry Smoothie.

    Posted by paco on 2006 03 09 at 02:48 PM • permalink

  20. I think a store named “Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms” would be so cool.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 09 at 03:31 PM • permalink

  21. Hard to format on the card:

    XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
    Sub-Director for Mixers, Matches, Bullets and Fuses
    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

    Posted by mojo on 2006 03 09 at 04:26 PM • permalink

  22. For some good self-defense stories, involving firearms check out this site:
    http://www.keepandbeararms.com/ they update it daily.

    Posted by purplefox on 2006 03 09 at 04:35 PM • permalink

  23. Hmmm.

    1. I prefer a pump-action 12ga shotgun for home defense.  The shot is less likely to penetrate through the house and injure a neighbor.  Plus the sound of a pump-action shotgun racking a round in the dark is THE scariest sound in existence next to a T-Rex scream.

    Pretty much everyone knows what that sound means and there’s no need to communicate further.

    2. The only reason I would ever support a compulsory national service in America would be specifically to teach kids how to shoot and shoot well.

    Posted by memomachine on 2006 03 09 at 04:36 PM • permalink

  24. Kennesaw, Georgia, is the town where every home is required by law to have a gun and ammo for same.

    Google “murder rate kennesaw georgia” for about a gajillion stories on the extremely rapid and dramatic drop in the crime rate, even compared to the rest of Georgia and to the US as a whole.

    Posted by VKI on 2006 03 09 at 04:41 PM • permalink

  25. Seen this?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxjiCyE2gd0

    If it weren’t an ad for an online game, I’d have said it was an ad for a gun control group’s ‘frightener’ campaign about CCW.

    Posted by ausdiplomad on 2006 03 09 at 04:58 PM • permalink

  26. Guns are evil? Then why do policemen and soldiers and bodyguards for politicians and those old retirees in front of jewelry stores forced to carry this evil? Aren’t they the good guys of society?

    When is Howard going to disarm the Australian armed forces?

    Posted by Rajan R on 2006 03 09 at 05:04 PM • permalink

  27. http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2006/03/way-horror-movies-should-end.html

    And try this story of a Texas grandmom.

    Overlong url deleted by the Management.

    Posted by tioedong on 2006 03 09 at 05:10 PM • permalink

  28. # 12, if Martin Bryant had the emotional, intellectual capacity of a twelve year old, then how could he be anything but a Liberal voter?

    Only Howard could see the “extraordinary outpouring of…grief” following the Port Arthur Massacre as an “opportunity”.

    Nice.

    Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 09 at 05:22 PM • permalink

  29. Is anyone else getting this thread in w-i-d-e screen format?  Maybe Tim had to alter the width to accommodate the pump-actions?

    LeftieLatteLover, I always find it hard to tell if comments such as yours are serious, or ironic.  I hope the latter, but if not, why not go the whole hog and say Howard cunningly manipulated the police response, the trial and even MB’s actions for his cynical political advantage?

    Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 09 at 05:44 PM • permalink

  30. #29 yeah, w-i-d-e screen, was wonderin how to fix it!

    I have a friend who is rather partial to firearms. He told me years ago that Bryant’s rampage was a government plot to disarm Australians. He knew. He’d seen the video. “Bryant couldn’t possibly have killed so many people so quickly. There were bullets fired too quickly for it to be one person acting alone…” sound familiar? Grassy knoll? Hmm?

    I just smiled and nodded.

    I had a rifle licence when I used to go shooting with this fellow. I was rather a good shot. I was also in the ARES (Army Reserve) for 2-1/2 years. That, and my father, taught me about weapons safety, etc.

    Posted by kae on 2006 03 09 at 06:09 PM • permalink

  31. “I think a store named ‘Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms’ would be so cool.

    Andrea, while I was travelling through southern Wisconsin, I saw a store that offered beer, ammunition, and taxidermy. No doubt, you could get cigarettes there too. Close enough for you?

    Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2006 03 09 at 06:12 PM • permalink

  32. #1, I think she’s inarticulate, possibly from post-stress shakes.  But so long as she can acquire the right target and then squeeze the trigger properly, she can stammer all she likes.  The rest is gravy.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 09 at 06:15 PM • permalink

  33. BTW, yes, I am getting the “wide screen format” on this thread…..and only on this thread.  Methinks wronwright is at it again.  Unless paco is playing tricks as well.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 09 at 06:17 PM • permalink

  34. #2 Is it true that murder-by-gun deaths have actually increased in Australia since Howard de-armed the nation of World War II mementos in 1996?

    No.

    Posted by ekb87 on 2006 03 09 at 06:19 PM • permalink

  35. Long URL alert on aisle 27, paging Andrea…

    Posted by PW on 2006 03 09 at 06:36 PM • permalink

  36. The rest is gravy.

    Now, let’s not exaggerate that weapon’s firepower…

    Posted by PW on 2006 03 09 at 06:38 PM • permalink

  37. There are several hundred million guns in America, spread over about a hundred million citizens.

    We like guns, and those states that are gun-friendly have bedrock low crime rates.  Those areas (states and cities) that ban or severely restrict guns have very high crime rates.

    Most of us believe that the 2nd Amendment protects the 1st.  There are 33 states that passed CCW legislation in the past 15 years.  Whatever the gun grabbers believe, they are on the run at the state level except for 6 states.

    Any serious anti-gun threat has to come from the Feds…and no one wants a 2nd American revolution.

    Posted by trainer on 2006 03 09 at 07:09 PM • permalink

  38. Oh, and just to make it a bit worse for the statistics,  I got a call today that my custom AR-15 was mailed to my local FFL dealer.

    It took an extra two months, but I got a cool 9-11 memorial engraved on the magwell.

    ...and I live in New Jersey, the worst state in the union for gun friendly legislators.

    Posted by trainer on 2006 03 09 at 07:12 PM • permalink

  39. #2
    “Is it true that murder-by-gun deaths have actually increased in Australia since Howard de-armed the nation of World War II mementos in 1996?”

    Firstly, Howard just didn’t de-arm the nation of WW2 mementos in the UFls of 1996. Ostensibly, the purpose of Howard’s bull-dozing the States into (so-called) uniform legislation was to remove automatic and self-loading long arms from private ownership. Actually, the agenda was much deeper and much more silent.
    Secondly, the targeted firearms were, largely, not WW2 mementos but rather very cheap and nasty, obsolete Warsaw Bloc (and Chinese knock-offs) surplus assault rifles, Simon SKS and the like, which the Federal government allowed to flood into Australia from the late 1960s on. Note, the Federal government could have stopped this flood at any time with a stroke of the pen, using its Customs & Excise powers.
    Thirdly, contrary to some replies you’ve received, firearm related deaths (mostly homicide) did rise markedly following the adoption of the UFLs in 1996. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, this trend peaked in 2001 but by 2004 had gradually fallen to 1996 levels.

    The most interesting part of the Australian firearm prohibition experience post the 1996 UFLs is the very significant increase in firearm related crime using illegal handguns which are easily smuggled into Australia. The inferences are not hard to draw.

    Posted by Boss Hog on 2006 03 09 at 07:14 PM • permalink

  40. Just a heads up, people: if you post a long url here that breaks the page design, I will delete it.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 09 at 07:17 PM • permalink

  41. # 29, No, it wasn’t ironic. Howard said what he said, I don’t know his motivation. But I found it a disgusting thing to say, even ten years later.

    And Howard was hardly prodded to do so by Karl on ‘Today’. Actually, during that interview, Howard was his usual rude and arrogant self once he realised he wasn’t amongst ‘friends’, even though Karl treated him with respect and obvious admiration.

    As for a Howard-Port Arthur conspiracy theory? Are you insane? I’ll leave the conspiracy theories to Howard and his mates, who seem to cook up an endless stream amongst themselves.

    Perhaps they should all spend more time actually reading the intelligence reports crossing their desks (Iraqi WMDs, AWB cash going to Middle East suicide bombers and Saddam’s armoury) and less time having paranoid delusions. What are they smoking that makes them all so scared?

    Boo!

    Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 09 at 07:17 PM • permalink

  42. Oh, and thanks # 34 and # 39 for the answers and interesting facts.

    Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 09 at 07:20 PM • permalink

  43. #41

    As for a Howard-Port Arthur conspiracy theory? Are you insane? I’ll leave the conspiracy theories to Howard and his mates, who seem to cook up an endless stream amongst themselves

    Hey, read my post, it wasn’t MY theory.

    Posted by kae on 2006 03 09 at 07:24 PM • permalink

  44. Lets not forget that the much vaunted “right to bear arms” that the US gun lobby continues to push is actually, if you read it, directed at the raising of militias to fight, in the first instant, the British. I think the 500 billion or so they spend nowadays on their military, toys and adventures all over the world has made militias pretty irrelevant.  Then maybe not, as the case may turn out to be..
    Jolly good to know that some states have low crime rates.
    Most countries without guns have an even lower rate..
    Also, the 50000+ people killed each year, usually by somebody they actually know, whilst spring cleaning the family magnum, might have a different view point, if only 1) they had a face left and 2) they could speak from the grave.
    But then power comes from having the biggest piece doesn’t it, even if a person is wrong in the first place it doesn’t matter, they can settle the discussion in the only way they know. But it is very destructive of all civilised principles and aspirations.
    Why does a civilian need a high power semi automatic??
    Big cockroaches?

    Posted by Dreyfuze on 2006 03 09 at 07:28 PM • permalink

  45. LLL

    The firearms related crime rate has not increased, however, it has not dropped either.

    Posted by murph on 2006 03 09 at 07:28 PM • permalink

  46. Most countries without guns have an even lower rate..

    Would you care to back up that statement with, you know, some evidence? Many thanks in advance.

    Posted by PW on 2006 03 09 at 07:30 PM • permalink

  47. Whoops… Correction of tense…
    ...continues to push was actually, if you read it…

    Posted by Dreyfuze on 2006 03 09 at 07:35 PM • permalink

  48. #43

    Post Port Arthur there were many conspiracy theories floating around. Most were completely outrageous - a couple, concerning subsequent cover-ups by the Tasmanian and Victorian police, regarding how Bryant (a known nutter who had been brought to the attention of the law-enforcement authorities many times) had acquired and retained the weapons he used, were not so crazy and should have been investigated much more thoroughly.

    The fact of the matter is that Bryant acted alone and that his victims were so defenceless that they were herded and despatched like sheep.

    Posted by Boss Hog on 2006 03 09 at 07:37 PM • permalink

  49. Look up the statistics on the web,  “firearm (homicides) per 100000 head of population”.
    But start here…
    http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/publications/reports/1990-95/reports/siter_rpt_e.asp

    USA is a stand out in this regard..

    Posted by Dreyfuze on 2006 03 09 at 07:40 PM • permalink

  50. #39
    “Simon SKS and the like,”

    Oops! Should have read ‘SIMINOV’.

    Posted by Boss Hog on 2006 03 09 at 07:42 PM • permalink

  51. #48 Boss

    Post Port Arthur there were many conspiracy theories floating around. Most were completely outrageous

    I didn’t say that there was a conspiracy. Or that I thought there was a conspiracy.

    The fact of the matter is that Bryant acted alone

    I wholeheartedly agree.

    Posted by kae on 2006 03 09 at 07:44 PM • permalink

  52. Dreyfuze,
    If you read it you might note that it says “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    All of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights apply to individuals, but hoplophobes continue to insist that the 2nd amendment is somehow a collective right.

    Posted by 68W40 on 2006 03 09 at 07:44 PM • permalink

  53. # 43, ahh, you asked me if I was being ironic, I said no, I was being serious and pointed out Howard said these terrible, cold and incredibly cynical things, not me.

    On #29, you asked me why I didn’t go “the whole hog and say Howard cunningly manipulated the police response, the trial and even MB’s ACTIONS for his cynical political advantage?”

    To suggest that Howard “manipulated…even MB’s ACTIONS” sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, unless you suspect that was actually the case and you hoped I might be able to confirm it for you? No, I can’t. But continue your investigation and keep us updated.

    The Port Arthur Massacre was one of the darkest days in Australia’s history and anybody, including Howard, who saw it as an “opportunity” is truly demented.

    Shall we continue this misquoting circular dance of a discussion?

    Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 09 at 07:45 PM • permalink

  54. Fairly clear that Howard used the Port Arthur episode to disarm the Australian populace.  Last but one thing a crafty politician wants is a home grown (armed) rebellion..

    I can well understand why one group of people were very angry.. If I were a (NT) wild piggie hunter I sure as hell would want something highly powered and reliably quickly automatic..
    But that is about the only reason I can think of why a civilian would need such a weapon..
    Any more ??

    Posted by Dreyfuze on 2006 03 09 at 07:48 PM • permalink

  55. *91B30..
    You have confused me here… Should that not be hoplophile??..
    Also the 2 clauses are, more sensibly and logically I believe,  taken together. That alters the meaning around somewhat..
    See this wikipedia entry..

    Url removed, as it was breaking the page. Look up “2nd Amendment to the US Constitution” on Wikipedia yourselves. The Management.

    Posted by Dreyfuze on 2006 03 09 at 07:59 PM • permalink

  56. #53

    # 43, ahh, you asked me if I was being ironic, I said no, I was being serious and pointed out Howard said these terrible, cold and incredibly cynical things, not me.

    er, no I didn’t

    Posted by kae on 2006 03 09 at 08:02 PM • permalink

  57. Why was the Port Arthur massacre “one of the darkest days in Australia’s history”? You make it sound like some sort of black mark against you. The sad truth is, there are homicidal nutters everywhere, and believe me, they have no trouble getting their hands on weapons and killing people no matter what the laws are. You shouldn’t collectively blame yourselves for this particular murderer’s existence and actions.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 09 at 08:02 PM • permalink

  58. Red alert Andrea, page is busted - again.

    Posted by kae on 2006 03 09 at 08:03 PM • permalink

  59. #51
    KAE

    Sorry, I wasn’t suggesting that you supported a conspiracy theory - I had read and understood your original post. I should have worded my comments more carefully.

    Posted by Boss Hog on 2006 03 09 at 08:05 PM • permalink

  60. 57.. Perhaps because so many people who went out for a nice sunny walk, a cup of tea and a jammy scone, ended up dead or maimed…??

    Posted by Dreyfuze on 2006 03 09 at 08:08 PM • permalink

  61. #51 Boss
    Ok, just as long as I was mistaken. I wouldn’t want to be thought a nutter… well, not for something I don’t believe, anyway.

    Posted by kae on 2006 03 09 at 08:14 PM • permalink

  62. Dreyfuze,
    I have no idea whether you fear or love firearms, I will take you at face value when you say you are a hoplophile.  The point is that the argument that the 2nd amendment is somehow different from the indiviual rights described in the rest of the BOR is one consistently made by the gun grabbers.

    I suggest that reading the quotes of the founders found at the end of the article you linked, especially the words of Madison, Jefferson and Mason would be instructive about the intent of the founders regarding the 2nd Amendment.

    Posted by 68W40 on 2006 03 09 at 08:21 PM • permalink

  63. “Lets not forget that the much vaunted “right to bear arms” that the US gun lobby continues to push is actually, if you read it, directed at the raising of militias to fight, in the first instant, the British.”

    This is a false and profound falsehood often peddled by the anti-gun lot.

    Firstly, common usage of the English language dictates that the passage merely describes that the intention of the law is to guarantee that the state and the people are *able* to raise effective militias, NOT that the law only impacts gun ownership in a militia capacity. Children can read the 2nd Amendment and understand this. Is it a blatant lie and deliberate denial of the plain and accepted laws of grammar as it has been used in all English speaking nations for the last several centuries to imply otherwise.

    Secondly, it was not intended to fight the British: When the Constitution was written and ratified, the war had long since been won and the British long since sent packing.

    Here’s what some of our actual forefathers had to say about the notion:

    “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that is good.” - George Washington

    “The great object is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun.” - Patrick Henry

    “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee

    “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” - Alexander Hamilton

    “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” - Tench Coxe

    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
    Coincidentally, it was Vincent van Gogh who said that the right to buy weapons is the right to be free.

    Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 03 09 at 08:23 PM • permalink

  64. #39 Boss Hogg to LatteLeftieLover:

    Thirdly, contrary to some replies you’ve received, firearm related deaths (mostly homicide) did rise markedly following the adoption of the UFLs in 1996. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, this trend peaked in 2001 but by 2004 had gradually fallen to 1996 levels.

    This is incorrect.

    Some graphs and tables from the Australian Institute of Criminology:

    * Number of firearm homicides falls

    * Firearm homicide, as a proportion of total number of homicides falls

    * Homicide rate 1990-2003.  The gun buyback did not caused any upward trend.

    * Firearms fall to record low as choice of homicide weapon in 2002-2003

    Posted by ekb87 on 2006 03 09 at 08:25 PM • permalink

  65. Jolly good to know that some states have low crime rates.
    Most countries without guns have an even lower rate.

    The first sentence is a concession that high gun ownership states have lower crime rates than low gun ownership states in the US. The second is an irrelevant apples and oranges comparison between the US and some other nations.

    Posted by Stone Cold on 2006 03 09 at 08:28 PM • permalink

  66. Sorry about long url.. ~My screen didn’t mind too much..
    91B30.. No, I do not particularly like guns but accept of course that 1) they give some the galloping hots 2) others the galloping heebies and 3) are sometimes actually useful.
    “Being in the intrepretation at a later day” is always a problem, but again, what is the actual utility of some of these weapons in civilians hands??...
    Have you seen some of the things they want to have access to?? A .50 calibre rifle, for instance, could bring down a 747, for @£*% sake!!!
    Who could possibly need that??
    There are a great many things that I want but very few that I actually need. I believe that most weapons fall into the former category for almost all people.

    Posted by Dreyfuze on 2006 03 09 at 08:36 PM • permalink

  67. 63.. That is the interpretation of those who love their oily metal.. But why exactly do you need an M82??
    Killing cockroaches from 1 mile away??

    Posted by Dreyfuze on 2006 03 09 at 08:44 PM • permalink

  68. Dreyfuze,
    Relatively few people can afford a nice Barrett .50 cal, but many can afford a 12 ga, shotgun with a slug barrel and it will have a similar effect (though without the Barrett’s range)-yet no one calls for banning them, which would make the grabber’s intent clear.  You would have a hard time bringing down that jet liner except with a very lucky shot, OTOH they will bring down a Moose (almost as big as a jetliner-LOL) or other big game nicely.

    Posted by 68W40 on 2006 03 09 at 08:48 PM • permalink

  69. oh boy - the anti-gumnuts are here to lecture from on high again.

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 03 09 at 08:49 PM • permalink

  70. ekb87

    The rate of decline in the number of homicides (a long term trend) has not changed.  There was an immediate fall, from 96-97, for same reason that there had been a spike from 95-96 - ie some Tasmanian ringpiece with an AR-15 and SKS going nutso.

    I don;t buy the idea that the gun buyback caused an upward trend. Then again, neither do I buy the idea that it cause a downward trend.  The upshot of all this is that a large sector of the community has had their property and legal rights trampled on for no good reason.

    Posted by murph on 2006 03 09 at 08:51 PM • permalink

  71. Hmm, the wrong bit of that post got submitted… In short, there is no historical evidence whatsoever to support dreyfuze’s point of view. A more sophisticated analysis can be found in this DoJ research memo on the intent of the Framers.

    Dreyfuze might also note that most “gun free” Western nations have substantially higher aggregate violent crime rates than the United States, sometimes several times over, as has been the case during some years of data in Britain. Even Canada outrapes and outrobs the United States most of the time.

    It helps if you abandon the myopic view that “gun crime” is somehow different from regular crime and look at meaningful statistics: Rape victims are raped regardless of the weapon used to force them to submit. New Zealand’s recent licensing scheme has reduced gun suicides drastically, but ignores that overall suicide has continued to increase as people just go find new ways to off themselves. New Zealand’s suicide rate also remains higher than that of the United States. (Insert New Zealand joke here: “I’d kill myself, too.”)

    Have you seen some of the things they want to have access to?? A .50 calibre rifle, for instance, could bring down a 747, for @£*% sake!!!

    I encourage you to try it, friend. That it “could” bring down a 747 is not in question. In theory, those little red laser pointers could do the same. In practice, the expert marksman needed could also do it just as well with a weapon chambered for a .45 (1/20th of an inch smaller). It’s also interesting to note that all the hysteria over so-called “cop-killer bullets” was inspired by a type of armor-piercing round that had never actually been used to kill a cop by piercing his armor.

    I’d love to hear your opinion on the “assault weapons” ban.

    Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 03 09 at 08:52 PM • permalink

  72. #54
    Fairly clear that Howard used the Port Arthur episode to disarm the Australian populace.  Last but one thing a crafty politician wants is a home grown (armed) rebellion..

    Regarding the second sentence (above), Australian society is (was?) one of the most stable in the world. The possibility of an armed rebellion (with or without a cause) is as about as likely as Margo Kingston winning this year’s “Miss Australia” quest.
    Notwithstanding, I attended several consultative meetings, where Howard was present, when the UFLs were being thrashed out and it was evident to everyone in attendance (at least on my side of the table) that Howard had a deep personal hatred and loathing of firearms per se. The fact that there was an urgent need for government action following the Port Arthur massacre was one thing but the intensely, dictatorial and unyielding way in which the man pursued his own personal agenda was something else again. He would brook no argument and would accept no compromise, no matter how fair or how sensible. The man I saw, at that time, was not the calm and collected statesman that we see on the TV screens these days.

    One other factor that is little known (or perhaps, has been forgotten by those who should know better) is that John Howard’s Uniform Firearm Laws were not John Howard’s at all. They had, in fact, been draughted and touted around Canberra for several years prior to Port Arthur by Michael Tate, Senator for Tasmania, and Justice Minister in the Hawke Labor Government. Hawkie and Keating wouldn’t touch them without a causas belli - remembering only too well the fate of Barry Unsworth in NSW a few years before.
    In my opinion, Howard would have adopted the same hand-off approach as his predecessors had it not been for Port Arthur - that was the trigger! Following that dreadful event, all he had to do was to dust off Tate’s anti-gun manifesto and he was in like Flynn. He had, of course tremendous public support, but that support was largely emotive and, certainly, mis-informed. In more calmer times and with more reasoned and better-informed debate, the resultant State legislation(s) would have been much more acceptable to the millions of law-abiding firearm owners who will go to their graves still bitter over Howard’s putsch.
    Finally, a bit of trivia - Michael Tate resigned from politics and became a Roman Catholic priest. Mea culpa? Yeah, right!

    Posted by Boss Hog on 2006 03 09 at 08:54 PM • permalink

  73. #66

    Dreyfuze, you know what really seems to give some people the galloping hots and/or heebies? Telling other people what they don’t “need”.

    Someone of such a bent might ask you why you “need” a house as big as the one you have, or a car as nice, or why you “need” nice clothes instead of $2 rags from the op shop. Why, why, why???

    Posted by Stone Cold on 2006 03 09 at 08:55 PM • permalink

  74. There may be less guns in Australa for the revolution, but at least we have plenty of boomerangs, spears and nulla-nullas (!).

    When it comes to overthrowing corrupt governments, we can only….who’s that kickking my front door in? I haven’t even posted this yet!

    Man, that’s one fast anti-sedition reaction force!

    Amazing Warren Reid (ex-ASIS) op-piece in SMH today :

    “Why bother to be loyal? Who cares? The Government is interested only in itself, and the public only in low interest rates. But I have access to valuable secrets: a commodity convertible into cash, if not other rewards in kind. Oh, and the money can be paid into a foreign trust account if I wish.

    Wow!

    Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 09 at 08:59 PM • permalink

  75. Dreyfuze

    This seems to be more about you attempting impose your values on others.

    I can ask the same sort of questions about you:

    Why do you need a car which can drive at 120km/h when the speed limit is 100?

    Why do you need to mow the lawn with a 4 stroke mower when you can use scissors?

    Why do you need to eat steak when you can get your protein from blowing your next door neighbours’ cat?

    Posted by murph on 2006 03 09 at 09:03 PM • permalink

  76. #72

    “more calmer”??????????

    Arrrhg! “More calmer”!!!!. Go to the back of the class - you naughty, naughty little Hog. It’s reading Webdiary that does it.

    Posted by Boss Hog on 2006 03 09 at 09:07 PM • permalink

  77. Also, the 50000+*people killed each year, usually by somebody they actually know**, whilst spring cleaning the family magnum,*** might have a different view point, if only 1) they had a face left and 2) they could speak from the grave.

    Horse. Shit. From a Tired Old Horse. Or a willful liar.

    *, *** The annual firearms death rate in the US FROM ALL CAUSES is far below this.

    **Turns out the folks who ‘compiled’ this ‘statistic’ decided that since gangbangers, drug dealers, and neighborhood junkies ‘knew’ each other, these were all shootings between ‘people who knew each other.’

    Holophile my spotty Irish ass.

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 09 at 09:12 PM • permalink

  78. Richard: You should also note that most studies about “children” killed by firearms tend to include “children” all the way up to age 20, which means that the vast bulk are gang killings, IE criminals killing criminals. Indeed, at least two thirds of all murders in the United States are gang and drug related. (We don’t have a gun crime problem, we have a gang and drug crime problem.) Anti-gunners set out to terrorize people with the mental image of tens of thousands of kids blowing their heads off playing with dad’s gun, and it doesn’t happen.

    In reality, more Americans choke to death each year than are killed by firearm accidents, by a ratio of about 2:1. We’re talking statistically insignificant.

    It should also be noted that in any survey that shows “tens of thousands” of gun deaths, suicides are inevitably included, which is simply not rational as New Zealand has helpfully demonstrated.

    Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 03 09 at 09:20 PM • permalink

  79. 73.. Stone, you should chill a little more.. I am positing a position… Re-read the upsetting posts. Somethings are essential (like my 50 room chateau) others are not, like the M61 my neighbour uses on her quail.. Poor blighters.
    Anyway, address the issues, not the issuer.

    72.. Thanx for some truly interesting info and insights.
    My second sentence was/is provocative rather than predictive…

    71.. I think you may just be missing the point(s).
    A modern automatic weapon gives your average nutter a chance to efficiently “off” as you put it, a great many more people than if he/she were armed with, for instance, a nicely balanced “Global” knife.
    Also, if every potential “rapee” were armed with a trusty Glock, then less rape??
    Wot if, tho, the cunning “raper-to-be” got his out first??
    And yes, it is the conclusion that I came to, but obviously at a different time in history. So interpretation may be different to intent, but that does not mean that this part of the constitution can’t be re-interpreted (the rest has, by some..)

    Posted by Dreyfuze on 2006 03 09 at 09:22 PM • permalink

  80. Blade vs. pellets:

    “A SYDNEY homeowner tackled three armed intruders with a knife, injuring one who was later arrested when seeking hospital treatment.

    The Roseville man confronted the three men, who were armed with a shotgun, as they forced their way into his house on the Pacific Highway at about 11.15pm (AEDT) yesterday. [09 Mar 06]”

    Posted by tmciolek on 2006 03 09 at 09:25 PM • permalink

  81. GUNS DO GOOD

    Although to be fair, Tim, if we’re going to insist that ‘guns don’t kill people’ because they are inanimate objects, we can’t really claim they ‘do good,’ either.

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 09 at 09:34 PM • permalink

  82. Dreyfuze,
    A shotgun is a more efficient killing tool than an “assault” weapon (note: Americans cannot buy fully automatic weapons without a class 3 Federal Firearms liscense) simply because you don’t have to aim carefully.  But again, trying to ban scatterguns would reveal the grabber’s true agenda.

    And any potential rape victim would at least be able to resist if she was armed, going unarmed offers her no option other than to get raped and hope she isn’t then killed.  I think you can understand why many do not find that line of reasoning compelling.

    Posted by 68W40 on 2006 03 09 at 09:37 PM • permalink

  83. A modern automatic weapon gives your average nutter a chance to efficiently “off” as you put it, a great many more people than if he/she were armed with, for instance, a nicely balanced “Global” knife.

    Perfectly reasonable point. Plastic explosives have the same net impact, and can be made from household bleach.

    I assume, however, that you were responding to the “assault weapons” ban. This is precisely why I raised the point: The “assault weapons” ban had absolutely nothing to do with automatic weapons: Automatic weapons had been restricted since 1934, as a reaction to the plague of tommy gun wielding bandits in Depression-era America. The “assault weapons” ban had nothing to do with assault rifles or “military weapons”, rather banning primarily a number of cosmetic features that made weapons *look* military-type.

    This was designed entirely so that gun control advocates could pick up guns that terrified the wits out of little old ladies to look at and say “LOOK WHAT WE TOOK OFF THE STREETS! BOOGITY BOOGITY BOOGITY!”

    In reality, weapons that fell under the classifications were only in use for a tiny proportion of crimes. (It should also be noted that there is only one incident nationwide I’m aware of where a .50 caliber rifle was used to commit a crime, and in that case, the perpetrator was apparently a police officer. Huge, expensive high-powered rifles are not the choice of street thugs.)

    So, in short, if you were bringing up “a modern automatic weapon” in response to the AWB, you, too, were duped. There’s a reason Congress would not lift a finger to renew it: Many of them were had, as well.

    Also, if every potential “rapee” were armed with a trusty Glock, then less rape??

    Yes. It depends on which survey you use, but it appears that 192,000 rapes are prevented each year by the defensive use of a firearms to ward off an attacker. Here’s a handy collection of defensive gun use surveys.

    It’s worth noting that only a tiny percentage of firearm owners who defend themselves ever fire a shot: It is merely the act of pulling the firearm that causes the criminal to retreat. (This is what gives the lie to the claim that “you’re more likely to be shot by an intruder with your own gun than you are to shoot an intruder”: It ignores that most defensive uses do not involve shooting anyone.) Criminals are predators, and like most predators, they target those they perceive as weak. That’s why muggers hit up little old ladies and not, for example, Mike Tyson. When the perception of weakness (often quite a valid perception in the case of the unarmed) is shattered, they leave.

    So interpretation may be different to intent, but that does not mean that this part of the constitution can’t be re-interpreted (the rest has, by some..)

    Much to the horror of people who know that “words” were assigned “meanings” for a reason, and that deconstructionism is pretentious crap.

    Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 03 09 at 09:38 PM • permalink

  84. I’m not a gun fan but since I was awoken by an intruder standing in my doorway after having successfully gained entry to my house at 3:00 am, I’ve frequently thought about owning a nice little pistol.

    Posted by Brian on 2006 03 09 at 09:42 PM • permalink

  85. #70 Murph:

    I don;t buy the idea that the gun buyback caused an upward trend. Then again, neither do I buy the idea that it cause a downward trend.

     

    I agree, Murph.  I posted the stats not to suggest that the gun buyback improved crime.  I personally think it was a stunt and as useful as tits on the bull.

    But that’s no excuse for others to then go to the other extreme, and create imaginary crime waves of murder and mayhem, and use bogus stats.

    I’m not necessarily referring to statements in this forum, but I have seen such myths stated many times before over the years.

    Sadly, even the American NRA has stooped to this level of unethical dishonesty.  An organization that big should behave better.

    The NRA may represent American gun owners, but on occassion it also has also misled and manipulated them.

    Posted by ekb87 on 2006 03 09 at 09:45 PM • permalink

  86. Reinterpretation is a slippery slope.

    A well read population, being necessary to the security of a free State,
    the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed.

    Three words changed, and no one will say that books should only be read by the intelligensia.  If the 2A had been treated like the 1A has over the years, we’d be allowed bazookas in the bedroom.

    The 2nd amendment will never go away until the gov’mint comes up with another constitutional amendment…which will never pass enough states to be ratified.

    As the commentors have noted, the great majority of gun violence is minority-on-minority.  No one will officially express this because it’s too politically incorrect.

    Except for a thin crust along both coasts, America is more conservative than you can imagine, safe, friendly, and armed.  We like it that way.  It’s part of the buy-in you get when you come to America.  There is no blood in the streets.

    Personally I feel much safer travelling in a state that has concealed carry than I do working in NYC as I do or living in New Jersey.

    ...and here is the pattern for my new rifle.  That makes my 13th firearm

    Posted by trainer on 2006 03 09 at 09:46 PM • permalink

  87. 77.. The figure may be a little out of date, the latest figure I can find at this time of night (where I am) is in low 30000s. Still quite significant.
    USA is only 2nd in the world to Albania for firearm related homicides (according to those horse shitters at the WHO)
    http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/annex.pdf

    Actually extracting meaningful data on this particular issue is quite difficult as different sources present differently and don’t all use standardised classifications/definitions…

    Certainly much data does support the contention that in some cases, a weapon may have helped the potetnial victim, but it is just not as simple as that.. and still doesn’t address the issue of the needs of those who like really big ones..

    Posted by Dreyfuze on 2006 03 09 at 09:54 PM • permalink

  88. trainer,
    Nice.  I’ve got an AR with a competition barrel, but without the picatinney rails, but for me it is just a very expensive hole punch.  I use my mossberg for home defense and carry a 92F with my concealed carry permit.  Still I like having it around and it is an excellent weapon for teaching others to shoot due to the almost total abscence of a recoil.

    Posted by 68W40 on 2006 03 09 at 09:55 PM • permalink

  89. Oh! Dear! Oh Dear! I swore to my good lady wife that I would no longer involve myself in pig-wrestling on the Internet - particularly when it involved “statistics” - you get covered in shit and the pig loves it, plus it does my sky-rocketing hypertension no good at all. The problem with statistics is that even the most illiterate counter-redneck can use published derived statistics to prove that you don’t know what you are talking about. And, unless you get down there and lap up a rich morass of obfuscation and distortion, you appear to be a retard - how the hell do you explain the many, many constraints that govern statistics to the illiterate.
    PhDs in Quantative Methods really aren’t much use on the Internet -  try explaining colours to a blind man?The fact remains that ABS raw stats.clearly show that the incidence of firearm-related crime in Australia rose after the UFLs of 1996, peaked in 2001 and have fell slowly, to 1996 levels, in 2004. It may well be unrelated, but it certainly happened. But hell - these guardians of the public good really know what they’re talking about - hey?

    Posted by Boss Hog on 2006 03 09 at 09:58 PM • permalink

  90. The NRA may represent American gun owners, but on occassion it also has also misled and manipulated them.

    The gun control debate has, really, become lunatic, perhaps because if we relied on hard facts, there would be no debate. I briefly interviewed a Nevada sheriff who, along with several other law enforcement officers, had his name falsely attached to a Brady Campaign document presented to Congress as endorsing their measure.

    Three words changed, and no one will say that books should only be read by the intelligensia.  If the 2A had been treated like the 1A has over the years, we’d be allowed bazookas in the bedroom.

    I think it was Frank Lloyd Wright who said that he was all in favor of removing dangerous weapons from the hands of idiots, starting with typewriters.

    Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 03 09 at 09:58 PM • permalink

  91. Dreyfuze—M61?  Your neighbor uses a 20mm cannon?

    I overlooked the guy in the Howard thread who bragged about loading his .357 with ‘wadcutters’ (low velocity target ammo) but I suspect we have some posers amongst us on this issue, folks.

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 09 at 09:58 PM • permalink

  92. USA is only 2nd in the world to Albania for firearm related homicides (according to those horse shitters at the WHO)

    Can you explain the significance of this statistic to me?

    In the absence of evidence that taking away firearms reduces crime, of what conceivable meaning is this data? In the immortal words of Archie Bunker, “would you feel any better if they was pushed outta windows”?

    Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 03 09 at 10:01 PM • permalink

  93. TB talkbackers have almost cracked a hundred comments. Has this ever been done before?

    Well, that was one more.

    Howard also called guns “evil”, you know, like terrorists are evil. Perhaps Tony Abbott can stage some sort of mass excorsim on a few hundred thousand guns and then give them back to Australians who think they need them?

    Evil is as evil does…or something.

    There is a rich world of online gun-death stats to chew over and refocuse to make any point. Searching them down leads to getting lost in the Google info maze.

    That is an incredible stat of twice as many Americans choke to death as die from accidental gun discharges.

    Is there a connection between accidental discharges and choking I’m not aware of?

    I still remember my first adventure in an LA weapons and accessories supermarket. I thought the extra-long, extra-wide trolleys were a nice touch…

    Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 09 at 10:04 PM • permalink

  94. Iraq is a grand success, guns no more harmful than open windows - come one fellas, you don’t have to agree with the White House on EVERYTHING, do you?  I’m all for polemics that stir up the Moonbats, but Tim’s choleric partisanship is getting boring.

    Posted by Bearded Mullah on 2006 03 09 at 10:08 PM • permalink

  95. That is an incredible stat of twice as many Americans choke to death as die from accidental gun discharges.

    Is there a connection between accidental discharges and choking I’m not aware of?

    None was implied, friend. Read again (as some might have to apparently reread the 2A) and you’ll note that the point was that where choking deaths are highly unusual, accidental firearm deaths are even *more* unusual, contrary to the representation made by the left that there’s some sort of negligence-related bloodbath afoot.

    Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 03 09 at 10:08 PM • permalink

  96. try that again….exorcism.

    And #76 and #72, you’re both wrong.

    The correct word is : ‘calmerer’.

    Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 09 at 10:10 PM • permalink

  97. Mr. Dreyfuze:

    A modern automatic weapon gives your average nutter a chance to efficiently “off” as you put it, a great many more people than if he/she were armed with, for instance, a nicely balanced “Global” knife.

    I hope you’re not as ignorant as the typical TV newsreader, who doesn’t know the distinction between “automatic” and “semi-automatic.”  Pretty much all the “automatic” weapons in the US are in the possession of the police and military.  Are they all “average nutters”?  The vast majority of law-abiding citizens have semi-automatic weapons; are you stating that the scores of millions of armed US citizens are equivalent or identical to “average nutters”?  Is an “average nutter” somebody who disagrees with you?  It is true that a modern semi-automatic weapon gives your average law-abiding citizen a chance to protect himself/herself and family more efficiently from mobs, rioters, and other criminals.

    Also, if every potential “rapee” were armed with a trusty Glock, then less rape??   Answer:  Yes.

    Wot if, tho, the cunning “raper-to-be” got his out first??  Answer:  Then, at least, they’d be on an even footing.

    BTW, despite your earlier psycho-babble, very few men own firearms just so they can feel better about their sexual potency; I’m sure that, like me, they believe that firearm ownership is the best way to provide for their and their family’s self-defense.  Also, more and more women are buying firearms; does that mean they all have penis envy?

    Posted by Bruce Lagasse on 2006 03 09 at 10:10 PM • permalink

  98. 83.. Take your various points re hand guns.
    Automatic/assault (more or less the same thing for the sake of this discussion) weapons are not a concern in Australia as we just can’t have them.  Am not actually discussing any US legislation, more the perception, from many US gun dealer sites, that such weapons are freely available.
    Their potential for horrendous damage is the reason why the military has them in the first place, isn’t it? Does it really make sense that they (or very similar) be available, to the public, just because they want them?

    Have to go for now, Thanx for an interesting discussion.

    Posted by Dreyfuze on 2006 03 09 at 10:11 PM • permalink

  99. #86 - Trainer. What the heck is that? (drool!)

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 03 09 at 10:11 PM • permalink

  100. 97.. Wow, and do you carry a gun too….?

    Posted by Dreyfuze on 2006 03 09 at 10:13 PM • permalink

  101. BTW, despite your earlier psycho-babble, very few men own firearms just so they can feel better about their sexual potency; I’m sure that, like me, they believe that firearm ownership is the best way to provide for their and their family’s self-defense.

    Personally, I’m in the process of my New York State firearm permit so I can get a shotgun and feel better about *the zombie meth addicts who walk this city at night*.

    Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 03 09 at 10:28 PM • permalink

  102. Automatic/assault (more or less the same thing for the sake of this discussion)

    No, they are completely different things. “assault weapons” are a non-existant classification. They were made up. There is no such class of weapons that are identifiable as “assault weapons”. There is no company that makes “assault weapons”. Automatic weapons fire in a fully automatic mode. “assault weapons”, or that to which the feds once applied the tag, are sometimes painted black. “assault weapons” are not somehow more dangerous. They are radically, hugely different terms and are in no way similar to one another.

    weapons are not a concern in Australia as we just can’t have them.

    We can’t have automatic weapons, either. 

    more the perception, from many US gun dealer sites, that such weapons are freely available.

    Automatic weapons are not freely available in the United States. Such an allegation would expose a dealer to extreme liability. or they would promptly be fined to heck and back. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer once made the false allegation that the AWB’s expiration would put “machine guns” on the streets and was so quickly ripped into by the non-idiot majority that CNN had to issue an on-air correction and apology.

    Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2006 03 09 at 10:33 PM • permalink

  103. #89 Boss Hogg

    The fact remains that ABS raw stats.clearly show that the incidence of firearm-related crime in Australia rose after the UFLs of 1996, peaked in 2001 and have fell slowly, to 1996 levels, in 2004. It may well be unrelated, but it certainly happened.

    Did it indeed?  Then perhaps you should provide some evidence.  The Australian Institute of Criminology directly contradicts you, and I already provided you the links.  You have not done the same.

    Note that the AIC is the government’s main research agency for crime, whereas for the ABS crime is just one of a zillion categories of data alongside “the number of kilometres of narrow-gauge railway track laid in 2006”, etc, etc.

    The AIC are specialists in this field, the ABS are not.  There are minor differences in the way they record this particular stat, and the AIC is recognized as the superior method.

    ie.
    - The ABS relies on coroner’s reports.  The AIC uses these - and police records.
    - The primary difference in outcome from this is that the AIC records the homicide when it happens.  The ABS records a homicide when it is detected.
    - For example, a 1990 murder that is not unearthed until 2002, would be recorded by the ABS in its 2002 figures. The AIC would append it to the 1990 figure.
    - The AIC method is superior.

    Notwithstanding this, these would only lead to very minor differences.  But what you are claiming is a major difference (with no link…) and a direct contradiction of the official AIC figures.


    You are also backtracking on what you were implying.

    - In #39 you refer to “firearm related deaths”.  Now you subtly change it to “firearm-related crime”.  Apples and oranges, BH.
    - You originally claimed the stats “did rise markedly” (your emphasis) and ended your post darkly - “The inferences are not hard to draw.”

    - But now you make it out like it was a casual observation and you weren’t implying anything - “It may well be unrelated, but it certainly happened.”

    You were trying to make a political point, but the stats do not support you.

    Posted by ekb87 on 2006 03 09 at 10:34 PM • permalink

  104. Lets not forget that the much vaunted “right to bear arms” that the US gun lobby continues to push is actually, if you read it, directed at the raising of militias to fight, in the first instant, the British.

    Au contraire, mon ami. The individual’s right to bear arms was a given. Because the Founders recognized the need for a well-regulated militia, they made sure that right couldn’t be legislated away: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Shall not be infringed. Our Constitution recognizes individual rights, not collective. And it’s not only the gun lobby that “pushes” that “vaunted” right. It’s ordinary citizens as well, like moi.

    I’d say more, but I’d just end up drooling all over my keyboard.

    Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 09 at 10:40 PM • permalink

  105. Dreyfuze (#66) states that “a .50 cal rifle could bring down a 747”

    Hhahaha

    And they call ME ignorant.

    Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 03 09 at 10:43 PM • permalink

  106. Trainer, that is a SWEET weapon! 

    Dreyfuze—it would help your argument some if you didn’t come across as semi-hysterical.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 09 at 10:47 PM • permalink

  107. I’ve always wondered why hoplophobes like dreyfuze are the way they are. Is it just firearms that scare them so? Or do other “death merchants” like alcohol or tobacco worry them, too?
    Is it strictly their compassion for others that causes them to be so concerned about the manner in which people die? People die constantly from all kinds of natural and man made causes. Do they fret so over all of them, like they do firearm related deaths?

    Or is there something in their psyche that forces them to focus on this one “demon”, to the exclusion of other equally undesirable “demons”?

    Why do they not grasp the idea of “different strokes for different folks” in regard to ownership of different types of firearms. I prefer bolt action rifles. Others may prefer semi-auto rifles. Or shotguns. Or a 50BMG, if they are rich enough to afford one. Guns are like women…the world would be a boring place if they were all exactly the same. Find the one you like, and have fun, I say!

    Posted by rinardman on 2006 03 09 at 10:53 PM • permalink

  108. The_Real_JeffS advised:

    Dreyfuze—it would help your argument some if you didn’t come across as semi-hysterical.

    He can’t help it. His mask keeps slipping.

    Posted by Patrick Chester on 2006 03 09 at 10:57 PM • permalink

  109. The individual’s right to bear arms was a given. Because the Founders recognized the need for a well-regulated militia, they made sure that right couldn’t be legislated away: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Exactly.  The right to bear arms was already enshrined in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.  The 2nd Amendment wasn’t establishing the right to bear arms, it was reinforcing its importance.

    Posted by jic on 2006 03 09 at 10:58 PM • permalink

  110. Why do you need to eat steak when you can get your protein from blowing your next door neighbours’ cat?

    In decades of vitamin pills and supplements and fussing over balanced meals, I admit I never thought of that once.

    Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 09 at 11:09 PM • permalink

  111. Think guns are dangerous? Prefer to fend guys like this off with a rolling pin?

    Posted by paco on 2006 03 09 at 11:13 PM • permalink

  112. Richard at #91.  I don’t know who posted about the wadcutters but back in the 50’s I had a 357 with wadcutters.  In those days wadcutter meant small hole going in and Big hole going out!  Velocity is overrated, especially at close range.  A 45 has the velocity of a turtle and the carry and reach of a singles hitter but I will take it over anything at close range.

    Holophobe.  Wow, I never heard of that one.  No really!

    Posted by yojimbo on 2006 03 09 at 11:30 PM • permalink

  113. Bye the bye, when I came back to this site and saw the 109 posts I knew some nitwit was upon us!

    Posted by yojimbo on 2006 03 09 at 11:33 PM • permalink

  114. #113
    I learned a new word today, too.

    hoplophobe= fear of weapons.


    But I think that the holophobe is different.
    Holophobe = scared of holograms? holes? religious zealots? getting a hole in oneself?*

    *humour

    Posted by kae on 2006 03 09 at 11:37 PM • permalink

  115. yojimbo
    Hoplophobia- Fear of firearms.

    Check out phobialist.com, lots of other neat fears we have!

    Posted by rinardman on 2006 03 09 at 11:39 PM • permalink

  116. Aaron-Freewill@71—

    Thanks for the DoJ link. Wish I’d had it a couple of days ago when we were debating this very point over at Captain’s Quarters. Apparently, the DoJ had a long history of arguing the collective (usually on behalf of gun control legislation). Something that changed with Dubya?

    Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 09 at 11:48 PM • permalink

  117. Now that’s quality journalism - Publish two anecdotes as definitive proof that ‘more guns less crime’ paradigm applies.

    The number one proponent of more guns less crime is Lott, and he has been proven to be a fraud.

    Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 03 10 at 12:14 AM • permalink

  118. #117- The real fraud is Tim ‘rain-man’ Lambert.

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 03 10 at 12:24 AM • permalink

  119. #117 ~ Yet Vermont and Utah - two states without any real restrictions on gun ownership - remain two of the safest places in the country.

    Funny, that.

    Posted by Mike Jericho on 2006 03 10 at 12:25 AM • permalink

  120. Speaking of defending yourself against home invasions… This is a slightly O/T because guns were not the centrepiece of the story. When this news item came out, the sound track to Pulp Fiction started playing in my head.

    Posted by daddy dave on 2006 03 10 at 12:27 AM • permalink

  121. Also, the 50000+ people killed each year, usually by somebody they actually know, whilst spring cleaning the family magnum, might have a different view point

    What could you possibly be talking about? Dreyfuze, your own web link puts the number for the U.S. at 1,441.  You must have been thinking about automobile deaths, which are around 50,000/year.  I guess we need to do something about all those cars out there.

    Posted by Jim on 2006 03 10 at 12:45 AM • permalink

  122. The Bill of Rights, like the Bible and the Koran, should be read aware of the context in which it was written - how many ppl here think they’re about to be called to arms to defend their country in the streets against an invading army?

    Posted by spyder on 2006 03 10 at 12:46 AM • permalink

  123. #122 Spyder,

    How bout them Mussies? Or have you been living under a rock for the last 5 years?

    “Youths” tend to torch cars in Paris much more so than in Texas. Care to hazard a guess as to why?

    Posted by Stone Cold on 2006 03 10 at 12:56 AM • permalink

  124. I am Australian. I both agree/disagree with elements of gun legislation in both USA and Australia/
    Firstly the USA: No-one can convince me that you need an assault rifle as a personal weapon. These are offensive weapons in every meaning of the word. Handguns are different. They are primarily defensive weapons. Yes they can be used otherwise….but I said primarily defensive and you need to up your medication if you do not think you need,should have, or have the right to have one….and the horse you rode in on if you punched any of the NO chads.
    Way things are going in Australia with these Mussie wackos (shit already be upon them) I need/want a handgun. If the shit really hits the fan I will move up the chain limited only by the ability of my 4wd to cope.
    Howard…one of the greatest if not the greatest Prime Minister Australia has ever had….is wrong on this one. Well, right and wrong. The ban was political and a success from a political viewpoint….this is what politicians do. But it was stupid and wrong. Unfortunately in politics successful and stupid/wrong are not mutually exclusive.
    Meantime you go with what you have. The next little prick that robs my house (my wife and I were dozing by the TV last time)will hopefully make firmer contact with my 5 iron.
    A handgun would be better….a lot better.

    Posted by desert rat on 2006 03 10 at 01:22 AM • permalink

  125. Spyder, if you take the time to read the writings of the Founders concerning guns, you’ll learn that defense from foreign enemies is only one of the virtues of private ownership that they believed in.

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 03 10 at 01:22 AM • permalink

  126. “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” THOMAS JEFFERSON Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, June 1776. 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950) “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”


    THOMAS JEFFERSON: Thomas Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764 “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” THOMAS JEFFERSON, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., 1967).


    “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” ALEXANDER HAMILTON, of New York, The Federalist Papers at 184-8 “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” ALEXANDER HAMILTON of New York, The Federalist, No. 29

    I could go on, but why? It’s quite clear.

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 03 10 at 01:26 AM • permalink

  127. #122, spyder—go back and read posts #52, 62, 63, 71, and 104.  You are the one reading in the wrong context.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 10 at 01:27 AM • permalink

  128. Oh, and post #126 as well!

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 10 at 01:28 AM • permalink

  129. Spyder—

    Yes, and the context in which the 2nd Amendment was written was that the individual had the right to bear arms. Given the State’s need for an armed populace, i.e. a well-regulated militia, the Founders made sure that the individual’s right could not be infringed (you know, by Congress or an overreaching judiciary). Even if there had been no need for a citizen militia, there still would have been an individual right to bear arms. Whether or not it would have made it into the Bill of Rights is another matter since not all rights were ennumerated. But aren’t we glad this one was.

    Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 10 at 01:30 AM • permalink

  130. #12 - *ahem* Foster not Boonie. Ooops.

    Posted by anthony27 on 2006 03 10 at 02:03 AM • permalink

  131. #122 - no attached to a computer - is that the modern day equivalent?

    But those “youths” are not an invading army, we’re more likely to be bombed from the air in an attack.  As for those “youths” I guess I’d do what the ppl in Cronulla did, stay indoors, hope the insurance would cover it, cos as much as I love my spyder mr2, I’d keep out of that.

    As for the others, as an skip I’m not likely to read the US constitution or Bill of Rights - hey where I live apparently our state government is about to pass or has passed a Bill of Rights for us we haven’t even seen!

    Also in our constitution we still have the Queen - remember 1975 (what a great year), so for me as an Australian, I can’t imagine that situation arising.  And if it did, I don’t think some piss weak guns would be much help compared to what you would probably be up against.

    Posted by spyder on 2006 03 10 at 02:06 AM • permalink

  132. Here’s a suggestion.

    If Tim does a gun topic again, what say the first one to see it copies this entire thread and /or the other recent one, pastes it into the first comment, and submits it.

    Then, we all know our positions, opinions, rebuttals and argumants will get another airing but it will also save us all time and stress.

    Deal?

    Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 10 at 02:35 AM • permalink

  133. #132
    Here’s a better suggestion. Why don’t you di di mau off to ‘Blogger’ - start your own blog and be king shit of your very own universe where the opinions of those that you find so tiresome won’t bother you?

    Posted by Boss Hog on 2006 03 10 at 02:56 AM • permalink

  134. Dreyfuze claims the US has a higher crime rate than nations with strict gun laws.  The US has a lower rate of crime and of violent crime than Australia and many other western nations.

    The most comprehensive international crime comparison among first world nations is the ICVS, the latest released one is from 2000.  In it, of the 10 worst nations for violent crime, 8 were in the EU, the other 2 were Canada and Australia.  Australia ranked worst.

    1 page press report of ICVS with simple graphs:
      http://tinyurl.com/3f0n

    Summary from directors of ICVS in the Dutch Ministry of Justice:
      http://tinyurl.com/5xtjp

    The US is now in the middle ranking for violent crime among first world nations.  It has a significantly lower violent crime rate than Australia.  I gave one survey, but all serious international comparisons, whether based on police reports or surveys, support this statement.

    Crime in the US has fallen dramatically in recent decades.  There are several reasons for this, one of which is that most states have adopted “shall issue” rules for carrying concealed firearms.  This means that a typical citizen can get a concealed carry permit based on certain simple and rational rules, such as taking a gun safety course.  Not surprisingly, when a potential mugger has to seriously worry about whether his potential victim has a gun, muggings and other crimes decline.

    Note to those posting very long links ... http://www.tinyurl.com is your friend.

    Posted by Lewis on 2006 03 10 at 03:07 AM • permalink

  135. #131

    But those “youths” are not an invading army, we’re more likely to be bombed from the air in an attack.  As for those “youths” I guess I’d do what the ppl in Cronulla did, stay indoors, hope the insurance would cover it

    Yes, I see your point now Spyder. Since they’re not an “invading army” and not bombing from the air but only on the ground, the correct course of action is to bend over and take it.

    Posted by Stone Cold on 2006 03 10 at 03:16 AM • permalink

  136. #133 Boss Hogg

    Geez Hoggy, blow the froth off a cold one and just relax a bit will you?

    I’ll admit my humour may not be of a high standard, but maybe tongue-in-cheek is a better contribution to the topic of “gun control” that BLAM! “I win, you lose, sucker!”

    I should have worded my comments more carefully

    Perhaps so.

    Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 10 at 03:22 AM • permalink

  137. I saw this sticker on the back of an SUV parked outside Bunnings today. The owner had modified it slightly with a marker pen:

    Criminals Terrorists love gun control, it makes their job much easier.

    Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 03 10 at 03:34 AM • permalink

  138. #135 No, “they’re not an invading army” so I’m not defending my homeland from a tyrannous government.  I wouldn’t be “bending over and taking it”, I would be furious, frustrated, and probably very tempted to get out there and do something.  Without a gun, I’d be unlikely to do so.  That suits me.  I think it’d be something I’d do in haste and regret at my leisure for the rest of my life.  To me, it’s a selfish act, I could move on from damage/loss of property, I’m not so sure I could get over the guilt of killing/harming a person.  But I’m female, maybe it’s hormonal :)

    Posted by spyder on 2006 03 10 at 03:44 AM • permalink

  139. Did you fail to close your tags again, Dan?
    It wasn’t you last time as well was it?

    Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 03 10 at 04:04 AM • permalink

  140. yikes

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 03 10 at 04:11 AM • permalink

  141. bold

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 03 10 at 04:12 AM • permalink

  142. o

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 03 10 at 04:12 AM • permalink

  143. crap

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 03 10 at 04:13 AM • permalink

  144. Dryfuzz is merely repeating the usual BS from the usual ill-informed sources. Such prople are the drongoes who urged the government to shell out IIRC 4180M in teh gun buy back scheme, Sure, the registered and alw abiding owners complied. Then they went out and replaced their surrendered weapons.

    Boy, were these idiots surprised at that!

    And the criminals did not ahnd their illegaa guns in (it’s why we call ‘em criminals).

    Result? Lots of people modernised their perfectly legal registered guns at taxpayer expense.

    His point on Barrett .50cal’s is purest bullshit. Bring down an airliner indeed.

    ‘Automatic/assault (more or less the same thing for the sake of this discussion) weapons are not a concern in Australia as we just can’t have them.’

    COMMENT: Bullshit and a bullshit definistion by someone who has no idea what he is talking about. CRIMINALS have them, no huhu. Professional pig shooters can have them. And if you own a perfectly legal lever action rifle, you have a firearm that has basically the same RoF as a semi-auto!

    ‘Am not actually discussing any US legislation, more the perception, from many US gun dealer sites, that such weapons are freely available.’
    COMMENT: So he makes a general statement based on no research as to what US state says what. Idiot.
    ‘Their potential for horrendous damage is the reason why the military has them in the first place, isn’t it?’
    COMMENT: No. And I should know from my own military service. Firepower density is the reason we use semi-automatics. 5.56mm F88 does NOT inflict ‘horrendous damage’. That is idiotic as a reason - we use F88 because it does the job, has an excellent weight to firepower ratio, has light ammo (can carry more) and a host of other reasons. ‘Being able to inflict horrendous damage’ is not one of them. Man’s a fool.

    Does it really make sense that they (or very similar) be available, to the public, just because they want them?
    COMMENT: ABSOLUTELY. Every male and many female citizens between 21 and 42 in Switzerland has a military semi-auto at home. At the ready. No gun locks.
    Because all of them are citizen-soldiers.

    No daily bloodbaths in Zurich, are there? Lowest burglary, rape and murder of any country on earth, Switzerland. WONDER WHY?

    Let me see, I am a crim. I want to burgle a house. The owners - all of them - are trained soldiers with weapons at home available for instant use. Hmm. Might stay home and do macrame instead.

    Google ‘kennesaw georgia gun ownership mandatory’ and have a read.


    Dryfizz is a dickhead.

    MarkL
    Canberra

    Posted by MarkL on 2006 03 10 at 04:30 AM • permalink

  145. Urgh!! Who left the bloody bold cupboard open again??

    markL
    Canberra

    Posted by MarkL on 2006 03 10 at 04:31 AM • permalink

  146. #129 - excellent point. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t enumerate the right to be in a militia, it enumerates the right to possess arms so as to be able to effectively serve in a militia.

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 03 10 at 04:37 AM • permalink

  147. test

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 03 10 at 06:02 AM • permalink

  148. bloody amateurs

    Posted by blogstrop on 2006 03 10 at 06:09 AM • permalink

  149. #138

    Spyder, the issue isn’t whether you would be “furious, frustrated” etc., but what you would be willing to do about it. You don’t feel comfortable using firearms to defend yourself, your family or property? Fine, your call. But don’t try to deny others that right.

    Posted by Stone Cold on 2006 03 10 at 06:25 AM • permalink

  150. ’m not so sure I could get over the guilt of killing/harming a person.  But I’m female, maybe it’s hormonal :)

    I’m female, and I’m pretty sure I could get over the guilt of killing a scumbag who tried to rob, rape or kill me. Why do women play the “our squeamishness makes us better” card?

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 10 at 08:06 AM • permalink

  151. #124:

    No-one can convince me that you need an assault rifle as a personal weapon.

    And I just stop reading at that point, because anyone who would post this sentence is obviously steeped in anti-gun propaganda and impervious to facts, morality and logic on this topic.  The clues?

    First, as has just been exhaustively explained, there is no such thing as an “assault rifle” except as a cynical ploy of the anti-gun lobby.

    Second, the use of the trope “no one needs an X gun”, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of limited government and personal freedom.

    Posted by R C Dean on 2006 03 10 at 08:20 AM • permalink

  152. And info on how Canada’s gun registry and its supporters operate:
    http://tinyurl.com/paowd

    Posted by andycanuck on 2006 03 10 at 10:08 AM • permalink

  153. Defused 87

    a weapon may have helped the potetnial victim, but it is just not as simple as that.. and still doesn’t address the issue of the needs of those who like really big ones..

    I’ve gotta admit, in online arguments of this sort the gun grabbers don’t usually take this long to getting around to talking about your penises.  And even now he’s only doing so obliquely.  Still, 87 posts into the thread ... that’s something.  Usually they start that crap on the 2nd or 3rd volley.  This Dreyfuze is an uncommonly well-disciplined troll, for what that’s worth. 
    IMHO it ain’t worth poo, but your mileage may vary.

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 03 10 at 10:15 AM • permalink

  154. DF 87

    USA is only 2nd in the world to Albania for firearm related homicides (according to those horse shitters at the WHO)

    So the WHO is authoritative for you, Dreyfuze?  Consistently authoritative?  Reason I ask is, WHO has this
    to say on the subject of your other topic, from a dozen threads back, depleted uranium ammunition.  So maybe they’re credible, maybe they’re not ... you tell me.

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 03 10 at 10:21 AM • permalink

  155. RC Dean:
    Guess you have ADD if you only managed the first line.
    Further reading would have revealed a very pro gun ownership position.
    As for assault rifle, the “clue” here is I identified myself as an Australian where the term is commonly used.
    Dipshits like yourself that don’t study all the evidence are the reasons why the anti-gun legislation passed here in Australia. “The clues?”
    In your case more like “Clouseau”
    (As you seem a little slow, that’s Peter Sellers acting the idiot character)
    If you’re American, maybe “rope a dope” does it.

    Posted by desert rat on 2006 03 10 at 10:36 AM • permalink

  156. spyder 122

    The Bill of Rights, like the Bible and the Koran, should be read aware of the context in which it was written

    Does the meaning of “shall not be infringed” vary from one context to another? 

    Spyder 131

    as an skip I’m not likely to read the US constitution or Bill of Rights

    Weird how that didn’t hold you back from commenting on them.  Asscake.

    Mark L 144

    Dryfuzz is merely repeating the usual BS from the usual ill-informed sources.

    It’s hard to tell whether he’s sharing misinformation or disinformation.  Is he as ignorant as he seems, or just a damned liar?  It hardly matters, that pompous-ass attitude of his inclines me to treat him with both flavors of contempt.

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 03 10 at 10:40 AM • permalink

  157. Yojimbo — Modern wadcutters are low velocity target loads.  If you handload, you can load hollow-base wadcutters backward in the case, making for a large-mouth hollowpoint, but accuracy falls off dramatically, in fact, in shorter barrels they tend to tumble.

    Spend the extra two bucks on a box of Hydra-Shoks…

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 10 at 11:31 AM • permalink

  158. Stoop Davey Dave at 156.
    “Does the meaning of ‘shall not be infringed’ vary from one context to another.”

    Well yea!  We have SCOTUS Justices going to foreign countries to search for different meanings for terms and how other countries handle situations. It’s a living breathing Constitution don’t you know.  All of those shifting cultural imperatives and so forth.

    You’re running up against a bunch of elitist snobs who think they know better than you how you should behave.  Once you get a majority of them in positions of power the term “shall not be infringed” does change to whatever They think it means.  All them cultural imperatives don’t you know.

    Forget the “Beware of the Military Industrial Complex” bat guano and beware of the “Meathead” with total legislative power.

    Be very afraid of the postmodernist world.

    Posted by yojimbo on 2006 03 10 at 11:42 AM • permalink

  159. Desert rat, if you can’t take criticism without calling people names, I’ll be glad to ban you.

    As for the “no one needs an assault rifle” nonsense, I’m afraid that the cuddle rifle and the slow-cooker rifle just aren’t as effective in blowing criminal ass to smithereens.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 10 at 11:47 AM • permalink

  160. #151 R C Dean, I think you jumped to conclusions too rapidly with Desert Rat. Yes, DR’s comment showed that he/she had not read the whole thread, but Desert Rat’s post was not very troll-like, in general.

    Posted by daddy dave on 2006 03 10 at 11:52 AM • permalink

  161. Damn those shifting cultural imperatives and the emanations and penumbras they rode in on!

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 03 10 at 11:53 AM • permalink

  162. Dear Andrea
    The .303 with a nickel jacket round is hardly a “cuddle” weapon.
    I used to own one ...and a 30.06…before the dumb anti-gun legislation in Australia.
    Re-barreled by Percy Pavey..a very recognisable name in competition range shooting.
    Knew how to use it too.
    Took out several day prizes ...one at 1600 yards on a windy day at Williamstown many moons ago admittedly.
    RC Dean is a dipshit….pure and simple.
    Ban away.
    p.s. have no problem at all with critism but no patience with fools.

    Posted by desert rat on 2006 03 10 at 12:03 PM • permalink

  163. #161

    Ayup!

    Posted by yojimbo on 2006 03 10 at 12:04 PM • permalink

  164. 163 comments on this gun thread, and counting.

    Y’don’t suppose Tim has a lot of American fans, do you? ;-)

    Posted by Rittenhouse on 2006 03 10 at 12:06 PM • permalink

  165. Richard.  Thanks and appreciated.  I’m going to have to purchase another 45 Cal. My only reason for owning a heavy is to make sure that some intruder becomes a Yojimbo BFTA(blunt force trauma awardee). I’ve owned 357’s and 45’s in the past and the M1911 type is the most comfortable for me. Wadcutter,hollow or cross-hatched fades from the scene.

    Posted by yojimbo on 2006 03 10 at 12:13 PM • permalink

  166. Oh thanks a heap yojimbo.  Three times I came around to your place attempting to deliver your RWDB spirit wear order.  Some golf shirts and a hooded sweatshirt as I recall.  (The jack boots haven’t come in yet).  Three times you’ve run me off with that 45 Cal of yours.

    Well, you know what?  You can come pick up your order at the office.  You can find me in the little broom-closet-turned-office just down the hall from Karl’s palacial office.

    Posted by wronwright on 2006 03 10 at 01:22 PM • permalink

  167. Hmmmm.

    Modern wadcutters are low velocity target loads

    Very true.  I still like them in revolvers though but never ever in a semi-automatic.  With the wadcutter reversed you can get into feeding problems and that’s a deadly issue with semi-autos.

    Spend the extra two bucks on a box of Hydra-Shoks…

    Agreed to a point.  However I would suggest taking the time to visit a local lawyer and finding out what the legal situation is for using such ammunition. 

    The issue is potential post-shooting liability if it’s determined you used excessive force by employing severely dangerous ammunition.  Sounds absurd but so are a lot of legal situations involving self-defense.  Every state is different so I’d really suggest finding out.  Until you do find out I’d suggest loading with regular copper-jacketed ball ammunition.

    This sort of post-shooting situation is also another reason to be wary of reverse-loaded wadcutters and even using reloads in your defensive firearms.  They’re potential issues if brought up in a courtroom. 

    While we all, mostly all, prefer the “Judged by 12 rather than carried by 6” solution why invite trouble?  This potential legal nightmare is also one more reason to employ a pump-action 12ga shotgun.

    Posted by memomachine on 2006 03 10 at 01:31 PM • permalink

  168. Whoa.

    Check out the streaming videos at http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/blackwater/?s=2005_videos

    Especially the fully automatic shotgun!!!

    Posted by 68W40 on 2006 03 10 at 02:01 PM • permalink

  169. And I have no patience with stupid people. Bye.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 10 at 02:03 PM • permalink

  170. Re #2

    LeftieLatteLover,

    The “legend” of the Texas town requiring people to own guns isn’t really legend, but you have the facts twisted.

    The town was Kennesaw, Georgia, and they did pass an ordinance requireing each household to own a gun (this was probably more than 20 years ago now). They did so in response to the much hyped actions of the Chicago suburb of Morton Grove, Illinois, which passed a law banning all firearms in the town. The following decade proved the relative utility of the decisions.

    Morton Grove, which really had not had a terribly bad crime rate saw its violent crime climb considerably. Kennesaw, which had a low crime rate to begin with saw its already low rate drop further, particularly crimes against persons. It was exactly the opposite of the result expected by the gun-banners in Morton Grove and nation-wide, and just what most gun owners predicted.

    The law is still on the books:

    ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL

    Sec. 34-1. Heads of households to maintain firearms.
    (a)  In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefor.
    (b)  Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
    (Code 1986, § 4-3-10)

    Sec. 34-2. Use of firearms.
    No person shall fire a gun, pistol or other firearm in the city, except in the defense of person or property, and except peace officers or military forces of this state or the United States, in the discharge of official duties.
    (Code 1986, § 11-1-4)

    It can be found in the Municiple Code here:

    http://www.municode.com/services/gateway.asp?sid=10&pid=12813

    Posted by Hawkeye on 2006 03 10 at 02:11 PM • permalink

  171. Wronright.  Profuse apologies and a thousand sorrows.  I was out getting my meds!

    A simple query is in order though.  What good is a “spirit” order without the bleeping jack boots?  You’ll never get outa that “closet” without full order placement!

    Ed. Back in the day(of well made guns that is)I owned a Browning 12 ga.-what a gorgeous piece of hardware!

    Posted by yojimbo on 2006 03 10 at 02:26 PM • permalink

  172. Hmmm.

    Ed. Back in the day(of well made guns that is)I owned a Browning 12 ga.-what a gorgeous piece of hardware!

    Agreed!  I don’t think I’ve ever handled a Browning made or designed firearm that I didn’t love.  It’s frankly amazing the influence that Mr. Browning had in firearms development and just how many firearm designs he participated in.

    Posted by memomachine on 2006 03 10 at 02:52 PM • permalink

  173. Re: #167

    “This sort of post-shooting situation is also another reason to be wary of reverse-loaded wadcutters and even using reloads in your defensive firearms.  They’re potential issues if brought up in a courtroom.”

    Absolutely correct. And more than “potential.” You can bet such things will come up and the attorney for the scumbag plaintiff who is suing you will try to use it to convince jurors (who he did his best to pick for their ignorance and dislike of guns) that you are a sadistic nut job who only shot the poor rapist because you enjoy inflicting pain.

    “The issue is potential post-shooting liability if it’s determined you used excessive force by employing severely dangerous ammunition.  Sounds absurd but so are a lot of legal situations involving self-defense.”

    Also correct. 

    “Until you do find out I’d suggest loading with regular copper-jacketed ball ammunition.”

    HECK NO!!!

    1. Ball ammo is not very effective as a personal defense round. first of al this can get you killed, and second, it leads back to some of the same liability questions.

    2. Most of the FMJ on the market now is the low-priced stuff (that includes military grade). This is in the same class legally as using handloads.

    Target shoot with whatever is cheap. ALWAYS use premium grade personal defense ammo for your business loads. That means ammo from a reputable manufacturer that is designed for the purpose. Your local guy at “Rob’s Reloads” that works out of his basement may be highly skilled and produce first rate ammo, but if there is a post-shooting suit, you want to have ammo from Remington (or Federal, or speer . . .) not Rob. They have the deep pockets that will draw attention from you, and they have the R&D efforts and records to survive in court.
    And their probuct is usually well known technically as well as in terms of name recognition. It’s pretty hard for the opposing attorney to convince a jury you were using some weird magically destructive ammo when it came from an established company that designed the round just for that purpose.

    3. Another big hint to you that FMJ is not a good idea - how many police departments use it? If the answer isn’t “zero,” it’s pretty darned close. I haven’t heard of one in at least two decades, maybe more.
    Cops and their departments are not immune to the the same potential post-shooting problems the rest of us face.

    In fact, the issue weapon/round for the local PD here is a GLock in .40S&W with Federal Hyra-Shoks, and IIRC the State Troopers use them as well.

    Actually, checink what your law enforcement agencies use may be a better idea than checking with a lawyer, especially if that round has been in service for a substantial period.

    In sum:

    1. ALways used designed for the purpose ammo from a major manufacturer.

    2. Same for the gun.

    3. Never modify either yourself. Have all work including repairs done by a competent, established gunsmith.

    4. Get training. At minimum an NRA basic course. It takes only a few hours, but can save your but in the crisis and in the fallout that follows. Taking at least a little training makes you more competent, it insures that you at least have fired the gun before the real crisis (the first shot should not be the one fired for real), and it demonstrates to that aforementioned jury thet you are not impulsive or a nut case but a resposible, level-headed citizen; very effective in undermining any claims that you, as a gun owner, were just a disaster waitng to happen.

    5. Never shoot to kill; never shoot to wound -  shoot to stop. That training you wisely took will teach this. If you shoot to kill, you will be accused of being a bloodthisty psycho. If you only shoot to wound, you cannot justify shooting at all. If the attack was really a threat to your life, which is the justification to shoot, why did you only shoot to wound? Maybe you weren’t really in fear for your life after all and so you must be a psycho. You will no doubt be asked if you short to wound or to kill, and it is a “do you still beat your wife” question - either answer is bad for you.

    Shooting to stop is the only legally justifiable course, and it makes tactical sense. You shoot, and keep shooting until the attack ceases, the you you do no further harm and render what assistance you safely can until the cops/medics come to take the suspect off your hands.

    6. Remember that once you pull the trigger, you become that most protected calss of person (at least in the US) - a defendant. That means you now have rights - use them. Two of those rughts are to remain silent and to have legal counsel, so shut up and call a lawyer.

    But don’t let it all worry you :-)

    Go to the range and have fun!!!

    Posted by Hawkeye on 2006 03 10 at 03:02 PM • permalink

  174. #171 Look yojimbo.  Everybody wants jack boots.  Everybody.  Not just you.  Our supplier, Halliburton, makes ours only out of endanged species.  Komono dragon is especially popular, manatee too.  But there are only so many available. 

    So the line is long.  And the people in it are not so nice about it.  Ever try to explain to Andrea why her koala fur jack boots are not ready?  It’s not something I would suggest to you.

    So quit complaining, where the spirit wear socks, and get spirited in a happy and enthusiastic manner.  Or I’ll shoot you, I swear I will.

    Posted by wronwright on 2006 03 10 at 03:17 PM • permalink

  175. #156

    “Does the meaning of ‘shall not be infringed’ vary from one context to another?”

    Depends on who you ask. Some of our intelligensia, including a few of our Supreme Court justices, belive in a “living Constitution.” What this really means is no Constitution at all since the words mean whatever they find convenient at the moment.

    The rest of us take a less post-modernist view that words actually have objective meanings(what backward knuckle-dragging reactionaries!).

    “Spyder 131

      as an skip I’m not likely to read the US constitution or Bill of Rights”

    It appears Spyder is ready for American citizenship - nobody here reads it either.

    Posted by Hawkeye on 2006 03 10 at 03:24 PM • permalink

  176. I guess Dreyfuze would have 5 consecutive heart attacks if he/she had accompanied me to an event I went to last October.  Twice a year, just outside Reno, Nevada, an organization puts on a weekend shoot during which anybody willing to pay the (fairly stiff) fee can fire fully automatic weapons to their heart’s content.  Some of the featured arms:  Thompson submachineguns, Uzis, AK-47s, M16s, MP-5s, British Sterlings, Glock-18s, even tripod-mounted, belt-fed machineguns.  For me, two highlights:  A GE, 6-barrelled mini-gun firing at about 6000 rounds/minute (you don’t even hear individual shots, it’s a continuous whirr); and a bleeping flamethrower!  Now that was a rush - as I squeezed off a spurt, I pretended I was James Whitmore in THEM, yelling “Awright, you giant terrorist ants, eat combustible death!”

    Posted by Bruce Lagasse on 2006 03 10 at 03:25 PM • permalink

  177. Citizenship, hell!  She’s ready to run for Congress!

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 03 10 at 03:27 PM • permalink

  178. R C Dean, I think you jumped to conclusions too rapidly with Desert Rat.

    Maybe, but I still think anyone who writes the sentence “no one needs an assault rifle” has both fallen for a truckload of antigun propaganda, and has a severely flawed understanding of personal liberty.  I notice he never really came to grips with either of these points.

    desert rat continuing on to compound his errors with nonsense on stilts like “handguns are defensive weapons, assault rifles are offensive weapons” does little to set my mind at ease.

    The fact that he had some nice rifles confiscated, and wishes he had a pistol today, doesn’t really correct his previous errors of fact and analysis.

    Posted by R C Dean on 2006 03 10 at 03:34 PM • permalink

  179. #173 Hawkeye:

    Great post.  I’ll humbly add a post-shooting statement my CHL trainer said had been run through several attorneys and appeared bullet-proof.

    After defending yourself by firing your weapon, anytime a cop asks you any question, repeat this until he stops asking:

    “I’m scared. I want to cooperate. I need to talk to my attorney.”

    So when the police officer is called in to testify at your grand jury hearing, and the prosecutor is trying to show what a dangerous psychopath you are, the cop’s answer to the question “What the man with the gun say?”

    “He said he was scared, that he wanted to cooperate, and he needed to talk to his attorney.”

    There’s no way a prosecutor can make you look bad to a grand jury if that’s all you said on the record.

    Assuming, of course, that your behavior in the situation was all above-board.

    Apparently, one of the big mistakes by people involved in defensive shootings is to start blabbing to the police on the assumption the cops are on your side and won’t say or quote something that might damage your case.  Remember Bernhard Goetz.

    Posted by Rittenhouse on 2006 03 10 at 03:56 PM • permalink

  180. #176: Ah . . . “Them!” IMHO, the first 10 or 15 minutes of that movie are among the best in sci fi (the rest of it ain’t bad either, though the special effects are dated).

    #174: BTW, Wronwright, I’m still trying to get minion-level, office grade jack wing-tips. And I understand Richard McEnroe actually sports a pair of Big Trouble in Little China, Kurt Russell, moose-skin moccasin boots. What have I got to do to get me some of those?

    Posted by paco on 2006 03 10 at 04:11 PM • permalink

  181. As for the “no one needs an assault rifle” nonsense, I’m afraid that the cuddle rifle and the slow-cooker rifle just aren’t as effective in blowing criminal ass to smithereens.

    Awesome.

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 03 10 at 04:37 PM • permalink

  182. Wronright!!!!  Those are not just “jack boots”!  These are the steel-toed-fully Lotte Lenya enabled and up-armored jack boots!!

    Those are the earthbound endangered species for goodness sake!  Saturn has a moon with water!  If it has water it has endangered species on it!

    Now get up there.

    Posted by yojimbo on 2006 03 10 at 04:40 PM • permalink

  183. #179 Rittenouse

    “ ‘He said he was scared, that he wanted to cooperate, and he needed to talk to his attorney.’

    There’s no way a prosecutor can make you look bad to a grand jury if that’s all you said on the record.”

    Yep. Establish that you were reasonably in fear, that you are a law - abiding citizen, and execise your rights.

    “Apparently, one of the big mistakes by people involved in defensive shootings is to start blabbing to the police on the assumption the cops are on your side and won’t say or quote something that might damage your case.  Remember Bernhard Goetz.”

    Exactly. Tell the cops you want to cooperate, but do so by not resisting or stonewalling the investigation, but mo matter what, keep your mouth shut!

    Bullseye about Goetz - he was the DA’s best witness, he convicted himself.

    You are right that the cops ARE NOT on your side, even when the shooter is another cop, so they certainly are not your friends. It’s not personal, that’s just how the system is put together. As I noted, when you pull the trigger, you become a defendant, even if you are a cop shooting in line of duty.

    Actually, the fact that you are aware of these things can help if you have to shoot. When you can demonstrate you were aware of all these potential adverse consequences before the fact, it can help demonstrate that you were weel aware of the seriousness of use of deadly force and not reckless or impulsive but really did believe you had to shoot to survive.That is another advantage of having even a simple, basic training course under your belt - it will cover these issues.

    Posted by Hawkeye on 2006 03 10 at 05:56 PM • permalink

  184. 150# Why do women play the “our squeamishness makes us better” card?

    No Andrea, I wasn’t playing that card, just the simple biological fact that men are not designed for guaranteed progeny, whereas as my old man used to say, there’s only one thing you know for certain about a baby, and that’s who the mother is.  This gives us two different views on life.  Either biological design doesn’t make one better, just a complement to each other.  Point here, I am a mother.

    156# Does the meaning of “shall not be infringed” vary from one context to another?

    Try 17thCentury/18Century to 21st Century?

    And to those who want me to run for Congress, thanks but no thanks, while sometimes I wonder whether insanity runs in my family, it’s not that insane :)

    Posted by spyder on 2006 03 10 at 06:30 PM • permalink

  185. #176

    Bruce,

    “A GE, 6-barrelled mini-gun firing at about 6000 rounds/minute (you don’t even hear individual shots, it’s a continuous whirr); and a bleeping flamethrower!”

    Toys! :-)

    You haven’t had the real thing until you’ve had an M-61 20mm. Shooting things down and blowing vehicles all to hell with a Vulcan is almost as good as sex (or better sometimes - the Vulcan is always good . . .)

    As good as that is though, shooting something down with a shoulder fired heat seeker is a rush all unto itself.

    Posted by Hawkeye on 2006 03 10 at 07:00 PM • permalink

  186. No Andrea, I wasn’t playing that card, just the simple biological fact that men are not designed for guaranteed progeny, whereas as my old man used to say, there’s only one thing you know for certain about a baby, and that’s who the mother is.  This gives us two different views on life.  Either biological design doesn’t make one better, just a complement to each other.  Point here, I am a mother.

    Spyder, what in the hell does that have to do with anything?

    If this inability to communicate in anything but non-sequiturs is what happens to women who have had children I am glad I never went into the business.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 10 at 07:18 PM • permalink

  187. Spyder 131 - No point in staying indoors if the people outside smashing your car are also firing off Glocks (as the Young Men of Middle Eastern Appearance were spotted with in Sydney) - bullets can pass through windows, doors and walls, you know.

    As for the early commenter who noted the frightening sound of a pumpie racking a load in the dark, that very sound is one of the things I love about my pump action. Nice to think that, in the dark, Mr Burglar might not know it’s only a Rossi 22 pea shooter!

    —Nick

    Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 03 10 at 07:29 PM • permalink

  188. Kyda Sylvester posted this in a recent thread. I believe it bears reposting here:

    It’s reported that after the fall of the Soviet empire, Gorbachev was asked if the USSR ever had plans to invade the US. He said no, there had been no such plans, that it would be folly for anyone to invade the US. Why? “Because your citizens are armed”, he said.

    Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 03 10 at 07:37 PM • permalink

  189. 186# that explains everthing

    Posted by spyder on 2006 03 10 at 08:02 PM • permalink

  190. Why yes, Number 189, it does.

    By the way, do you know what drives this unfulfilled, dried-up spinster hag up the wall? People (of all sexes) who use emotion in an argument in place of reason. Just a little newsflash to you all.

    Really, running a blog is kind of like having children—a thousand psychotic imps birthed by Shub-Niggurath in the squat black temple of Tsathoggua, that is.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 10 at 08:10 PM • permalink

  191. Some hopefully helpfull definitions.

    Battle-Rifle: Military Definition - Any multi-shot military rifle usually of .30 caliber or greater, usually either bolt-action or semi-automatic which was designed to be accurate and lethal out to 1,000 yards and accepts a bayonet.

    Assault-rifle: Military Definition - Any military rifle with a high-capacity magazine chambered for an intermediary cartridge (More powerfull than a pistol cartridge but less powerfull than a Battle-Rifle/Hunting-Rifle catridge.), designed to be accurate and lethal out to 300-500 yards and is selective-fire.

    Assault-Weapon: Political Definition - Any Civilian firearm (Rifle or Non-Rifle) which posesses certain cosmetic features giving it a resemblance to a Military firearm.

    Automatic Weapon: Any firearm which is designed to cock and load it’s own action without manual manipulation, usually used in the United States to refer to the Full-Automatic variety.

      Semi-Automatic: Any firearm of the above category which utilizes the action of firing the weapon in some way to extract a spent cartridge, load a fresh one, and cock the mechanism for a second firing.

      Fully-Automatic:  Any firearm of the above category which utilizes the action of firing the weapon in some way to extract a spent catridge, load a fresh one, cock the mechanism and fire again untill the trigger is released or all ammunition is expended.

      Select-Fire:  Any firearm of the above category which has been designed to be easily re-configured from Semi-Automatic to Fully-Automatic and vice-versa without having to dissasemble, modify, and re-assemble the firearm or any of it’s component parts.

    Hope this helps.

    Posted by Les-R on 2006 03 10 at 08:13 PM • permalink

  192. 190# using your example of reason, I’ll stick to emotion, it makes more sense.

    Anyway I’m off to my “business”.  Currently renovating the home I’m providing for my business, oops I mean family

    Posted by spyder on 2006 03 10 at 08:16 PM • permalink

  193. I am a rock.
    I am an island.
    I am a psychotic imp.

    Posted by yojimbo on 2006 03 10 at 08:25 PM • permalink

  194. 190# using your example of reason, I’ll stick to emotion, it makes more sense.

    Oh my, that burst of smug self-righteousness will last me all week. And they say Christmas comes but once a year!

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 10 at 08:25 PM • permalink

  195. note to self:  Do not pick today to mention to Andrea that she keeps a messy font cabinet and it’s damn well time she cleans it up.  Or to mention that the bold and CAPS jars are getting low and she better go shopping at FONTS ‘R US and be snappy about it.

    No, no, not today.

    Posted by wronwright on 2006 03 10 at 08:37 PM • permalink

  196. PS: Les-R, what is the source of your definitions? Just curious.

    There seems to be a bit of confusion here: the problem with terms like “assault weapons” is it’s an unnecessary modifier. All weapons are “assault” weapons—there is actually no such thing as a “defense” weapon. Using a weapon for “self defense” actually means the one wielding the weapon has the ability to assault someone who is assaulting him.

    I realize that thanks to the current custom of despising the restrictions inherent in good English grammar phrases such as “assault rifle” have entered the lexicon, but to people who at least try on occasion to speak their mother tongue as it should be spoken such phrases are the equivalent of having rusty corkscrews shoved up our nostrils.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 10 at 08:41 PM • permalink

  197. Speaking of rusty corkscrews, I thought I heard wronwright complaining about my housekeeping. Which junk drawer did I put it in…

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 10 at 08:41 PM • permalink

  198. “to people”...“shoved up our nostrils”

    Well, see? It’s even infected me. I blame Halliburton.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 10 at 11:51 PM • permalink

  199. Tag closed…

    Criminalising the mere ownership of guns is the stuff of the Nanny State. Mere ownership of a gun is, in and of itself, a victimless act and therefore should be beyond the reach of any government.

    Maybe it’s just the libertarian in me, but I reckon the only benchmark of whether something should be criminalised or not is whether the act in question necessarily has a damaging impact on someone else.

    Posted by bongoman on 2006 03 11 at 12:12 AM • permalink

  200. I blame wronwright.

    Posted by guinsPen on 2006 03 11 at 12:17 AM • permalink

  201. a thousand psychotic imps

    “It’s Hard Out Here For An Imp”

    Posted by guinsPen on 2006 03 11 at 12:30 AM • permalink

  202. #196

    Andrea,

    “I realize that thanks to the current custom of despising the restrictions inherent in good English grammar phrases such as “assault rifle” have entered the lexicon . . .”

    Re the definitions in #191, they are solid. The term “Assault Rifle” is legitimate, it means what Les-R defined it to mean, and has been part of military terminology since at least WWII. It came about as the result of the WWII german development of the MP-44 (which was NOT a submachine gun in spite of the Machine Pistol designation - that was a political ruse to get it into production because Hitler was obsessed with sub guns). After the war, the MP-44, combined with domestic trends in other countries, spawned the SKS, AK-47, and other such weapons down to the M-16 and its variants, with exactly the characteristics Les listed and which made them very different from conventional riles like the US M-1/M-14, British SMLE and FAL, or German KAR-98 and later G-3.

    What is not a legitimate term is “Assault Weapon.”

    This is a creation of the US anti-gun lobby. It has NO definition - it can and does include whatever guns the user of the term wishes to include at the moment. One of these individuals at one time in a press statement defined an assault weapon as any gun that could fire more than once without reloading (no kidding, I’m serious and so was he). This would include a Civil War era cap and ball front-loading revolver. Heck, it would include an 18th century flintlock double-barrel shotgun.

    The famous, or rather infamous “Assault Weapons” ban that we got under Clinton was smoke and mirrors founded on this non-definition. One of the clues to the disingeniousness of the term is the fact that it is often phrased as a ban on “semi-automatic assault weapons.”

    It banned _semi-automatic_ arms - that is those that fire one shot with one pull of the trigger requiring the trigger to be released and pulled again to fire another shot. It didn’t need to ban automaic arms (those that continue to fire as long as the trigger is held). They were already dealt with by the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 (yup - over 3/4 of a century ago). You can still own an auto in the US, but only if you pass the anal probe by the BATFE, pay the substantial taxes and fees, meet the BATFE’s secure storage requirement (think Fort Knox), get the consent of the local law enforcement authorities, submit to random unannounced future anal probes at the BATFE’s whim, etc., etc. And such ams are scarce on the civilian market - a couple of years ago a collector told me that an M-60 machine gun was going for $20,000 US.

    So, an Assault Rifle is by definition selective fire - that is it can be set to fire in a semi-auto, or full auto mode, and therefore a real assault rifle, like an issue type M-16, is already regulated as a machinegun (the term for autos in the statute). So the “assault weapons ban” only affected semi-autos that _look_ like Assault Rifles, e.g. an AR-15 which is like an M-16, but has not automaic fire capability - it is a semi-auto. So an AR-15 fell under the criteria for the ban: it has (had) a detachable external magazine, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor on the muzzle, and (Get THIS) a BAYONET LUG!! (now there is a feature your average gang banger can’t wait to get his hands on don’t you know!). The result was that a few cosmentic changes made the same rifles leagal again, they just did look soooo !scary! to the ignorant and easily misled.

    And actually there is such athing as a “defense weapon:” it’s called a handgun. And they are not great even as defensive weapons. It is firmly believed by those who have reason to know, that the only good use for a handgun is to fight your way to your long gun (i.e. rifle or shotgun). You misunderstand, or at least misrpresent, the difference between attack and defense. Granted that handguns CAN be used offensively, and many of the worlds military special forces units have raised such use to an art, but that is not their primary intended function, and except in unusual circumstances (e.g. storming a hijacked airliner) they are ill adapted to it. 

    “I realize that thanks to the current custom of despising the restrictions inherent in good English grammar phrases such as “assault rifle” have entered the lexicon, but to people who at least try on occasion to speak their mother tongue as it should be spoken such phrases are the equivalent of having rusty corkscrews shoved up our nostrils.”

    I would agree completely with this entire paragraph had you written the meaningless term “assault weapon” rather than the legitimat term “assault rifle.” By using the term you did, you negated the meaning of your own paragraph, and earned a turn with your own corkscrew.

    Begin screwing yourself immediately!!

    Posted by Hawkeye on 2006 03 11 at 12:45 AM • permalink

  203. #190 Whoa !! Andrea:

    Those Clint Eastwood one-liners….
    Those hairs on your chest…....
    Check your medication
    .....maybe it says TEA(little)SPOON

    Posted by bellyman on 2006 03 11 at 01:09 AM • permalink

  204. (Puts head above parapet; feels safe because am wearing “I luv Charlton” T Shirt)

    O/T (again?), but as there’s guaranteed to be a bunch of Americans tuning in here…

    George W has finally appointed a new US Ambassador to Australia.  After a year or so gap since the last one left, the absence was starting to rankle even we RWDBs, even given the dorks in Congress and their bloody confirmation process.

    Robert D McCallum, Associate Attorney-General at the Justice Department in Washington, now US mbassadpr to Australia.

    Does he have form of any kind - known via any issues etc?

    Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 11 at 01:15 AM • permalink

  205. twha teh fkcu?

    Ambassador to Australia, even

    Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 11 at 01:19 AM • permalink

  206. 190: “a thousand psychotic imps birthed by Shub-Niggurath in the squat black temple of Tsathoggua”

    Whoa! That’s way cooler than being a mere Rove minion! Count me in. BTW, will all of that fit on a t-shirt?

    Posted by paco on 2006 03 11 at 01:29 AM • permalink

  207. You can still own an auto in the US, but only if you pass the anal probe by the BATFE, pay the substantial taxes and fees, meet the BATFE’s secure storage requirement (think Fort Knox), get the consent of the local law enforcement authorities, submit to random unannounced future anal probes at the BATFE’s whim, etc., etc.

    That’s what you have to go through to get a single-shot .22LR rifle in England!

    Posted by jic on 2006 03 11 at 01:46 AM • permalink

  208. No. 182

    Yojimbo YOU BASTARD.

    Wron was still half tanked on ‘Ramses special mead’ that we made, erm, that we placed in the storm for him.

    SO you tell him to go to Enceladus. Don’t deny it!

    ‘Those are the earthbound endangered species for goodness sake!  Saturn has a moon with water!  If it has water it has endangered species on it!

    Now get up there. ‘

    That was YOU, hmmm? And he was half-cut, hmm?

    So just what do you suppose Wron did? Yup, in to the teleporter in a space suit with the giant squid rassling gear.

    So. Now we have this fricking great enormous thing with tentacles, fangs, claws and sort of chain saw thingy it waves about. No use for boots, it has no skin. Just these big metallic scale things that seem to be bolted on to a flexible skeleton.

    So we bitch to Wron. THis ain’t the T-rex we ordered, dude.

    He feeds it ‘Ramses Special’. They are now both pissed, and great mates. Wron says its name is Howard.

    Last we saw he and Howard were heading off to the Mustang Ranch in the Tardis so Howie could get some of that native poon.

    We are TRYING to make Lord Rove and Great Leader Howard’s boots made right now.

    So you tell me where we are gonna get the Tyrannosaurus skin for that, with Wron and Howard over partying at the knocking shop?

    You can answer for this one.

    MarkL
    Canberra

    Posted by MarkL on 2006 03 11 at 01:56 AM • permalink

  209. I’m sure no one is still reading these comments after 200.  I’m also sure that no one’s opinion has been changed.

    But I wanted to assure Andrea that not all women and mothers play the female card of being too squeamish to make any real decisions.  That’s one of my pet peeves, though I could never express it as eloquently as Andrea does.

    Those hormones that Spyder mentioned can do strange things.  When I was pregnant, they literally curled my hair.  But they never, ever, ever, made me lose the desire to protect my family, should the need arise.  In fact, that desire gets stronger every day, and if I had to use a gun to do so I would.  If Spyder ever gets into a dangerous situation, let’s hope she has a big strong man around (I hear there are plenty in Oz) to protect her, and she won’t have to worry her pretty little head about it.

    By the way, the original topic was about two women who had no problem protecting themselves.  Right on!

    Posted by RK on 2006 03 11 at 09:41 AM • permalink

  210. Congratulations, Hawkeye, for completely misunderstanding what I wrote, right up to the laughable description of a handgun as a “defense weapon.” The only way a handgun could be a “defense weapon” is if, instead of shooting it, you held it up sideways in front of your face and it managed to deflect a bullet coming at you, an event which is probably but highly unlikely.

    By the way, as much as I admire the military I am afraid that that institution has been responsible, at least in modern times, for some of the worst “assaults” on the English language in existance; I don’t care how “time-honored” the phrases are.

    Oh and by the way, for telling me to go “screw” myself you are banned.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 11 at 09:58 AM • permalink

  211. Hmmmm.

    There seems to be a bit of confusion here: the problem with terms like “assault weapons” is it’s an unnecessary modifier. All weapons are “assault” weapons—there is actually no such thing as a “defense” weapon.

    Not that I want to get banned, though that would free up time to actually get some work done, but there is a legitimate definition for the adjective “assault”.

    Assault

    n 1: close fighting during the culmination of a military attack

    The reason why the adjective “assault” is used is to define the difference between a rifle and an assault rifle.  The rifle, such as a M-14, is designed for careful aimed shot as medium to long range.  Such rifles have great difficulty at short ranges or in close assault actions where they can be outhandled by shorter range, but higher rate-of-fire, weapons such as a submachinegun.  This is why the M-14 has an effective range of around 800 - 1,000 meters.  You could fire the M-14 in full auto but the recoil would probably dump you on your rear end.  The only way to effectively use an M-14 in full-auto mode is the same technique used for close combat with shotguns:

    i.e. hold the stock against the inner thigh to absorb recoil and hope you don’t fall down.

    An assault rifle is designed for short to medium ranges with a higher maximum rate-of-fire for use as both a battlefield rifle and as suitable weapon for close assault actions.  This is why the M-16 is called an assault rifle and why the maximum effective range for the M-16 is considered to be 400-500 meters.  And that’s being extremely generous frankly.  And it’s not the aiming or the hitting the target that’s the problem with the M-16, it’s the fact that a 5.56mm round sucks beyond 300 meters.  If that.

    So yes Andrea, there is an assault rifle.

    Posted by memomachine on 2006 03 11 at 11:41 AM • permalink

  212. MarkL YOU IGNORANT SLUT.  LOL!

    I must learn to live in a world of dampened expectations with repect to certain members of the Rove Internship Program.  For this I take full blame and responsbility.

    Posted by yojimbo on 2006 03 11 at 12:10 PM • permalink

  213. Hawkeye’s post #202 was factually correct, and his last couple of lines were written jokingly.

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 03 11 at 12:43 PM • permalink

  214. Gosh, I guess I should have just fallen down laughing instead. Well I did! I laughed a low, gloating, evil laugh as I chose “banned” from the drop down list. And “assault rifle” still is the equivalent to the phrase “big large man” or “stupid troll.”

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 11 at 01:20 PM • permalink

  215. Ed — Interesting piece of misdirection there, as your link makes no reference to assault rifes.  You seem happy to cloak yourself in the ‘authority’ of a dictionary citation without actually providing one.

    You provide a lot of “information” that ain’t in your post.

    Someone making “effective” shots at 800-1000 metres with an unmodified M-14 would be damned impressive: or lying in the NCO Club.

    Nobody is/was trained to fire the M14 in long bursts, to my knowledge, anymore than they were trained to do with Thompsons, M3’s, or M16’s.  Anyone doing that is wasting ammunition.

    And please, let me see you firing a shotgun with the stock against your “inner thigh”.  Hope you’re wearing a cup.

    The assault rifle designation was a marketing tool courtesy of McNamara, when the Air Force’s pervceived need to find a weapon for base security to replace the jumble of M3A1 grease guns and M-3 carbines got turned into an all-services issue by his mania for consolidation (remember, this is the man who tried to shoot F-111’s off aircraft carriers).  Couldn’t say we were taking the real rifles away from the troops and making them all carry carbines, could we?

    Since then, the term has mutated beyond all sense, when something the size of an SVD sniper rifle can be classified as an assault rifle.  And when the term didn’t cover the large-capacity semiauto handguns like the Tec-9 and the Spectre, the media mightily morphed the term and definition to “assault weapon.”  One of the reasons Los Angeles lost its last Olympic bid was because the shooting events would have been against the law here: the .22 and .32 target pieces used ‘qualify’ as assault weapons under CA law.

    BTW, the Marines currently qualify on the M16 out to 600 meters.  The range and accuracy are a function of bullet weight and rifling twist.

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 11 at 01:23 PM • permalink

  216. #215 “The assault rifle designation was a marketing tool courtesy of McNamara ...”

    That may be the case in the US, but I think internationally the name has traditionally been associated with the German Sturmgewehr and later similar weapons such as the AK family.

    And I don’t think it’s fair to equate it with a carbine, since the latter is not using full-strength rifle cartridges.

    Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2006 03 11 at 04:26 PM • permalink

  217. </b>
    Why is it that some making “contributions” to this forum believe that it is OK to make snide and nasty comments about people they know absolutely nothing about?
    Is blatant rudeness and over weaning self importance a prerequisite to consider oneself a member of the (mis)named Right?
    Seems that some thing they own the particular space this takes up on the www and can’t stand a new name on the block, particulalry if they can’t really respond wtih any great credibility.
    It certainly is not a recognised or admired debating technique. At least in serious and considered debates that is.

    Why the angst about the term “assault rifle”? Its what many who use/collect/deal them call them. Automatic or semi automatic, most people understand what the terms means even though they may never have fired one in anger.  Or be completely intimate with the legislation surrounding their various use or ownership.
    So I would have thought that give a certain amount of credibility to the use of the term.

    The emotions stirred up by this fascinating thread would of themselves indicate why some people should not be allowed to own a pop gun, let alone anything like a Glock!

    Posted by Dreyfuze on 2006 03 11 at 07:50 PM • permalink

  218. And I don’t think it’s fair to equate it with a carbine, since the latter is not using full-strength rifle cartridges.

    Assault rifles don’t use “full-strength rifle cartridges”, they fire what is known as “intermediate rounds”.  Of course, “full-strength” is, to a certain extent, relative; so let’s assume you mean that carbines fire rounds that are less powerful then those used in a full-size rifle.  That’s true for some of the weapons known as carbines, but not true in general.  For example, the M4 carbine is nothing but a smaller, shorter version of the M16, and uses the same ammunition and magazine.  It is a little less powerful, but that’s due to the shorter barrel, not the round used.

    I don’t have a problem with the term “Assault Rifle” as such, but I do have a problem with people who think that the semi-auto versions are significantly more dangerous that any other rifle.  The just look more aggressive.

    Posted by jic on 2006 03 11 at 08:33 PM • permalink

  219. jlc - So what makes, for instance, the 7.62x39mm AK round an “assault-rifle” or “intermediate” cartridge when the .30-30, which is ballistically comparable, isn’t?  Is the .30-30 not a “full-strength” rifle cartridge?  What is?  A .30-06?  A .458 Winchester?  A .50-100?

    The problem is we’re trying to find concrete rationalizations for what was always an artificial distinction.

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 11 at 09:10 PM • permalink

  220. I did say it was relative.  I meant not “full-strength” relative to .308, .30-06, 7.62x54R, etc.  The other cartridges you mention are not (to the best of my knowledge) military cartridges.

    Posted by jic on 2006 03 11 at 09:23 PM • permalink

  221. Why the angst about the term “assault rifle”?

    It’s an English-language thing. Never mind. I don’t know why I bother. Soon thanks to the Western world’s decision to change out teaching for “education” we’ll all soon be communicating in grunts and squeals.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 11 at 09:25 PM • permalink

  222. Umm, dear, wonderful Yojimbo. About the ‘ignorant slut’ term. If it about the photographs taken at the Minions and Henchmans Christmas party, we can come to some suitably evil (and right-wing) arrangement. 

    We could, for example, make THREE pairs of T-rex hide boots. Nudge nudge, wink, wink.

    If you include the negatives, I’ll pass you copies of what Howard the Enceladan and Wronwright the Tripod got up to at the Mustang Ranch.

    I did not know you could DO things like that legally in the USA. Let alone be followed home by “the girls”. Wronwright and Howard now have groupies.

    Howard seems quite friendly. Except for his habit of eating passers-by wearing tinfoil hats. He says that moonbats taste like turkey.

    He still looks like a sea urchin performing an unnatural with an explosion in Industrial Light and Magic’s monster department, though. Wronwright is passed out again, but Howard says he is in awe at his “stamina”.

    MarkL
    Canberra

    Posted by MarkL on 2006 03 12 at 02:36 AM • permalink

  223. Hmmmm.

    @ richard mcenroe

    sigh.

    Interesting piece of misdirection there, as your link makes no reference to assault rifes.

    No I used the link to point to a defintion of the word “assault” since this is a discussion of English.

    You seem happy to cloak yourself in the ‘authority’ of a dictionary citation without actually providing one.

    I must be playing silly buggers then for providing a link to Dictionary.com

    Someone making “effective” shots at 800-1000 metres with an unmodified M-14 would be damned impressive: or lying in the NCO Club.

    When you’re shooting at a man-sized target it’s not that hard.  I can get a 4 inch group with a M-16 at 500 meters using iron sights.  Which is frankly a lot harder because the lighter bullet is easily shifted by any crosswinds.  I’ve fired a multitude of .30 rifles at man-sized, and deer-sized, targets at above 800 meters with iron sights without much difficulty.

    We’re not talking about match shooting here richard.  These aren’t 5 inch bullseyes or any such thing.

    Nobody is/was trained to fire the M14 in long bursts

    Which is why I wrote that it wasn’t done.

    anymore than they were trained to do with Thompsons, M3’s, or M16’s.

    I was taught to fire the M-16 to fire in 3-round bursts, single shot and full automatic if I was in fire suppression mode.

    The type of rate-of-fire used depended on the situation.  If you had a maneuver unit in the final stages of an assault then you very much would go on full automatic to ensure that the enemy didn’t chop the maneuvering squad to bits.

    , to my knowledge,  Anyone doing that is wasting ammunition.

    Which is why it was relegated to special situations.

    And please, let me see you firing a shotgun with the stock against your “inner thigh”.  Hope you’re wearing a cup.

    Not against your balls you twit.  You hold the shotgun against the inner *THIGH*.  You brace that leg and step forward with the other.

    This was called, at that time, the assault stance as it would allow you to quickly sweep and clear a room or trench.  You simply depressed the trigger and then quickly pumped the shotgun as fast as you could while sweeping in an arc in front of you.  The leg could support the recoil of multiple continuous shots where a shoulder perch would quickly cause the shotgun’s muzzle to climb beyond usefulness.

    Couldn’t say we were taking the real rifles away from the troops and making them all carry carbines, could we?

    You must have be confused with someone else because I can’t say I give a damn about any of this.

    You want to bitch about McNamarra?  Then bitch to McNamarra.

    when something the size of an SVD sniper rifle can be classified as an assault rifle.

    That’s the ridiculous civilian convention, not the military one.  Are you trying to assert that the military calls a sniper rifle an assault rifle? 

    the media mightily morphed the term and definition to “assault weapon.”

    And what has this got to do with the conversation at hand?  Andrea objected to the use of the word “assault” in conjunction with any weapon as she believes it is unnecessary.  I pointed out that “assault” is a useful part of the military lexicon.

    Nothing you’ve written so far has anything to do with that whatsoever.

    BTW, the Marines currently qualify on the M16 out to 600 meters.  The range and accuracy are a function of bullet weight and rifling twist.

    Well imagine that.  I know this richard since I was a USMC infantryman.  I qualified Expert at the range most of the time.  Well excepting that one year when my rifle literally fell apart in my hands after the qualifications were done.  I had wondered why I did so poorly that year and it turned out my rifle was one short step from the scrap yard.

    The problem with the M-16 is that the bullet weight is too low to be really effective at that range.  Sure a good marksman can hit the target at that range, I always could.  The problem is getting the target to fall down and stay down when you do hit it.  Then there’s the second problem with the M-16 which is it’s entire design, which pretty much sucks.  The tolerances are too close so any grit will jam it.  You simply cannot use the M-16 without carrying an array of brushes and cloths to keep it spotless as anything else will result in a jam.

    Frankly all of this is still really off-point since the entire point of my comment is that the term “assault” references the close combat orientation of the assault rifle.  Nobody calls a submachinegun an assault submachinegun because that is it’s clear purpose.  But you need that distinction with respect to rifles because, without the term “assault”, the normal expectation is for a rifle that is designed for medium to long range.

    Posted by memomachine on 2006 03 12 at 01:54 PM • permalink

  224. Hmmm.

    @ richard mcenroe

    BTW, the Marines currently qualify on the M16 out to 600 meters.  The range and accuracy are a function of bullet weight and rifling twist.

    You know that’s really actually very amusing.

    You object to my characterising the use of the M-14, using a heavier 7.62mm bullet with a much greater weight of powder, out to 800 meters and yet you have no problem with the USMC requiring riflemen to qualify at 600 meters with the 5.56mm M-16.

    The irony is rather delicious.

    Posted by memomachine on 2006 03 12 at 01:59 PM • permalink

  225. Hmmm.

    Soon thanks to the Western world’s decision to change out teaching for “education” we’ll all soon be communicating in grunts and squeals.

    Frankly I prefer to communicate solely via punctuation.

    .
    . .
    ? ?!
    !!
    !!!
    “”
    ; ...
    #%#$#%!

    Posted by memomachine on 2006 03 12 at 02:03 PM • permalink

  226. That can be arranged.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 12 at 08:52 PM • permalink

  227. Hmmm.

    That can be arranged.

    Really?

    *shrug* I’ve been banned on other sites.  And yet the sun still shines, the sky is still blue and the mojitos are still delicious.

    But that’s entirely up to you.  Myself, I’m utterly indifferent.  So ban away, or not.

    Posted by memomachine on 2006 03 12 at 09:57 PM • permalink

  228. #223 ed, what bullshit, sub MOA with iron sites at 500 m! What computer game were you playing?

    Posted by pjw on 2006 03 12 at 10:53 PM • permalink

  229. Hmmm.

    #223 ed, what bullshit, sub MOA with iron sites at 500 m! What computer game were you playing?

    *shrug* It’s called consistency.

    You lock the sling tight.  Get a good sight picture.  Reference the same exact point when you aim.  Release the breath slowly as you tighten on the trigger until you get a clean release of the trigger sear.

    If the bullet strike looks good, then repeat.  If it’s off, then adjust and try again.

    *shrug* I got 5 for 5 within the same circle in my final qualifications at Parris Island.  This isn’t rocket science here.  It’s basic marksmanship.

    I suppose you’d cry “bullshit” if I told you I got 4 bullets in a row into a quarter at 400 yards with a Dragunov SVD?  *shrug* if it makes you feel better to not believe something so pedestrian, then go for it.

    Posted by memomachine on 2006 03 13 at 12:16 AM • permalink

  230. #229 ed, how many MOA does an M16 foresight subtend at 500m?

    Posted by pjw on 2006 03 13 at 06:18 AM • permalink

  231. Hmmm.

    #229 ed, how many MOA does an M16 foresight subtend at 500m?

    Offhand: not a clue. 

    I haven’t shot an M-16, or an AR-15, in over twenty years and I could frankly live comfortably another twenty without shooting another one. 

    In case it didn’t come through my prose I don’t like the M-16 or the AR-15.  I think they are badly engineered for a battlefield rifle and I absolutely hated having to carry one on beach assault exercises.

    *shrug* I like and enjoy firearms, though I don’t own any at present, but I rarely get overly involved with MOA or what have you.  I load.  I aim.  I shoot.  And the bullet, amazingly enough, generally ends up where I’m aiming.  Does this happen every single time?  Well no not always.

    Look I’m a rural guy who grew up in the ass-end of New Hampshire’s mountains.  As a kid my house couldn’t get cable because the stupid cable company’s satellite dish was below us and they wouldn’t string the cable all the way to the house.  So when you’ve two tv channels, one of them being UHF, heavy winter snowfalls and parents that want you anywhere but in the house; you end up spending a lot of time outdoors.

    Call it lots of practice.  Then again I also have lots, and lots, of practice weeding gardens and shovelling show but thankfully no MOA is needed there.

    If that MOA thing is really important to you, would you like for me to Google it for you?

    *shrug* if you don’t want to believe me then don’t.  No skin of my backside really.  I’m not going to force you to sit there and repeat endlessly “ed is a great shot, and very good looking too.”.  Though that is an amusing thought really.

    Posted by memomachine on 2006 03 13 at 10:01 AM • permalink

  232. Drefuze 27

    Why is it that some making “contributions” to this forum believe that it is OK to make snide and nasty comments about people they know absolutely nothing about?

    It’s hard to say, fuckhead, but since our very first introduction consisted of you calling me a bigot and a racist, I have a real hard time taking this complaint seriously coming from you.  Douchebag.

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 03 13 at 12:18 PM • permalink

  233. 202 & 213
    And, of course, I see it the same way DaveS sees it.  Hawkeye got a bum rap.

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 03 13 at 12:21 PM • permalink

  234. Hmmm.

    Hawkeye got a bum rap.

    Frankly I agree.  I think he was trying to be humorous and failed rather miserably.

    Ahh the life an online comedian.

    You show up, do your schtick and then the finale.  Is there applause?  Is there laughter?  Is there a payoff?  No.  Not even the courtesy of a long melodramatic hook to pull you off the stage.

    Just an inaudible click as the browser is closed and then it’s as if you’ve never been.

    Ahh the horror.  The horror.

    Posted by memomachine on 2006 03 13 at 03:45 PM • permalink

  235. Great schtick—applause, laughter

    @ ed


    (inaudible click)

    Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 03 13 at 04:05 PM • permalink

  236. #231, I was just wondering how you managed to get 4” groups at 500m with a site that covered about 28” of the target. Were they 30 or 50 round groups?

    Posted by pjw on 2006 03 13 at 06:49 PM • permalink

  237. site = sight

    Posted by pjw on 2006 03 13 at 08:48 PM • permalink

  238. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.