cjhsa wrote:
There is nothing more peculiar and unhealthy about northern europe than their willingness to give up their right to self defense. Sig heil!
I try not to respond to that common friendly greeting [wrong spelling, btw]between Nazis - I'm sure Steve doesn't use it and a Nazi neither.
In English criminal law, the defence of self-defence provides for the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves or others or to prevent any crime.
In Sweden, the law of self-defence allows a person attacked to excuse or justify a proportionate use of violence in defence of the person or property.
In Germany, necessary defense is the defense which is required to avert an imminent unlawful assault from oneself or another.
... ... ...
In the United States, the defense of self-defense allows a person attacked to use reasonable force in their own defense and the defense of others.
When did you say, the right of self-defense was given up, Nazi person?
cjhsa wrote:You don't know much about deer, do you?
In the U.S. deer are one of the largest causes of damage to vehicles - the insurance companies are even siding with hunters to reduce their numbers - or eliminate coverage.
Also, how can you defend yourself with a firearm you can't have?
I would think this more indicative of American driving standards. Pedestrians cause damage to vehicles too, why not cull them?
farmerman wrote:O BILLQuote:It is a very rare day when you see a fully automatic weapon involved in a crime in the United States. It is you who is buying the hype.
. It is less than uses of pistols , however the use of autos in "street sweeping" is rather common. We had one on Fri night in Lancaster in which bursts of auto fire between rival gangs caused a little girl to get hit by a 9mm from a spray.
You should visit gun shows and see how many "eources" of auto conversion kits are out there.
Ive been consistent. What a gun looks like is silly. The guns "assaultness" to me, is whether it can be made full auto and outfitted with larger clips. Guns that can be so modified should be banned. Ive not deviated from this point and nobody not inclined so has been preaching about how a gun "looks" as the important point . Thats not logical IMHO. If making a gun look more lethal by imitating a full auto look, is your only point, its another example of how youve bought into marketing by gun mfrs. The hunting public didnt start clamoring for M-1 Garands or M-16/s or Techs for deer. These imitated guns were first producedby the companies, then the nimrods began owning them and discovered how easy a conversion can be accomplished.
BTW a 30.06 is hardly the most powerful hunting weapon available.
A 30.06 can be converted to full auto too. Banning it would involve banning generations old guns. It can also be outfitted with a banana clip or even a drumclip if you're so inclined. This is why the term "assault rifle" doesn't work. I chose the 30.06 for example because of its prevelance and higher power than the average "assault rifle". It isn't even close to the big boy on the block of weapons never considered for a ban.
I think this
is the big boy on the block. This beauty from Holland and Holland will fire a .700 Nitro Express... and make a 30.06 look like a bb gun.
(They'll build one for you for about $250,000)
Steve 41oo wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote: The right to bear arms, in my mind, serves a very important purpose in that it acts as such an equalizer for the weaker among us.
So Americans are so weak and enfeebled that they need 300+ million guns to protect them? Is an American woman who carries an assault rifle less likely to be raped than one who only has a handgun?
You are behaving like an ignorant fool. Do you still beat your wife? (See if you can guess which country manufactures the big boy pictured above.)
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I think this is the big boy on the block. This beauty from Holland and Holland will fire a .700 Nitro Express... and make a 30.06 look like a bb gun.
Just why, apart from taking down aircraft, would you need one?
Steve 41oo wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:
I think this is the big boy on the block. This beauty from Holland and Holland will fire a .700 Nitro Express... and make a 30.06 look like a bb gun.
Just why, apart from taking down aircraft, would you need one?
T-Rex's, Giant aliens and bragging rights I would imagine.
Anyone who spends $250,000 on a gun, even if it is made by the best gunsmiths in the world Holland and Holland, is still an idiot. The fact that most of their products are exported to N America is perhaps no co incidence.
Steve 41oo wrote:Anyone who spends $250,000 on a gun, even if it is made by the best gunsmiths in the world Holland and Holland, is still an idiot. The fact that most of their products are exported to N America is perhaps no co incidence.
You don't buy a gun like this to take hunting with you. And you defiantly don't buy a gun like this for self defense.
It's a collector's gun. There are many things that cost $250,000 that I think are bought by idiots.
What it says about the US is that we have more money than any other country, it means nothing about our fondness for firearms.
maporsche wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:Anyone who spends $250,000 on a gun, even if it is made by the best gunsmiths in the world Holland and Holland, is still an idiot. The fact that most of their products are exported to N America is perhaps no co incidence.
You don't buy a gun like this to take hunting with you. And you defiantly don't buy a gun like this for self defense.
It's a collector's gun. There are many things that cost $250,000 that I think are bought by idiots.
What it says about the US is that we have more money than any other country, it means nothing about our fondness for firearms.
I think you make my point for me perfectly.
It is a load of crap to remark how dangerous deer are (almost exclusively to property--very, very few people are killed because they hit a deer, and it is very likely that if one were, it would have resulted from reckless driving and/or excessive speed; people who live in areas with large deer populations know the risks, and they "reckon" on that risk when driving--i.e., they don't drive "recklessly"). The reason it is a load of crap, in this particular instance, is because it seeks to suggest that individual hunters, governed by nothing further than game laws and the concommitant need to get a deer tag, are the best solution to the problem. Far more people are killed at the beginning of deer season than are ever killed by hitting a deer on the highway.
The several states have, for generations, dealt effectively with excessive deer populations through organized, regulated culls with hunters who are considered professionals, who have demonstrable hunting skills, including and especially gun safety skills. When the ordinary deer season starts, thousands and thousands of idiots who can afford a shotgun and a deer tag descend on woods, shoot one another, shoot people's livestock, break down fences and otherwise damage property, and trespass willy-nilly as though there were no tomorrow. They ignore basic gun use safety, they ignore no trespassing signs, they wander across county lines (because they can't read maps) and therefore are hunting illegally, because they have no tag for a deer in the county into which they have wandered.
It is stupidity or willfully disingenuous nonsense to suggest that the best way to deal with deer overpopulation is to hand out deer tags to any idiot with the price of a shot gun and a camo outfit. In southern Illinois, where i long lived and frequently enjoyed fresh venison, the farmers paint the word "COW" in large letters on the flanks of their livestock in deer season--and their cattle still get shot by idiots from Chicago, St. Louis and Memphis.
I think it was cj who asked me how we can defend ourself with a gun we cant own....
well gun ownership in the uk is not illegal. Its just much more tightly regulated than in the US. Most people do not have guns at home, and most people want nothing to do with them. However quite a few people have shot guns which have of course to be licensed and securely contained at home. (My father in law gave his gun away when he had to build a safe for it).
Weapons such as hand guns and assault rifles are most definitely prohibited, and there are severe penalties for possession. The police are not armed as a routine, but can summon armed assistance pretty quickly. But the main difference is that there is no constitutional right to bear arms (not un connected to the fact we have no written constitution).
If you were attacked at home by a burglar, for example, you are allowed to use reasonable force in self defence even if that results in serious injury or death. Some while back a guy (just remembered name Tony Martin) in rural Norfolk shot and killed an intruder. He went to jail. But only because he lay in wait for the boy to come in and killed him when he was running away. If he had said he was surprised and meant to scare him off firing into the air and accidently blew his head off, no jury would have convicted. Moreover he protested it was his right on his property to take any action he saw fit against an intruder. The law says differently.
Setanta wrote: Far more people are killed at the beginning of deer season than are ever killed by hitting a deer on the highway.
I suppose you can back that up? ? And killed by what? Their jealous, ornery wives who have to stay at home with the kids?
Steve 41oo wrote:I think it was cj who asked me how we can defend ourself with a gun we cant own....
well gun ownership in the uk is not illegal. Its just much more tightly regulated than in the US. Most people do not have guns at home, and most people want nothing to do with them. However quite a few people have shot guns which have of course to be licensed and securely contained at home. (My father in law gave his gun away when he had to build a safe for it).
Of course he gave it away - your idiot bureaucrats made it useless - and reduced his ability to defend himself, family, and home. A gun safe is meant to keep people from stealing your guns when you're not home, not to keep you from protecting yourself. What idiocy.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that animal-vehicle collisions in the United States caused 120 vehicle-occupant deaths in 1991.
That was 120 deaths in one year, for all animal-vehicle collisions, which includes livestock as well as deer, and which includes other wild species in addition to deer.
According to Science Daily-dot-com:
For the seven selected game species, 1,345 hunting-related shooting incidents occurred in Pennsylvania between 1987 and 1999. There were 1,382 injuries and 77 fatalities accounting for nearly 92 percent of all hunting-related shooting injuries and 93 percent of such fatalities during this time period.
That is a report of a study over eight years time, in a single state. I don't suggest that there were fifty times that many injuries and fatalities simply because there are fifty states--but the point is rather obvious. You are in far more danger of a fatality from hunting deer than you are from hitting one on the highway. Trust CJ to attempt to make a sick joke out of it, though, and to slander women in the process.
From the Centers for Disease Control:
During the 1979-1989 hunting seasons, 594 deer hunting-related injuries (including 85 fatal injuries) were reported in Georgia--a mean rate of 24.9 deer hunter injuries per 100,000 hunting licenses sold per year (range: 11.2-32.4) (Figure 1). Of these, 214 (36%) were tree stand-related (8.9 tree stand-related injuries per 100,000 hunting licenses sold per year (range: 2.4-13.7)) (Figure 1); 17 (8%) of these were fatal.
That's a ten year period--and once again, it refers to injuries and fatalities in a single state.
Setanta wrote:It is a load of crap to remark how dangerous deer are (almost exclusively to property--very, very few people are killed because they hit a deer.
I agree. Swimming pools, lakes, and oceans kill a lot more people than deer. But not to worry. The Second Amendment makes it possible for New Hampshire to address the problem. As you may know, they started a tradition they cheekily call "shooting fish". They don't fool me for a minute. What they're
really shooting is them dangerous ponds. Praise the lordess for New Hampshire, its vigilance against ponds, and their resolve to fight back against those ruthless killers. And thank the Founding Fathers for the Second Amendment, which makes all this possible.
cjhsa wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:I think it was cj who asked me how we can defend ourself with a gun we cant own....
well gun ownership in the uk is not illegal. Its just much more tightly regulated than in the US. Most people do not have guns at home, and most people want nothing to do with them. However quite a few people have shot guns which have of course to be licensed and securely contained at home. (My father in law gave his gun away when he had to build a safe for it).
Of course he gave it away - your idiot bureaucrats made it useless - and reduced his ability to defend himself, family, and home. A gun safe is meant to keep people from stealing your guns when you're not home, not to keep you from protecting yourself. What idiocy.
Well I would rather live here where we dont have to sleep with assault rifles under the bed and handguns under the pillow. (Uncomfortable)
Satiric irony is always a good thing, even when farcical.
There should be no doubt that the United States has a problem with an overpopulation of deer. Of course, that is definitional, because the deer population could actually be declining overall, but if it is not decreasing as fast as habitat is being cleared by property development, there would still be an "overpopulation" problem.
You are probably more likely to die from an accident in your own bathroom than either from a collision on the highway with a deer, or in a hunting accident. That, however, does not alter the ludicrous nature of the proposition that hunting by people whom we do not know to have been trained in firearms safety and hunting safety is less dangerous than wildlife collisions on the highway--which is the horseshit to which i was objecting.
Setanta wrote:You are probably more likely to die from an accident in your own bathroom than either from a collision on the highway with a deer, or in a hunting accident. That, however, does not alter the ludicrous nature of the proposition that hunting by people whom we do not know to have been trained in firearms safety and hunting safety is less dangerous than wildlife collisions on the highway--which is the horseshit to which i was objecting.
Sure. And I agree with you on that.
I've just run out of sensible things to say about gun control and the Second Amendment, so I decided to go for farce in the future.
now I'm getting really confused about US law. The second amendment allows for idiots wandering around shooting things, and wild life cause accidents by wreckless driving. You shouldnt license wild animals to drive. Or idiots to shoot.
