The M16/M4 might have some issues with the dust (which is pretty much fixed with new versions that are available that use a gas piston rather than direct gas impingement. ) The British L85 rifle on the other hand has been a piece of shit since it was built and the UK government should have taken HK's advice (I think HK purchased Enfield which was the original manufacturer) and replaced it with HK G36's HK, btw has a replacement upper for M16 firearms which combines the best of both the M16 and the AK.
I'm a big fan of AK's in general and have built quite a few but Mikhail Kalashnikov's claim that it is an all original design is BS. Even if it was, the design is from WWII and there is no way he or the russian govt. is going to be able to enforce a patent
Crime (other than murder) is much worse in the UK than in the US. Most murders in the US are of of people connected to criminal enterprises (crack dealers, etc.)
In the US I can avoid going to the areas where they sell crack to avoid being killed. In the UK all you need to do is stay home to enjoy being victimized since the rate of hot home invasions is way higher (try that in Texas and see how long your criminal career lasts.)
I'm not sure having everyone armed will effect the homicide rate in the US, but it will (and has) had an effect on the other crime rates.
How much do most police officers shoot their guns? Most of them are not "gun people" and they shoot just enough to meet the qualification requirements. Many of us with concealed handgun licenses shoot more in a weekend than most cops shoot in a year.
Most cops have never had to shoot their guns in anger so they have pretty much the same experience with this type of situation... none.
Crime is up in Australia since they cracked down on guns.
That being said, I don't think it matters. Self defense is a basic human right. Whether or not gun ownership for self defense has any effect on crime is an irrelevant side note.
Like they say... you may get my guns and ammo, but you'll get the ammo first.
Dude.... drop the granola and eat a steak. Would you let a child be killed before using a gun? Raped? tortured?
Face it. Some people deserve to be killed. The world will be a better off.
Besides, there is no way to get back to a society without guns. There are more guns than people and they are easy to make so they will never go away.
This is a problem with people and needs to be dealt with that way.
The raw numbers for murders are not a very good indication of your risk or my risk of being murdered. A very large percentage of the people killed in the US (and elsewhere I'm sure) are people involved in criminal ventures such as drug dealing, etc.
I'm not so sure I would lump them all together. I'd probably say you should mark crack dealers deaths down as DSAF (did society a favor.)
Take a look at the web site and you can tell that Hemmenway has a hard-on for guns.
Even his own work shows that right to carry laws have no effect on homicides (and from him that is saying a lot.)
and has been thoroughly debunked. I think the study you are talking about is the one done by Kellerman and he said that you were 41 times more likely to be a victim or some bullshit like that. I'm not sure where he studied statistics but he really ought to try and get his money back...
I think the whole corn ethanol craze will crash in the not so distant future. It's surviving because of the subsidies and mandates, but if left alone it would not survive. At some point the cost of the subsidies and the cost of other goods will force the government to stop wasting money.
With Chavez's arms buildup I think something may be coming. Maybe it's just his paranoia over being invaded by the US, but I would not be surprised to have his troops moving in to liberate his socialist brothers in neighboring countries. By that time most of the middle and upper class citizens will have fled Venezuala to the US or other countries, so the country will be even more dependent on oil to fund his plans. Venezuela doesn't have the industrial base to be as big a threat as Hitler but that doesn't mean that a lot of people wont' die as Chavez builds his socialist paradise.
The problem is that the crazy's on the far left have poisoned the well and we no longer believe them when they say they are only going to ban handguns/cheap guns/saturday night specials/assaultweapons/sniper rifles/high capacity weapons...
The attitudes do correspond to urban/rural, but if you take a look at the maps from the last elections you will see that they are pretty much the same.
There are gun control laws that go back farther than 1967 (Reagan did a lot of good things, but support for the second amendment wasn't one of them. In addition to the Mulford act he also supported the Brady bill & assault weapon ban. Reagan was originally a DEMOCRAT, he unfortunately kept some of the bad habits after he converted in 1962:)
You have the 1934 National Firearms act of 1934 which was originally intended to ban handguns (along with machine guns, short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns), by putting imposing a $200 tax, or $5 for an AOW/Pistol. The tax on pistols was pulled before the law was passed. (I don't think the taxes have changes. These are the current values but I'm not sure if they were ever less.) Luckily for us this was changed before the law was passed. FDR would have probably gone farther and actually banned the weapons if he could have but members of the supreme court let him know that they would not allow it.
Also, look at the origins for state and local prohibitions against carrying handguns. Many (if not most) in the south came about because the white southerners did not want blacks to have guns.
BTW, most of the "Liberals" that oppose gun control are really not Liberals, they are libertarians.
Come on now. Most of the people who oppose Bush are also the same ones for gun control. What are you going to revolt with, rocks and sticks?
Remember rule #1... You need a gun for a gunfight.
Last time I looked it took a majority of both the House and Senate to pass a law...
People complain that about the lack of federal action during Katrina, but when laws are passed to allow the federal govt. to actually do more all the conspiracy theorists start crawling out from their bunkers.
If congress passed something before they had read it then shame on them,
You Bush haters really need to get a life.
I think you are right on this. Like the Delorean it is a great product and some people will have to get it. It will work great but in the end the high price tag will prevent it from going anywhere. Comparisons with early tivo prices are off the mark. The going rate for a device like this is $299 or less (the price for the new HR20 from DirecTV.)
The extra subscription cost and the cable card costs are just additional nails in the coffin. It's very sad to say, but I don't think Tivo will be around much longer (I have 4 Directivo's and like them a lot).
You know full well that this decision isn't going to last. This case isnt' about listening to domestic conversations. It's about listening to calls to or from foreigners who are suspected of being terrorists. In the very unlikely event that the courts don't agree you can bet that congress will authorize exactly what they are doing.
You really don't know what you are talking about. The US isn't anywhere close to a civil war. The east and west coast liberals would never let it come to war since all of us "inbred simpletons" have most of the guns.
BTW, it sure sounds like you have never been to the "dopey, backward heartland".
Correct, but that isn't the point I was making. The Glock is a great gun. It's reliable, light, accurate, and holds a lot of ammunition, but all it takes to make if fire is a press of the trigger (this is usually a good thing!) As long as the gun is in the hands of the owner there is no problem, but if the bad guy wrestles it away from the good guy he is more likely to be able to shoot the gun than if the gun has an external safety.
Slashdot Mirror
They need the russian guy from armageddon to bang on the side of the computers!
Never underestimate the stupidity of government.
The M16/M4 might have some issues with the dust (which is pretty much fixed with new versions that are available that use a gas piston rather than direct gas impingement. ) The British L85 rifle on the other hand has been a piece of shit since it was built and the UK government should have taken HK's advice (I think HK purchased Enfield which was the original manufacturer) and replaced it with HK G36's HK, btw has a replacement upper for M16 firearms which combines the best of both the M16 and the AK. I'm a big fan of AK's in general and have built quite a few but Mikhail Kalashnikov's claim that it is an all original design is BS. Even if it was, the design is from WWII and there is no way he or the russian govt. is going to be able to enforce a patent
Crime (other than murder) is much worse in the UK than in the US. Most murders in the US are of of people connected to criminal enterprises (crack dealers, etc.) In the US I can avoid going to the areas where they sell crack to avoid being killed. In the UK all you need to do is stay home to enjoy being victimized since the rate of hot home invasions is way higher (try that in Texas and see how long your criminal career lasts.) I'm not sure having everyone armed will effect the homicide rate in the US, but it will (and has) had an effect on the other crime rates.
How much do most police officers shoot their guns? Most of them are not "gun people" and they shoot just enough to meet the qualification requirements. Many of us with concealed handgun licenses shoot more in a weekend than most cops shoot in a year. Most cops have never had to shoot their guns in anger so they have pretty much the same experience with this type of situation... none.
Which would mean he would not be allowed to (legally) own a gun. which goes to show that gun laws only keep the law-abiding from owning/carrying guns.
Crime is up in Australia since they cracked down on guns. That being said, I don't think it matters. Self defense is a basic human right. Whether or not gun ownership for self defense has any effect on crime is an irrelevant side note. Like they say... you may get my guns and ammo, but you'll get the ammo first.
Dude.... drop the granola and eat a steak. Would you let a child be killed before using a gun? Raped? tortured? Face it. Some people deserve to be killed. The world will be a better off. Besides, there is no way to get back to a society without guns. There are more guns than people and they are easy to make so they will never go away. This is a problem with people and needs to be dealt with that way.
The raw numbers for murders are not a very good indication of your risk or my risk of being murdered. A very large percentage of the people killed in the US (and elsewhere I'm sure) are people involved in criminal ventures such as drug dealing, etc. I'm not so sure I would lump them all together. I'd probably say you should mark crack dealers deaths down as DSAF (did society a favor.)
Take a look at the web site and you can tell that Hemmenway has a hard-on for guns. Even his own work shows that right to carry laws have no effect on homicides (and from him that is saying a lot.)
and has been thoroughly debunked. I think the study you are talking about is the one done by Kellerman and he said that you were 41 times more likely to be a victim or some bullshit like that. I'm not sure where he studied statistics but he really ought to try and get his money back...
I think the whole corn ethanol craze will crash in the not so distant future. It's surviving because of the subsidies and mandates, but if left alone it would not survive. At some point the cost of the subsidies and the cost of other goods will force the government to stop wasting money.
With Chavez's arms buildup I think something may be coming. Maybe it's just his paranoia over being invaded by the US, but I would not be surprised to have his troops moving in to liberate his socialist brothers in neighboring countries. By that time most of the middle and upper class citizens will have fled Venezuala to the US or other countries, so the country will be even more dependent on oil to fund his plans. Venezuela doesn't have the industrial base to be as big a threat as Hitler but that doesn't mean that a lot of people wont' die as Chavez builds his socialist paradise.
Microsoft mice are great (and I hate Apple mice) , but beyond that Microsoft stuff is pretty much crap.
Only a yankee would call it the civil war... Down in the south it is the War of Northern Aggression :)
The problem is that the crazy's on the far left have poisoned the well and we no longer believe them when they say they are only going to ban handguns/cheap guns/saturday night specials/assaultweapons/sniper rifles/high capacity weapons...
The attitudes do correspond to urban/rural, but if you take a look at the maps from the last elections you will see that they are pretty much the same. There are gun control laws that go back farther than 1967 (Reagan did a lot of good things, but support for the second amendment wasn't one of them. In addition to the Mulford act he also supported the Brady bill & assault weapon ban. Reagan was originally a DEMOCRAT, he unfortunately kept some of the bad habits after he converted in 1962 :)
You have the 1934 National Firearms act of 1934 which was originally intended to ban handguns (along with machine guns, short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns), by putting imposing a $200 tax, or $5 for an AOW/Pistol. The tax on pistols was pulled before the law was passed. (I don't think the taxes have changes. These are the current values but I'm not sure if they were ever less.) Luckily for us this was changed before the law was passed. FDR would have probably gone farther and actually banned the weapons if he could have but members of the supreme court let him know that they would not allow it.
Also, look at the origins for state and local prohibitions against carrying handguns. Many (if not most) in the south came about because the white southerners did not want blacks to have guns.
BTW, most of the "Liberals" that oppose gun control are really not Liberals, they are libertarians.
Come on now. Most of the people who oppose Bush are also the same ones for gun control. What are you going to revolt with, rocks and sticks? Remember rule #1... You need a gun for a gunfight.
Last time I looked it took a majority of both the House and Senate to pass a law... People complain that about the lack of federal action during Katrina, but when laws are passed to allow the federal govt. to actually do more all the conspiracy theorists start crawling out from their bunkers. If congress passed something before they had read it then shame on them, You Bush haters really need to get a life.
I think you are right on this. Like the Delorean it is a great product and some people will have to get it. It will work great but in the end the high price tag will prevent it from going anywhere. Comparisons with early tivo prices are off the mark. The going rate for a device like this is $299 or less (the price for the new HR20 from DirecTV.) The extra subscription cost and the cable card costs are just additional nails in the coffin. It's very sad to say, but I don't think Tivo will be around much longer (I have 4 Directivo's and like them a lot).
Or are you a libertarian... real liberals don't have guns :)
You know full well that this decision isn't going to last. This case isnt' about listening to domestic conversations. It's about listening to calls to or from foreigners who are suspected of being terrorists. In the very unlikely event that the courts don't agree you can bet that congress will authorize exactly what they are doing.
You really don't know what you are talking about. The US isn't anywhere close to a civil war. The east and west coast liberals would never let it come to war since all of us "inbred simpletons" have most of the guns.
BTW, it sure sounds like you have never been to the "dopey, backward heartland".
Correct, but that isn't the point I was making. The Glock is a great gun. It's reliable, light, accurate, and holds a lot of ammunition, but all it takes to make if fire is a press of the trigger (this is usually a good thing!) As long as the gun is in the hands of the owner there is no problem, but if the bad guy wrestles it away from the good guy he is more likely to be able to shoot the gun than if the gun has an external safety.
Sounds like someone was bored and doesn't like the patriot act so they decided to make up a story.