Check out this AT-Rifle

[iggi]

If looks could kill:

http://www.wwiionline.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000306.html

[This message has been edited by iggi (edited 04-01-2000).]

[Bakker@home]

Whoah,

look it's a man portable anti-tank gun! I think it's the anti-tank rifle taken a bit to far. Nice pictures .........

Grtz S Bakker.

[Moon]

Look at the face expression of the guy holding this... thing...

[tss]

Ahh. The "Elephant gun", as its users called it. It could punch through all light Soviet tanks in time period '39 - '41. Too bad that it didn't arrive in time for Winter War.

look it's a man portable anti-tank gun

Usually it had a two men crew who carried it on their shoulders.

AFAIK, the last kills that were made with Lahti ATRs were five old T-26s that participated in probe attacks at Rajajoki on 9 June 1944.

- Tommi

[Lee]

Neat gun, eh? I've gotten to check one of those out up close.

It's a real beast, a massive gun. I love living in a country

where we still have the freedom (despite the efforts of some lesser

men) to own guns like that one and go out and enjoy shooting them.

Freedom is a beautiful thing.

[Mark IV]

A "memorabilia" shop back in Detroit used to have on of those up on the wall.

Slick design- but no bayonet lug!

Perhaps they were just anticipating assault rifle legislation...

[Lee]

As you well know, Mark IV, a bayonet lug on a gun makes them 2459

times more likely to used in the holdup of a convenience store.

Haha. I feel sooo much safer that there are fewer bayonet lugs

around. Hey, some people are just idiots.

[pereciu]

To Lee,

Man's Freedom ends where other man's Freedom start.

Note the capital F in Freedom.

Here in Europe, except rare case, we can ALL walk around without fear to small arms. The news that arrive from U.S.A. streets and schools are IMHO from a freedom-less country.

Pere.

[Lee]

Pere: You are under a false impression, sir. You seem to feel that

the availability of firearms in my country has something to do

with the crimes you mention. In fact, it has *nothing* to do with

them. And I can prove that quite easily. 40 years a go in my

country firearms were much *more* easily available than they

are today. Any ordinary citizen could order a gun through the mail,

no paperwork whatsoever. Students commonly took guns to school

with them to shoot on their school shooting teams and also to hunt

for small game on the way home to help put food on the table for

their families. And it was unheard of for a student to go to school

and murder his fellow classmates. And the murder rate in general

was much lower than it is today. If the availability of guns

in this country had anything to do with the murder rate then there

would have been far more murders 40 years ago. In fact, the exact

opposite is true. Thus disproving the gun control argument once

and for all.

Now that that has been shown *not* to be the issue, one can debate

over what the real probkem is. I would argue that the single most

serious problem that we have in this country which has caused this

sudden sort of disrespect for human life is the recent sharp decline

in general moral character of our nation. There has been a great

lessening in the perceived value and respect for the sanctity of

human life. And I hope for the sake of my country that we soon

reverse this trend and restore the liberties that rightly belong

to a Free Man.

[Guest hunt52]

First:

The RHATGFHTRTILSAETFB looks really cool

Definitely wouldn't want to be on the recieving end of that!

Aaargh - must argue...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Here in Europe, except rare case, we can ALL walk around without fear to small arms. The news that arrive from U.S.A. streets and schools are IMHO from a freedom-less country.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Define freedom (or Freedom).

Freedom is (in my opinion) the assignation of responsibility for a person's actions and beliefs to that person and that person alone.

---

I think it is (at best) a load of crap to say that the availibility of guns is in some way responsible for the violence in America today.

I'm not a felon so I could walk into a store, legally buy a scoped hunting rifle, walk back to my dorm, walk up to the third floor and plink people walking to class.

Now, is the proper response:

1. Well - the store shouldn't have sold him the rifle!

2. Well - he's a homicidal whacko. He should be punished for his crimes.

The prevalent response today seems to be 1. I would heartily disagree with that as it seems to me to be a reflection of the idea that I am not ultimately responsible for my actions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Man's Freedom ends where other man's Freedom start.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true if by that you mean that my freedom and yours are not intertwined. Where my responsibility for my actions and beliefs ends someone else's begins. I am not responsible for your actions and you are not responsible for mine. No middle ground (excepting meteroites and weather...)

Also as an aside - I find the idea of shooting a gun abhorrent. I have never fired one and never will. I do not like the idea of machines specifically designed to kill with maximum effeciency and will have nothing to do with them. This dosen't mean that I dislike people who do enjoy firing guns - I am close friends with several. They are responsible for their actions, and I am responsible for mine. I would argue wholeheartedly (as I am doing now) for their freedom to do what they want.

The more responsibility we abdicate to "society" the harder it will be to get it back. I only hope we don't give away too much...

- Bill

[Guest PeterNZ]

*groan*

not this again!

Can we just drop the topic, at least until the americans get an education in political theory so the disucssion of freedoms and liberty goes somewhere usefull

I had posted a lot on this, and now i've removed it. As for the age-old 'moral characer' argument, (been around since Plato at least), can i just also point out that in the rest of the west, where guns are less prevelant, and moral character at least as bad, (been to Scotland? ) Gun deaths are much much less than in the US. Or how about Japan, where guns are almost banned, deaths by guns are almost nonexistent i believe.

To avoid much more reply-causing stuff, can we just agree that the argument isn't black and white. Total prohabition will not prevent gun deaths and the freedoms around now do not necesarily cause them. To a degree elements of all sides need to be considered. Finding the balance is the hardest part.

PeterNZ

[This message has been edited by PeterNZ (edited 04-02-2000).]

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Can we just drop the topic, at least until the americans get an education in political theory<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Diplomatic, that. Is that a padlock I hear? Hope so.

[Lee]

I'm not looking for an argument here, just trying to bring some

facts to the discussion (as opposed to wild, illogical, emotional

arguments that are typically presented by the left wing/liberal

types ).

I would like to point out that the cases you cited do not in any

way support the gun control argument. Yes, in Japan gun murders

are much less common than in the U.S., but so are murders with knives.

Is that because knives are banned in Japan? No, the Japanese simply

don't murder each other, in any way, as often as Americans do. Now,

you can debate all you like about the reasons for this but it has

nothing to do with what types of weapons are available.

And you never addressed the point of my previous post. The fact

remains that if the free availability of guns was one of the reasons

we have a high murder rate, then we would have had more murders

with guns back when it was vastly easier to get them in this country.

And we didn't, plain and simple. How hard is it to understand that

simple fact? There is no logical counter to my argument because

the facts speak for themselves. The murder rate numbers tell the

story and disprove the gun control argument quite easily.

40 years ago guns were vastly easier to get in the U.S. Yet the

murder rate was vastly lower. And kids shooting their classmates

was unheard of, even though it was common for kids to take loaded

guns to school.

40 years later guns are much harder to get in the U.S. and yet

the murder rate is much higher. Now, whatever the reason for the

higher murder rate, one thing is for SURE, the availability of

guns has NOTHING to do with it.

Now, the above facts are crystal clear and irrefutable. If

someone can't understand that then they are either not able to

follow simple logic or they simply don't want to face the truth.

And I would also like to say that I realize that many of our foreign

friends on this board may have a very skewed view of the situation

here in the U.S. from what they see in the press. So I can understand

if they honestly didn't realize the true facts of the issue.

And I'm not mad or anything but I hope these facts I have presented

make the situation more clear.

[Simon Fox]

Lee,

I recommend you pull your head in. This forum is not the place for you to air your views on this issue as so rightly and politely pointed out by Peter. Your initial and totally provocative post started this off. I am sure that no one around here is interested in debating your "clear and irrefutable facts" since it is clear that such a debate would be as useful as a conversation with a brick wall.

Steve,

Pass me my muzzle quick!

[Darwin]

This has all been gone over before and it was decided that human's are instintually mad killer's and to suppress this burning hunger inside us is the kind of thing cancer comes from. must we reason it all out again???

[Guest PeterNZ]

Sorry for the american comment

but i do like to stir sometimes..

and it is based on fact. (well at least a couple of good annecdotes, which beat fact every time ) Eg. a prof of mine, (indian guy, trained in america, well regarded in his field), seemed unaware of the division between continental philosophy and english, and again further, the distinction between American liberal theory and the rest of the theories..

anyway, i'm sure everyone here is more than aware of these facts,

I just think it's a kinda pointless debate, noone will change their minds, and you can be sure both sides have 'facts' that back up their arguments.

In the end, it is opinion based, do you want to live in a society with guns freely available or not, myself, i'm happy for the 'not', maybe others want lots of guns around. Your choice!

As for the '40 years ago' argument, sure it's a valid point, but there's lots of counter examples and arguments we could use and go on for the next 100 posts about, (i can think of 3 or 4 now, but nevermind).

As for the "illogical emotional" arguments of liberals, perhaps i should remind you yer own constitution guaranteeing your right to carry those guns, the document so beloved of the NRA was written by those same people! Based of course on the European, and French school of liberal political theory, (Voltaire and co? .. political theory history not my strong point)..

I say lets keep this debate tactical before it goes global thermonuclear hehe

PeterNZ

------------------

.C O M B A T. .V I S I O N.

* Film From The Front *

[This message has been edited by PeterNZ (edited 04-03-2000).]

[Major Tom]

There are two types of freedoms. Negative and Positive. The American charter of freedoms is based predominantly on Negative rights. No, negative is not in terms of morality. Negative rights mean that a person has the liberty to not have their life interfered with, unless it causes direct harm to another individual. Positive rights are more that a person is entitled to gain something that they might not already have.

Personally, I don't think that any weapon other than a shotgun would be neccessary for home defence. Pistols are just too innacurate, especially for the urban novice, and high powered rifles get to be too dangerous (except for hunting), and Semi-Automatic and beyond just gives an individual too much firepower. The reasons for all of these school killings, of white and black children are very similar. It is undue pressure at such a young age that most teens never experienced before, or, when they did they killed themselves instead of killing their classmates. I was never ridiculed in school, but, I did see the effects it had on some children. It basically destroyed them. I can tell this board horror stories from my Dad of the years he was a Principal at an Elementary school in Canada. I shudder to imagine some of these kids having access to weaponry.

I don't think that it is because of a decline in Religion, lack of morals, or because of crazy computer games. These kids were screwed up through society not accepting them. Even if they didn't have access to guns, they can go and grab some other type of weapon, a knife, pipe bomb, or a baseball bat. But, guns make massive random killings all that much easier. What is needed is more responsible parents. The Goverment can't do everything.

It is a Catch 22, people need to get weapons easily because the criminal element can easily get weapons, and because anyone can get them easily, then crimilals will get more, then society needs more, etc... Sure the United States was founded on the principles that anyone has the right to own a gun, but, it was also founded on the right for individuals to own slaves. Societies have to change because situations change. The United States had this Amendment in fear of Britain reconquering America 200 years ago. Does it really need to be a fundamental right in the 21st Century? I do, however, make an acception for weapons as collectors items. Unless someone decides they need to "collect" 100 AK-47's or something like that:)

[Lee]

Simon: I didn't start any debate. I was just admiring the picture

of the gun, pointing how much I love the fact that I'm allowed

buy one if I want and having a little fun with Mark IV. It was

all very light hearted and in good fun. Pereciu is the one

who interjected the comment implying that the rights we enjoy here

in the U.S. were somehow the cause of murders here in my country.

I just politely pointed out how wrong he is.

I didn't think it appropriate to let the suggestion, that law

abiding U.S. citizens exercising their rights were somehow hurting

others or interfering in the rights of fellow citizens, stand.

Myself as well as Steve and others on this board enjoy shooting

military weapons, collecting them and re-enacting battles with

them. And there's not a thing wrong with having the freedom to

do that. And it doesn't hurt anyone to have that freedom.

Anyhow, the matter is settled as far as I'm concerned. I'm more

than confident that the facts I presented make the case very clear.

You can take them or leave them, as you like.

P.S. I would like to add one quick comment for Major Tom. The

reason that access to military grade weapons are important is not

so much because of criminals. It is to ensure that the government

can never take away the rights of the citizens or oppress them.

An armed people can not be enslaved by force. The Founding Fathers

of this country considered that of critical importance. And I hold

it as dear as they did. It is to protect our freedoms from all

enemies, both foreign and domestic.

[This message has been edited by Lee (edited 04-03-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Oh boy, I think I need to change the forum agreement to include NOT having a debate about gun control. Just so you all know my position...

I own several guns, and if I could afford full auto ones I would have those too. I'd rather not have the right taken away from me thanks very much. But I also understand that the average Joe Blow's ownership of a gun does not mean the country has more freedom and those without have less. That argument is pure bunk (I hear cheers in Europe and Down Under for sure here ).

The murder rate per capita here in the US is higher than other industrialized nations, but then again some of our cities have the population of entire countries, so trying to compare apples to oranges isn't really usefull. But if you look at gun deaths in some other countries you would find higher rates (South Africa comes to mind, and of course any nation at war with itself). But I digress...

You also have to considder that the US has a set of social and economic problems that dwarf any other industrialized nation simply because of the sheer size of the population in question. And traditionally speaking, violence is about as American as apple pie. Always has been, always will be. So guns are more or less along for the ride.

And finally, as I was just informing someone of the other day, the media TOTALLY blows gun violence out of proportion to the real problem. This is both US and international media. Having lived in London and talked about this issue with many people from all over the world, it is clear that the problem is totally overblown. More people die here because of drunk driving every year, but where is that on the news? I live in a place where there is probably 2 guns per capita (wild guess), but crimes involving guns is miniscule. Why? Because the population is largely of the same race and social status and the density of population is quite low. But if you believed what you see in the media you would think there would be shootouts on a daily basis around these parts, especially because hunting is a HUGE thing around here (i.e. lots of people shooting to kill).

ARGH...

Now you all have me started on it. Sufice to say there will NEVER be an answer to this. Those outside of the US will never understand the pro-gun lobby (hey, many US citizens don't either ), and those within the US who are in favor of owning firearms will never understand why it is so important to remove these weapons from law abiding citizens.

Might as well argue about something where we can all agree upon, like what is the best religion on Earth

Steve

[Simon Fox]

Lee,

You may have intended your remarks to be jocular but obviously someone else thought there was an misplaced element of boastfulness there. Whether you might have considered it so is quite irrelevant, when I read your post I was sure someone around here would respond. As a general rule any number of people would take you up on your debate. However, it is very off-topic and it would inevitably degenerate into vitriol.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I just politely pointed out how wrong he is<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Taking upon yourself the mantle of infallibility is really setting yourself up around here. The insertion of an occasional IMO in your posts would go a long way towards redeeming yourself.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pereciu is the one who interjected the comment implying that the rights we enjoy here in the U.S. were somehow the cause of murders here in my country<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read Pere's post and given his/her possible non-English background I fail to see how you draw that conclusion as the meaning of it.

[Guest Big Time Software]

BTW, I saw a couple of those Finnish AT rifles for sale last year. Around $10,000 if I recally. Just missed watching one shoot up a car. And supposedly you *can* fire one standing up with something to balance the thing. Check out the muzzel break on that bugger.

Steve