Cobra CAS footage, aka the Syrian armored forces should just go home.

[Peter Cairns]

Well I live in a country that banned all hand guns and automatic weapons for private use or ownership because in two seperate and bloody events, law abiding citizeans who owned guns and liked to "fire such interesting weapons" ran amok and killed men women and, in Dunblane, kids.

So much as I am interested in warfare, the mentality behind the kind of blasting away videos I've seen leaves me cold, as I can't seperate the effect on an oil drum from that on a person, and I've always tried to avoid people who can.

Peter.

[Lee]

Well, Peter, whatever kind of thinking process it is that makes you unable to

differentiate between shooting a paper or metal target and *murdering people*,

well, that's your own problem and not one I'm going to try to figure out.

Yes, I've heard all about that ban, and the huge increase in crime (home burglaries

especially, many where they tie the whole family up and ransack the home of

all the valuables they worked so hard to earn, while the family sits there

helpless to stop them) since then. I wonder how many decent folks have been

beaten, robbed and/or murdered since then by criminals who knew that since

the ban their victims were quite likely to be unarmed and defenseless (not

counting those that chose to ignore the ban)? Whatever the number is, is

certainly far higher than what some lone maniac could ever do. It's called

the law of unintended consequences.

[Speedy]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

and I've always tried to avoid people who can.

Peter.

Then why are you here?

[Peter Cairns]

I LIVE IN SCOTLAND

Since we banned handguns,

There has been no major increase in Burglaries, agreesive or otherwise.

I know of no cases in the last decade of "whole families being tied Up".

As the vast majority of Scots never had guns then the tiny minority who did haven't changed criminal behaviour one iota.

Most murders in scotland are not related to Theft or robbery, but unfortunately to drink, fights between young me and domestic violence.

We do not have Armed or otherwise criminals violently mugging large numbers of people.

Most of our violent crime is drugs or gang related and as I say young men with to much drink and the a knife.

I don't know what country you think I live in but it sure as hell isn't the one you discribed.

As to shooting, I've shot geese for meat and done some range target shooting for sport which I enjoyed, but as to blasting heavy calibre weapons at full auto just to make things fly to pieces, thats not sport or fun, thats just people who need to grow up, which would be fine if they didn't have access to lethal fire arms.

Peter.

[SgtMuhammed]

To each his own.

[Lee]

Peter: Well, perhaps in Scotland (a fine country I'm quite fond of )

the quality of people is a good deal higher than elsewhere, which I'm glad

to hear, but I assure you that these "home invasion" (I think that's the term

they use) type of burglaries do happen in England. Where other than shotguns

for hunting, they've almost completely banned guns. And the rate of burglaries

and other crimes has gone up drastically since this ban. There were several

reports about it on the news over here, showing the latest crime statistics and such.

What's the difference between "range target shooting for sport which I enjoyed"

and shooting at metal objects, not so much, I think. It seems we are largely

debating target preference here.

First off, most full auto shooting in the U.S. is done with regular paper range

targets, like any other shooting. The reason that metal objects and such are

used sometimes for big shooting events is so that one can clearly see what

they are hitting and see it bounce around a bit and such. Or else there

would be much shooting and no way to see how well you are aiming, just a

bunch of holes in a sheet of paper far away.

And as far as these weapons in the hands of U.S. citizens, there has never been

a legally owned full auto weapon used in the commission of a crime by any

U.S. civilian, ever. That is more than enough proof after these many years

to show how very capable decent law-abiding folks are of having these weapons

and owning them safely. If it were otherwise, there would be endless

massacre's going on, because the firepower is certainly there, but it

simply doesn't happen. Consider it another myth that has been disproven.

Oh, and I believe it's Switzerland (or Sweden) that requires by law that every

household have a fully automatic rifle at all times for the defense

of the nation by it's citizens if need be and so on. And they have also

proven that having full auto weapons in the hands of their good citizens is

not a problem at all. And these are rather peaceful and safe places to live.

Anyhow, if you prefer paper targets on your range, that's fine by me. I myself shoot

the vast majority of the time at regular paper targets on the range same as you.

And I only shoot full auto occasionally, mainly it's just pistol or shotgun

paper target shooting.

[juan_gigante]

Switzerland. Of course, everyone also spends a while in the army (universal conscription), so that means that everyone knows the danger of that weapon and how to use and store it safely.

[Sirocco]

The stats on things like burglary have gone up in the UK not because of the reduction in the number of firearms - let's be clear, firearms have never been in as widespread private ownership as in the US - but because of weak law enforcement and even weaker punishment.

Anyway, this isn't the place for this discussion.

[SgtMuhammed]

I'll second that.

So... how about those Cobras.

[juan_gigante]

Yeah... did you see the part where they blew the tank up? That was impressive.

[Lee]

Sirocco: I agree, but it's not I who began debating the subject. I'm sure

that weak punishment does not help matters, but unless the punishment for

burglaries was greatly lessened at the same time as the gun ban, then the gun ban

must be playing at least a significant part. Criminals never being sure

whether they will immediately die or not if they break into someone's home

is a great deterrent. But now they can be almost certain they will not encounter

such opposition. And besides, doesn't a man have a right to the means to

defend himself and his family from harm from the worst elements of society?

Anyhow, enough of this, back to war. That video of the cobra pilots rocks,

those fellows were really tearing up the bad guys. A very impressive display

of skill and firepower. So, will we get choppers making rocket attack

runs and such to support the ground troops in CMII? That would be cool.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Lee:

Criminals never being sure whether they will immediately die or not if they break into someone's home is a great deterrent. But now they can be almost certain they will not encounter such opposition.

They were *always* almost certain of that.

In all seriousness, and it's not meant as a slight, you have a very skewed view of firearms in the UK.

And again, there are better places for that particular debate.

[akd]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

Yeah... did you see the part where they blew the tank up? That was impressive.

Which one? The 100th or 101st?

[juan_gigante]

It was kind of dusty... there was this building to the right... you know the one I'm talking about?

[juan_gigante]

Also - does anybody else miss the days when operations had cool cryptic names like "Market - Garden". I guess "Anaconda" was all right, but operation names like "Enduring Freedom" and "Iraqi Freedom" just leave me cold. And the whole "Silent Hammer" genre is kind of silly as well. I want American operations to have those old-school WWII type names again.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

Also - does anybody else miss the days when operations had cool cryptic names like "Market - Garden". I guess "Anaconda" was all right, but operation names like "Enduring Freedom" and "Iraqi Freedom" just leave me cold. And the whole "Silent Hammer" genre is kind of silly as well. I want American operations to have those old-school WWII type names again.

I agree. 'Torch' and 'Overlord' have real resonance. So do 'Watchtower' and 'Avalanche'. Even our PR hacks can't seem to cut it any more.

Michael

[juan_gigante]

Although to be fair, if we called the invasion of Iraq "Operation Overlord", a few people might take that the wrong way.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

Yeah... did you see the part where they blew the tank up? That was impressive.

Hell yes! Every household should have one!

Crime rates would be in the cellar!!!!!

Best regards,

Thomm

[BulletRat]

Damn, who needs the US Army? Seems those folks have enough ammo and things that go boom to take over Iraq themselves!

As for us Aussies, we lost our gun rights when some nutjob killed 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania on 28 April 1996 - since then its been very hard to get any gun without a real good reason. ****, ya had to have a licence for paintball guns in Victoria for the last 10 years - but they buggered off that law a couple of months ago thankfully.

[aka_tom_w]

In Canada we lost our gun rights when some nutjob targeted women only in a University in Quebec on this day (Dec 6) 1989.

The response by the Liberal Federal government was to over react and set up a MASSIVELY expensive gun registery to license and register ALL legally owned firearms in the country.

It has not, in ANY way, helped deter crime. Most police and law enforcement agencies find it useless and some have even gone on public record as being opposed to it because the problem is not hunters and legal gun owners, its the BAD guys with the illegal weapons and this is mostly gang and drug related hand gun activity in urban area's we are talking about and the gun registry DOES not touch that issue AT ALL.

BUT every year in the Canada's College's and Universities this happens:

"Tuesday, December 6th is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women. It commemorates, in particular, the massacre of fourteen women in Montreal on this day in 1989; and in general, the violence perpetrated against women every day."

-tom w

[Kurtz]

An armed society is a polite society

- Robert A. Heinlein

Just look at Albania when everyone got guns a couple of years ago.

[Moronic Max]

Much as I enjoy Heinlein, he wasn't necessarily advocating any of the systems he presented in his books--the governments of Starship Troopers and The Moon is a Hars Mistress are rather different, for example.

[Peter Cairns]

The whole point about gun bans be they in the UK, Canada, or Australia, was that they were designed to deal with a specific and deadly, but rare form of gun crime, namely the propensity of a very small number of gun enthusiasts to try them out on the general public.

The notion that these bans would end gun crime, was never part of it and it has been pushed by the gun lobby as an arguement against gun control.

For examole, lets say a new drug is developed that cuts the risk of heart attacks by 10% in some patents. A year latter the medical statistics show that just as many people died of heart attcks as the year before. does that mean the drug doesn't work?

Of course not, it was never intended or claimed to end heart attacks, but it can deal with certain ones in certain situations.

There is a simple formula for Threat Perception T=IC

Threat equals capability times intent.

Prior to Sept 11th most people probably raided Bin Laden at under ten, not much to worry about.

His intent was sure was at least nine, but his capability against the US one, Post Sept 11th , then we get him up at fifty as capability went through the roof.

Now most gun owners are well under ten, intent one, capability four or five, but if one has intent of nine, then the damage they can do is huge.

So in terms of Risk assessment and action you have a very small number of people you can do terrible harm, to balance against a greater number of people who are doing no harm.

In those countries with bans where active gun ownership was low the decision was made to minimise risk by removing the weapons that potentially could do the damage. It's worth noting that these were all Commonwealth countries with a british tradition of the common good, as strong as the belief in individual liberty.

When their was a conflict betwwen the two they came down on the side of the common good with the support of the majority over the freedoms of a small minority, not ideal but democratic.

The US with Huge gun ownership and a greater emphasis on the individual and his or her freedom of choice makes a different choice which is equally democratic.

I for one don't buy in to the "Citizean Soldier" idea, (though if most American politicians do they should be congratulating Chaveez, for buying 100,000 AK's for his peoples militia)

If you have 1 million people and 1 in 1,000 has guns and 1 in 1,000 is a nutter then statistically you have a 1 in 1 million chance of an armed nutter.

If you have the same population with the same nutter tendency and 1 in 10 have guns, then the chance of an armed nutter is 1 in 10,000. still pretty small, but 100 times higher than in the low gun society.

Peter.

[Tarquelne]

So in terms of Risk assessment and action you have a very small number of people you can do terrible harm, to balance against a greater number of people who are doing no harm.

In general, this is why I think all people other than myself should be banned. You're messing it up for me.

[John D Salt]

When the glorious day dawns and I seize power, there will be an armed Logic Police with broad powers whose daily task it will be to protect the citizens of Great Britain from this kind of irrational and illiberal twaddle.

Until then, I suppose I shall have to content myself merely with pointing out some of the more egregious departures from fact and logic...

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

The whole point about gun bans be they in the UK, Canada, or Australia, was that they were designed to deal with a specific and deadly, but rare form of gun crime, namely the propensity of a very small number of gun enthusiasts to try them out on the general public.

Not so; gun control began in the UK in the 1920s, largely the result of government fear of the International Communist Conspiracy murdering us all in our beds.

While there were knee-jerk responses by government to the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres, very many classes of weapons had been sharply restricted long before either. Any logic in such bans can be searched for in vain, as the most deadly class of close-range weapon, the shotgun, remains the least closely regulated. The least dangerous, the handgun, is entirely banned.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

The notion that these bans would end gun crime, was never part of it and it has been pushed by the gun lobby as an arguement against gun control.

This is a breathtaking piece of nonsense. If the reduction of gun crime was not the reason given for firearms regulation, what is the government doing it for? Just because it hates firearms enthusiasts? The reason shooting enthusiasts do not like the government's silly rules on firearms ownership is that it deprives them of their sport. However, it is surely fair enough for them to point out the uncomfortable fact that handgun crime has increased steadily since handguns were banned, so the legislation has failed in its intended purpose.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

[snips]

In those countries with bans where active gun ownership was low the decision was made to minimise risk by removing the weapons that potentially could do the damage.

And the handgun ban in the UK has clearly failed to do this; handgun crime continues to increase.

The error committed by the muddle-headed legislators, and if one can judge from your illustrations wholeheartedly endorsed by you, was that of failing to perceive the distinction between FAC holders (one of the most punctiliously law-abiding sectors of society) and the criminals who perpetrate gun crime. Possibly if some way had been found of taking steps against those committing the crime, instead of against those who weren't, the measures would have been more effective.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

When their was a conflict betwwen the two they came down on the side of the common good with the support of the majority over the freedoms of a small minority, not ideal but democratic.

Nonsense. This sort of bleating about "public safety" has always been the pretext tyrants have used for their misrule; often they set up committees to look after it. In the case oif hanguns, the government set up a commission to report on the matter, and then, true to the British tradition of arrogant cluelessness by dim-witted rulers, proceeded to ignore the commision's recommendations for no discernible reason.

Punishing the innocent (practically all FAC holders) by confiscating their weapons and banning their sport was a disgracefully illiberal thing to do, and the fact that a large number of muttonheads would have agreed to such a thing had they had a chance to vote on it does not make it "democratic" as the term is understood now (in ancient Greece, maybe). The fact that it was also completely ineffective in the terms imagined by the framers of the legislation, and produced a colossal and expensive waste of police time, are just the icing on the cake.

Still, I suppose that as long as we citizens of the UK continue to permit ourselves to be treated as spineless cattle, we shouldn't be too surprised at this sort of thing.

All the best,

John.