Guns

[BrutherSuperior]

I don't have statistics handy, but I'm pretty sure most petty burglars aren't packing AK's. I'd wager that most violent gun crime isn't carried out with the big heat like that.

Drug crime & gang warfare is where high-power, high-capacity, and fully automatic weapons are found. Like cocaine, these weapons are imported/smuggled across the borders. It's damn near impossible to buy an automatic weapon if you have anything bad in your background and they cost a fortune. Think $15,000+ for 1 gun...and that'll be on the cheap end of the spectrum. Some garden variety low-life who mugs people for dope money isn't going to invest that kind of money on a gun he'll have confiscated next time he gets arrested.

Unorganized crime, such as holding up a bank or muggings, usually use smaller cheaper weapons.

 

[Joel]

An example of what often happens here, is small modifications to make otherwise legal guns illegal. Shotguns are limited to 3 shells (2 in the mag, 1 in the chamber) in Canada. Criminals usually remove the rubber plug and restore the gun to 6 or 8 shells. Another is with "centre fire" rifles (firing pin in the centre of the cartridge), are limited to 5 round mags here. A criminal will use illegal magazines with these.



Fun fact: the 5 shot centre fire rifle doesn't apply to manual operation guns, so a 6 shot semi auto AR-15 is illegal, but a 100 round mag on a bolt or pump action rifle is legal. And none of that applies to rim fire (eg. 22LR) guns. So I could theoretically have a semi auto .22 with an 1000 roumd magazine, but 6 shots of .223 remington is illegal. Our gun laws are retarted.

 

[Blank_Redge]

Drug crime & gang warfare is where high-power, high-capacity, and fully automatic weapons are found. Like cocaine, these weapons are imported/smuggled across the borders. It's damn near impossible to buy an automatic weapon if you have anything bad in your background and they cost a fortune. Think $15,000+ for 1 gun...and that'll be on the cheap end of the spectrum. Some garden variety low-life who mugs people for dope money isn't going to invest that kind of money on a gun he'll have confiscated next time he gets arrested.

Unorganized crime, such as holding up a bank or muggings, usually use smaller cheaper weapons.

Hm. There's nothing significant I disagree with in your post. (Except maybe the price tag you've put on guns. The $15k range is really spendy for a gun; that's getting into Perazzi territory. While very beautiful firearms, not as practical for drug wars as, say, the ubiquitous AK-47, or cheap Chinese knockoffs thereof.)

It's the cheaply made, mass-produced, easily concealable firearm I'm concerned with, as the "garden variety low-lives" are more likely to have access to these (and thusly, be armed with them.) Something that found it's way into a pawn-shop, or something that was stolen from hard-of-hearing Old Man Whithers, while he was sound asleep.

 

[Nicksfix]

Bumped, for a legitimate purpose, to keep the gun debate out of certain threads that go astray.

Debate away ....... I'll voice some opinions in a day or so. (rounding up more info on this topic).

 

[MarcoM]

Thank Nicksfix for pointing to the right thread.

In the Netherlands, you can join a gun club. After a set period you can own guns/rifles for yourself. And you can have any gun or rifle you want. Including a Barrett or something assaulty. All you need to do is remove the auto fire option. Single shot only.

I really, really like the idea of having something ridiculous as a Barrett.

After some really stupid incidents, there are questions raised about this a few years ago.

He is on your property without you asking him. If someone enters my house he'll be on the receiving end of a baseball bat. He can consider himself lucky if he can talk afterwards.

No Dennisch, you live in the Netherlands. You will be the lucky one if he can talk afterwards. Excessive violence against a burglar is a crime in the Netherlands. Like it or not, but those are the rules in our country.

To put things into perspective, I think in the Netherlands the protection of burglars or similar people goes too far. But talking Rambo talk isn't helping anyone.

There aren't that many people that threaten property where I live, but everyone owns a gun. Oddly enough, I believe a large part of why home invasions don't happen often here is no one wants to take a round of buck shot to the chest.

My father slept with a shotgun next to his bed. It wasn't to protect his computers or property, it was to protect his children and wife if someone broke into our home. Where we lived, it would take 30 minutes easily for the police to show up from an emergency call, and a lot can happen in 30 minutes if you have no means to defend yourself.

The fact is, he only once was woken at night by someone in the house. He grabbed the gun, walked towards the room with noise, and announced himself and declared he had a gun. Turns out his friend's car had broken down a mile away (in December) and this was long before cellphones were common. No one got shot in a panic or anything. Why - because my father was mentally prepared for the situation.

But really, a criminal isn't likely going to bust into your home at night if he is pretty certain you have a loaded gun next to your bed. And if you want to argue that someone could break in and get one of your guns before you could arm yourself, this is why you buy a gun safe and keep the rest of your guns unloaded and locked away.

Pretty insane difference from one to the other, yes.

As for the rest of you decrying how we shouldn't have guns over here (the US) because we just kill ourselves. Or that guns are only dangerous weapons that have no other merit, please enlighten yourselves to the radically different culture regarding guns.

Azuremen, I know it's the law in the US. I am fine with that. And I do support the idea of your dad defending whatever he thinks necessary. Being a dady myself I fully support that idea.

Just curious: are you forced to buy a gun safe with your gun? And is it checked upon on regular basis. Over here a gun safe is necessary, and you are not allowed to take your guns out of it other than for taking it to the practice range.

 

[hogger129]

I support loose to no controls.

I believe the laws we have here in Wisconsin regarding firearms should be a model for the rest of the United States.

Just curious: are you forced to buy a gun safe with your gun? And is it checked upon on regular basis. Over here a gun safe is necessary, and you are not allowed to take your guns out of it other than for taking it to the practice range.

Gun safes are a great idea for any gun owner. But why is there a law that says you can't take it out unless you're going to the range? Are they going to come door to door checking? What happens if there is a break-in? A home invader could get to you before you open your safe. It's probably not going to happen, but wouldn't it be a good idea to be prepared? Such is why I think trigger locks are a stupid idea. I keep mine locked up in a safe when I'm not at home or not near it. I'm the only one holding the keys. When I am near it, it's easily accessible because in an emergency, I may need to get to it quickly. It's a personal decision really.

 

[hogger129]

Hm. There's nothing significant I disagree with in your post. (Except maybe the price tag you've put on guns. The $15k range is really spendy for a gun; that's getting into Perazzi territory. While very beautiful firearms, not as practical for drug wars as, say, the ubiquitous AK-47, or cheap Chinese knockoffs thereof.)

It's the cheaply made, mass-produced, easily concealable firearm I'm concerned with, as the "garden variety low-lives" are more likely to have access to these (and thusly, be armed with them.) Something that found it's way into a pawn-shop, or something that was stolen from hard-of-hearing Old Man Whithers, while he was sound asleep.

I think what you're describing is known as a "Saturday Night Special" and they are illegal in California. Guns like a Hi Point - which is a semi-automatic pistol that costs about $150 new.

I still don't see what that does to lower crime rates though. Criminals will just take a little bit more money and buy something else that's not much more expensive.

I don't know what a selective-fire AK costs, but I do know that the least expensive "automatic" weapon is the MAC10 and they are $5,000 used at gun shops who sell these kinds of weapons.

 

[Quackjack]

I said loose control. You can't outlaw guns, that's absurd, but it needs to be secure.

 

[hogger129]

I said loose control. You can't outlaw guns, that's absurd, but it needs to be secure.

I agree. People have a responsibility to be responsible and safe with their guns to ensure that people don't hurt themselves or others with them and that they don't fall into the wrong hands.

 

[Quackjack]

I agree. People have a responsibility to be responsible and safe with their guns to ensure that people don't hurt themselves or others with them and that they don't fall into the wrong hands.

Stricter penelties would help, but that's a WHOLE nother subject.

 

[Kievit]

I support loose to no controls.

I believe the laws we have here in Wisconsin regarding firearms should be a model for the rest of the United States.



Gun safes are a great idea for any gun owner. But why is there a law that says you can't take it out unless you're going to the range? Are they going to come door to door checking? What happens if there is a break-in? A home invader could get to you before you open your safe. It's probably not going to happen, but wouldn't it be a good idea to be prepared? Such is why I think trigger locks are a stupid idea. I keep mine locked up in a safe when I'm not at home or not near it. I'm the only one holding the keys. When I am near it, it's easily accessible because in an emergency, I may need to get to it quickly. It's a personal decision really.

You're not allowed to use your firearm for anything other then sport shooting at a range (in the Netherlands,.. well bar hunting small animals, which is a bit different). Therefore there is "no reason" to take it anywhere else then the range, police, gunsmith or seller.

So if someone breaks into your house, you may not even use it to protect you, your family or property. If you do you would probably be faceing jail time and the opportunity to ever own a weapon again.

What you should do "according to the law":
Call the police, wait 30 minutes, set a cup of coffee for the intruders, help them load their van...

 

[Keef]

You're not allowed to use your firearm for anything other then sport shooting at a range (in the Netherlands,.. well bar hunting small animals, which is a bit different). Therefore there is "no reason" to take it anywhere else then the range, police, gunsmith or seller.

So if someone breaks into your house, you may not even use it to protect you, your family or property. If you do you would probably be faceing jail time and the opportunity to ever own a weapon again.

What you should do "according to the law":
Call the police, wait 30 minutes, set a cup of coffee for the intruders, help them load their van...

If you don't like it then are you part of any effort to loosen the laws? What percentage of people support looser gun laws there?

 

[MarcoM]

Well, today we have ellections in the Netherlands. And as far as I know gun control is on nobody's agenda.

 

[Kievit]

I voted strict control. But that's subjective to what you and I think what strict is.

Strict for me is; background checks, phsychological test, weapons registered and an actual shooting test(s) to see if you are capable and can safely handle a firearm. You should be able to use it for your own protection (e.g. in your own house), but not be allowed to carry in public. Mainly because of how far bullets carry and you can't predict where they go, which is why I wouldn't want any shooting in a (heavily) populated area.

So in my opinion; looser then the Netherlands, stricter then the USA. I may sound anti-gun to the Americans now , but I'm pro-responsible-gun ownership.

 

[MarcoM]

I voted strict control. But that's subjective to what you and I think what strict is.

Strict for me is; background checks, phsychological test, weapons registered and an actual shooting test(s) to see if you are capable and can safely handle a firearm. You should be able to use it for your own protection (e.g. in your own house), but not be allowed to carry in public. Mainly because of how far bullets carry and you can't predict where they go, which is why I wouldn't want any shooting in a (heavily) populated area.

So in my opinion; looser then the Netherlands, stricter then the USA. I may sound anti-gun to the Americans now , but I'm pro-responsible-gun ownership.

I think you need a naval warship as you are in the middle of the Netherlands and the US.

 

[Nicksfix]

Something for the gun control supporters to read.

(click and read each link in the following .... very interesting).

Why are we gun owners right ?

(click and read all the links again)

 

[Quackjack]

Why are people so focused on banning civy guns, not illegal? Cmon guys I mean really now...

 

[hogger129]

Why are people so focused on banning civy guns, not illegal? Cmon guys I mean really now...

Because rather than understand history, and the idea of self-preservation, they let emotions take them over. None of the anti-gun paranoia is based in fact. Not one bit of it.

 

[Dennisch]

After some really stupid incidents, there are questions raised about this a few years ago.

Seeing as I know a couple of people who own guns and rifles, you know what kind of action the police took? Checking peoples gun safes. Nothing more. They visited the gun club, made of a couple of comments about how the range could be improved and that was that.

You know how many licenses were taken away in all of the Netherlands?
Last time I heard a number, it was 7.

No Dennisch, you live in the Netherlands. You will be the lucky one if he can talk afterwards. Excessive violence against a burglar is a crime in the Netherlands. Like it or not, but those are the rules in our country.

To put things into perspective, I think in the Netherlands the protection of burglars or similar people goes too far. But talking Rambo talk isn't helping anyone.

Because soft politicians were voted into power, who told us that burglars and criminals are people too, and they should be treated as such.

Rambo talk is nothing. Rambo action is what is needed.

Strict for me is; background checks, phsychological test, weapons registered and an actual shooting test(s) to see if you are capable and can safely handle a firearm. You should be able to use it for your own protection (e.g. in your own house), but not be allowed to carry in public. Mainly because of how far bullets carry and you can't predict where they go, which is why I wouldn't want any shooting in a (heavily) populated area.

So in my opinion; looser then the Netherlands, stricter then the USA. I may sound anti-gun to the Americans now , but I'm pro-responsible-gun ownership.

+1

 

[Nicksfix]

background checks, phsychological test, weapons registered and an actual shooting test(s) to see if you are capable and can safely handle a firearm. You should be able to use it for your own protection (e.g. in your own house), but not be allowed to carry in public. Mainly because of how far bullets carry and you can't predict where they go, which is why I wouldn't want any shooting in a (heavily) populated area.

Agreed 👍 ... to an extent.
I see nothing wrong with carrying in public. The people who do carry in public are either detectives, undercover police, FBI, CIA, or some other form of law enforcement. I also see no harm with a person who has a CCP carrying either. After all, they have passed all the required background checks are law abiding citizens who very well know the regulations and have the honor of owning a CCP.

Why are people so focused on banning civy guns, not illegal? Cmon guys I mean really now...

Because rather than understand history, and the idea of self-preservation, they let emotions take them over. None of the anti-gun paranoia is based in fact. Not one bit of it.

+1 👍
The general public who fear guns and feel that there needs to be a ban implemented need a little bit more educating on this subject ..... not just the idea of "guns kill people".

 

[MarcoM]

You know how many licenses were taken away in all of the Netherlands?
Last time I heard a number, it was 7.

Well then, at least 7 unresponsible people less having a gun. 👍

Rambo action is what is needed.

yeah sure, that's what we need

 

[Danoff]

Don't miss the end.

 

[NLxAROSA]

Well then, at least 7 unresponsible people less having a gun. 👍

No, it means seven people no longer have a gun license. It does not mean these seven people no longer have guns.

 

[MarcoM]

No, it means seven people no longer have a gun license. It does not mean these seven people no longer have guns.

But it does mean that they are known at the police.

According to Dennish they were people with licences. I guess real criminals do not need a license for a gun. Actually that is the general concensus.

 

[Dennisch]

But it does mean that they are known at the police.

According to Dennisch they were people with licences. I guess real criminals do not need a license for a gun. Actually that is the general concensus.

Yes, their licenses were taken away, because some had mental issues and therefor could be labeled as possibly dangerous, and the others came in contact with the police, and having a criminal record seriously limits your chances for a gun license.

And criminals have auto fire weapons. You won't get a license for those.

Edit: Post 5600. ftpw.

 

[Azuremen]

I guess real criminals do not need a license for a gun. Actually that is the general concensus.

Common sense would be the general consensus, one would hope.

 

[MarcoM]

Not sure if I understand your common sense remark.

We talked about this several times now and I agree with the general consensus that criminals will always get their weapons and means.

 

[Keef]

Don't miss the end.

While I don't really like his decision to limit the class, I do respect his right to choose who he provides services to. People need to stop going nuts about stuff like this, show some respect, and politely move on.

 

[Nicksfix]

Why has this guys teaching permit not been revoked ?

Certified instructors are required to comply with all applicable state and federal statutes. Conduct by an instructor that denied service to individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion place that instructor’s certification by the department at risk of suspension or revocation.

But yet we have not heard anything more on it ? Swept under the rug ?
I thought there was supposed to be a trial about this.

Crockett Keller ..... LOSER. The kind of guy I do not want on my side. 👎

 

[Keef]

Why has this guys teaching permit not been revoked ?

Certified instructors are required to comply with all applicable state and federal statutes. Conduct by an instructor that denied service to individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion place that instructor’s certification by the department at risk of suspension or revocation.

But yet we have not heard anything more on it ? Swept under the rug ?
I thought there was supposed to be a trial about this.

If that's the law then I support his violation of it. It is immoral to require any private business owner to serve people he may not want to serve. It's his property, both physical and intellectual, and he should be able to choose who has access to it on any grounds he sees fits; any requirement of service is akin to slavery. We all agree that slavery is wrong.