I support gun ownership, and gun control.

**Don Gwinn** · Posted On: 4/30/2006 9:31pm

yep. australia's gun laws are about as tight as it gets. in my opinion no one should have a gun unless they need it for their job or are shooting clay pigeons, and i don't believe in using guns for self defense. which just happens to be how things work here.

That's neato. Why do you bother posting in the Armory?

If people want military weapons, they can join the military.

Also neato. What's your excuse?
Karate is a dangerous thing to know. I think it's fine to know how to kick people if you're an Olympic TKD contender and all, but otherwise, if you want to spar and fight people, you should just join the police. Then you can indulge your violent fetish all you want by beating up drunks who resist arrest.
If that looks like an ignorant and bigoted point of view, it is. Think it over.

I think there are some collectors owning full auto rifles, but either they have been converted to semi auto, or they have to deposit the "Verschluss" (sorry I don't know the english word, its the part that seals the round into the barrel, when it loads) at the police.

It sounds like you're talking about the "bolt." Is it a metal moving part that rides inside the receiver of the gun? Gets slammed back when you fire, then slams back forward, stripping the next round out of the magazine and sliding it into the chamber?

BTW, it sounds like you're saying the SIG550 doesn't have a semi-automatic mode. Surely not?

**broken fingers** · Posted On: 4/30/2006 9:43pm

**DAYoung** · Posted On: 4/30/2006 10:53pm

Originally Posted by Don Gwinn

Karate is a dangerous thing to know. I think it's fine to know how to kick people if you're an Olympic TKD contender and all, but otherwise, if you want to spar and fight people, you should just join the police. Then you can indulge your violent fetish all you want by beating up drunks who resist arrest.
If that looks like an ignorant and bigoted point of view, it is. Think it over.

That's a fair response, though I'm not entirely sure the analogy you're drawing stands. There is a difference between unarmed combat and fully- or semi-automatic centrefire rifles, for example. Morbidity and mortality rates associated with martial arts are relatively low, whereas morbidity and mortality rates associated with military weapons are relatively high. It makes sense to reserve these weapons for institutions that limit their use for very specific purposes, under very specific conditions.

Having said this, I'm open to persuasion - I did enjoy shooting very much.

**Lights Out** · Posted On: 4/30/2006 11:11pm

I know this forum is for discussion on guns and the debate on gun ownership if out of place.

But since this issue keeps arising anyway, would it be too much to ask for a sub-forum dedicated to said debate?

**Judah Maccabee** · Posted On: 4/30/2006 11:14pm

DAYoung, I'm not nearly as smart as the other people here, but I believe if you look at the statistics of licensed firearm owners unlawfully killing others with those same firearms, you're going to come up with a very low number. Especially if those owners are licensed in their state to carry a concealed weapon.

Gun owners aren't necessarily the same as gun users. See what I'm getting at?

**danno** · Posted On: 4/30/2006 11:15pm

Originally Posted by Don Gwinn

Why do you bother posting in the Armory?

i know, "Please take your hippie gun control BS elsewhere."

but the thread is a discussion about gun laws, so...

Originally Posted by DAYoung

That's a fair response, though I'm not entirely sure the analogy you're drawing stands. There is a difference between unarmed combat and fully- or semi-automatic centrefire rifles, for example. Morbidity and mortality rates associated with martial arts are relatively low, whereas morbidity and mortality rates associated with military weapons are relatively high. It makes sense to reserve these weapons for institutions that limit their use for very specific purposes, under very specific conditions.

i agree, and i've put this argument to don in the past.

**danno** · Posted On: 4/30/2006 11:20pm

here's an article from a site which otherwise appears pretty stupid, but i like her view on why aussies and yanks differ on gun control:

http://www.gabriellereillyweekly.com...ia_america.htm

**DAYoung** · Posted On: 4/30/2006 11:21pm

Originally Posted by Samurai Steve

DAYoung, I'm not nearly as smart as the other people here, but I believe if you look at the statistics of licensed firearm owners unlawfully killing others with those same firearms, you're going to come up with a very low number. Especially if those owners are licensed in their state to carry a concealed weapon.

Gun owners aren't necessarily the same as gun users. See what I'm getting at?

Yes, another fair point, though I'd like to see the statistics. My sense was that it was a crime of convenience for many owners.

Even if you are right, it doesn't necessarily change my original point (however badly articulated), i.e. that military weapons are more dangerous than they are necessary, and that anyone who really needs them knows where they can get them.

**danno** · Posted On: 4/30/2006 11:27pm

Originally Posted by Samurai Steve

I'm not nearly as smart as the other people here

don't give me that talk!

Originally Posted by Samurai Steve

but I believe if you look at the statistics of licensed firearm owners unlawfully killing others with those same firearms, you're going to come up with a very low number.

karate and guns are very different things. i don't agree with the way don compares the two.

**Judah Maccabee** · Posted On: 4/30/2006 11:40pm

John R. Lott Jr looks to be the leading advocate for gun rights, as far as I've been able to tell.

Here is a look at his research regarding murder and concealed carry:

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm20.htm

However, a criticism I came across calls into question whether or not violent crime in general is reduced, as opposed to murder only.