Douva

This is exactly what I was trying to say, the whole box thing was just an analogy, not something that I am actually contemplating or what I wanted this thread to be about. This really is not a thread about me, but I will admit that I have thought about this in the past and have had several discussions on this subject with male and female friends. I wanted to open it up to get a range of different perspectives because you are right, these days there seems to be a certain mindset or stigma if you will, that when you say the word “relationship”, it sets some people off. But, also, on the other end of the spectrum, you have those that believe that if they are chatting with someone over cyberspace on a regular basis and pleasantries and such are exchanged, they are in a relationship with that person, even though no such thing was discussed. They believe they have a reason to get hacked off at someone for having other friends that they talk to, etc. I think the reason for this hypersensitivity is equated to the fact that it has become customary for people to date two or three people at a time also like you said and that long-term relationships are being replaced with this casual, quasi- relationship. Maybe it’s just that, maybe relationships have evolved into something totally different than what my parents had or even what I had back in high school. I have been out of the whole relationship scene for over two years now and it’s just interesting (and scary) to see what it has turned into. We attribute new meanings to words in order to make them match our changing views on life, love, and dating. Unfortunately, our views aren't always changing for the better. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Blasphemy! Get a rope. I carry a 1911 and love it. I look at the 1911 versus Glock debate like the AR-15 versus Kalashnikov debate--Both guns have their pros and cons. I call the Glock the superior firearm because it can take more abuse than the 1911, and in my book that's a big plus. I'm not saying that I neglect my guns--I don't--But I like the idea of knowing that a carry gun is going to fire no matter what kind of hell I've put it through. At the same time, I do love the multiple safeties on my 1911. My finger is never on the trigger unless I'm ready to fire, but still, when I'm carrying cocked and locked and pointed at my cock, I like knowing that all those safeties are standing between that .45 Glasser Safety Slug and my fun parts. For a while I was debating whether to replace my 1911 with a Glock or have it accurized. I recently decided I'm going to get it accurized. It currently shoots a little loose for my tastes, but it's a great gun, and I've been carrying it for so long that I'm really not interested in making the transition to anything else. As for Bryan's suggestion of a day of shooting for the guys and erotic dancing lessons for the girls, that sounds good to me. If I can't scrounge up a girl for the dancing lessons, I'll just fill both rolls myself. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

The danger is not in choosing the wrong answer; the danger is in asking the question. This dilemma is another of the made-up, bullshit problems twenty-first century western culture has created to fill the void left by all those real problems we no longer face. Somehow I doubt any of my great-grandparents ever struggled with an internal dialogue over whether or not they were in a relationship. Of course, back then it wasn't the norm to date two or three people at the same time; you didn't have to be with someone for a year before you dared refer to him or her as your boyfriend or girlfriend; "talking to somebody" simply meant you were conversing orally with another person; and "hanging out" was what you did to laundry. In those simple times, people didn't have problems like "Do you think I scared him by calling it a 'relationship?'"--They were too busy trying to make it through the Great Depression without getting polio. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I was going to make pretty much the exact same recommendations. I use a Comp-Tac shirt tucker for my Colt Combat Commander (short barrel 1911). I love it. The only problem my belt clip broke twice, each time after about a year of use. I ended up taking the belt clip off a cell phone case, which was slightly heavier than the holster's original belt clip, and affixing it to the holster. For athletic wear, a belly band or fanny pack are your best bets. The fanny pack looks kind of silly and is the 21st century Texas equivalent of walking around wearing a holster, by which I mean many Texans will recognize that you're carrying, so I recommend the belly band. A 1911 is big carry gun, so if you're not a very big guy, you may find it a little cumbersome with light clothing. I sometimes wish I had something a little smaller in the heat of the summer. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Excerpt from "Gun Facts Version 4.1," Page 12-13. Copyright 2006, Guy Smith www.GunFacts.info, All Rights Reserved .50 CALIBER RIFLES Myth: .50s are the favorite weapon of terrorists Fact: Statistically speaking, the majority of terrorist attacks are in the form of bombings (90%), kidnapping (6%), armed attack (2%), arson (1%), firebombing (1%), and other methods (2%).65 Of the “armed attacks”, the most favored weapons used were fully automatic AK-47 rifles. Fact: A commercial .50 caliber costs upwards of $10,000 each, yet terrorists can buy the favored AK-47s in Pakistan for less than $200. They will opt for the more practical rifle. Fact: .50 rifles are heavy (20-35 pounds), expensive (from $3,000 to $10,000 each) as is the ammunition ($2-5 per each round for military quality), impossible to conceal (typically four feet long), most are single shot (slower to reload than a hunting rifle) and impractical for terrorist. Fact: .50 rifles have only been used in 18 crimes in the history of the United States.66 Myth: American gun makers sold .50s to terrorists Fact: This “study” by the anti-gun Violence Policy Center was inaccurate. The rifles in question were sold to the United States government. The U.S. government gave the rifles to Afghan freedom fighters to defeat the former Soviet Union. There is no direct connection and none of the rifles have been used in terrorist actions.67 Myth: .50 caliber shooters are terrorists in training Fact: The average .50-caliber enthusiast is a successful businessman with an annual income of $50,000 or more – hardly a terrorist profile.68 Myth: The Founding Fathers would have had no use for a .50-caliber rifle Fact: Common guns of the early American republic were larger than .50 caliber, many measuring up to .812 caliber. The famous Kentucky Rifle (a name eventually given to most rifles made by German immigrants) was usually .60 to .75 caliber. Myth: .50s are capable of piercing airline fuel tanks from a mile away Fact: Most expert long distance shooters cannot hit a stationary target under perfect, windless weather conditions at such distances (with one notable exception in Vietnam69). Ill trained terrorists shooting a high-recoil .50 caliber rifle at a fast moving target – such as a 600 mph airplane – have no chance. Myth: The bullet from this gun can penetrate concrete bunkers Fact: "It takes 300 rounds to penetrate 2 meters of reinforced concrete at 100 meters.”70 At $5 per round, it would cost a terrorist $1,500 in ammunition to shoot into one bunker. Myth: The .50 caliber round is capable of piercing light armor at 4 miles71 Fact: "At 35 meters distance [0.5% of the mythical distance], a .50 round will go through one inch armor plate."72 Fact: "It is exceedingly difficult to hit a target, even a large one, on one shot at anything over 1200 to 1500 yards by even highly trained individuals ... The ammo is designed for a machine gun, and is generally only good for 2-3 minutes [fraction of a degree] of accuracy. That equates to a 30-45 inch circle at 1500 yards with a perfect rifle, no wind or other conditions and a trained shooter."73 Myth: .50 caliber rifles can knock a helicopter from the sky Fact: The terminal energy of a .50 caliber (6,000 ft-lbs) is not enough to knock a modern military aircraft from the sky unless it hits a critical component like a fuel line. Records exist showing this has been done with common, smaller caliber assault rifles such as AK-47s. Myth: These guns are for snipers Fact: Americans have been long distance target shooters since revolutionary times. According to writings of the time and using simple Kentucky long rifles and muskets, Americans were shooting small targets upwards of 150 yards.74 Fact: “The use of it [.50 caliber] by the IRA in Northern Ireland to shoot both soldiers and police officers at very short range (never more than 275 yards) also gave the weapon a worldwide notoriety when the world's media slapped a ‘sniper’ label on the terrorists taking the shots. They obviously were not and soon ran scared when professional snipers were deployed to stop them.”75 65 Dexter Ingram, “Facts and Figures About Terrorism”, Heritage Foundation, September 14, 2001 – some attacks had multiple methods 66 General Accounting Office, “Weaponry: .50 Caliber Rifle Crime”, Report no. OSI-99-15R, revised Oct. 21, 2001 67 Barret Manufacturing letter on their web site available January 12, 2001. Confirmed during a visit by the BATF according to Dave Kopel in a National Review article “Guns and (Character) Assassination”, December 21, 2001 68 Congressional testimony of John Burtt, Fifty Caliber Shooters Policy Institute 69 C. Sasser and C. Roberts, "One Shot, One Kill: American Combat Snipers in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Beirut", referring to Marine Sniper Carlos Hathcock 70 “An Infantryman's Guide to Combat in Built-up Area" (MOUT) field manual 90-10-1, US Army, May 1993 71 Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senate testimony, March 9, 2001 72 “An Infantryman's Guide to Combat in Built-up Area" (MOUT) field manual 90-10-1, US Army, May 1993 73 Ibid 74 Clayton Cramer, “Firearms Ownership & Manufacturing In Early America”, unpublished, available at www.ClaytonCramer.com 75 Mark Spicer, “Sniper”, Salamander Books Ltd., 2001 I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

That's not nice How can you resist this face? They are cute!

I think it should be noted that most of Richards's comments have been made in a "devil's advocate" sort of way. We have to remember that there is a difference between somebody asking WHY we need something and somebody telling us we DON'T need something. Granted, he seems to think that the arguments he's presented are stronger than they are and that some of the requests of the gun lobby are more reasonable than they are, but nonetheless, I don't think he's trying to pretend anything he's not, which is basically a fence sitter. It's our job to INFORM the fence sitters, not berate them. I can remember as a teenager thinking that the assault weapons ban seemed like a reasonable compromise. After all, why does anyone need an assault weapon? It wasn't until years later that I learned what a joke that ban really was. When I was young, my only exposure to guns had been through hunting, so I didn't have any background in those types of weapons on which to base my position. It wasn't that I thought they were machine guns--I knew better than that--I simply bought into the hype that they were dangerous killing tools used only by inner city gangs. Years later, I got more interested in owning firearms for both defense and target shooting, and I quickly learned the truth. We have to stop getting angry at people for being uninformed, when we know for a fact that it's our opposition's goal to spread this disinformation. Many of our opponents spread this misinformation not knowing it is misinformation, but the spreading of it is still their goal. Also, I'm pretty sure that Kallend was using the statement about crime rising since the introduction of concealed handgun licenses to point out how statistics can be misused to draw false conclusions. Yes, crime has gone down in states where CHL's have been introduced. Yes, holders of CHL's are less likely to commit violent crimes than the general public. Yes, violent crime in America has still risen, as a whole. So what can you conclude from all that? Nothing. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

You guys should be in Lubbock with me--I went to the range yesterday with my brother-in-law. We had a lot of fun shooting my Colt Combat Commander (1911 with a shorter barrel). I thin the Glocks are better overall guns than the 1911, but the 1911's slim frame makes it easier to CC. Of course, I haven't tried any of the slim Glocks, so I don't know how those carry. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

How do YOU explain the increase in violent crime, including handgun homicides, in the USA with the increase in CCW permits? Kallend makes a good point--It's not an honest argument to draw unsubstantiated cause/effect correlations between two actions or events. Crime has increased everywhere, and neither allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns or preventing citizens from owning firearms has been able to substantially retard or accelerate that steady increase. In my mind, this suggests that trying to use crime statistics to support either side of the argument is pointless. This should not be an argument about numbers. Edited to add: I'm assuming that Kallend's point was about not drawing false conclusions from statistics, because anyone who's looked at the full statistics knows that holders of concealed handgun licenses don't contribute in any significant way to gun crime in America. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

"Compromise" in this sense usually means anti-gun folks want 10 new forms of gun-control, and the NRA is supposed to "compromise" and allow them to have 5 of those 10. But if you look at the definition of "compromise", that's not what it is all about. Compromise involves *both* sides getting something they want. But when folks say the NRA refuses to compromise, this is not what they mean. A compromise would be, for example, allowing background checks at gun shows, in exchange for nationwide recognition of state concealed carry licenses. But such compromises are never proposed by the anti-gun types. To them, "compromise" is a one-way street in their favor, giving nothing in return. The NRA has been "compromising" in their way for decades, and it has gotten them nothing, nor has it done any good in reducing gun crimes. If we give up .50 caliber rifles now, then they'll be back for anything over .45 caliber next. You have to draw the line in the sand now, and stand on principle. Since .50 caliber rifles are legal, and they aren't being used for harm, they should not be banned. Period. Screw the gun-o-phobes who want to ban them based upon fiction, hype and paranoia. If you would give up someone else's guns today to try and protect your own, who do you expect to stand with you when they come for your guns later? Very well put, John. All of the "compromises" asked for by the anti-gun movement are along the lines of "meet us halfway by at least letting us repeal some of your rights." There is never any quid pro quo. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I agree 100% that most hot button issues are debated on a foundation of emotion, rather than on a foundation of fact. Though I agree that some gun advocates, like people on both sides of any emotionaly charged issue, refuse to even listen to the other side's arguments, I think many gun advocates feel we've reached a stalemate where honest discussions centered around fact based logic are simply not going to reach the other side. Most of us feel that there are already plenty of restrictions on the weapons we can and can't own, and while we're more than willing to discuss the issue with anyone who wants to listen, we're not going to budge any further than we already have. --Douva PS. Merry Christmas! I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I know, that's why I think Douva's argument is fundamentally flawed. It sounds nice, but a multitude of restrictions are already in place. His argument is like the TSA, it makes you feel better, but doesn't really accomplish anything. You're making the assumption that the only "unknown" scenario is a rogue government. Suppose tomorrow, while families across the nation are sitting in front of Christmas trees watching children open presents, some nation with nuclear weapons decides, for whatever reason, to launch a full-scale attack on the U.S. We're completely blind sided, and the survivors suddenly find themselves without any of the usual supply lines, from food and water to electricity and gas. Suddenly, people have to defend themselves and their meager stashes of supplies for however long it takes for some sort of order to be restored. Chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, laser guided missiles, etc., wouldn't do you much good in that scenario, but a reliable semi-automatic rifle could mean the difference between life and death. This scenario may seem unlikely, but it's not impossible, and it ranks higher on my list of concerns than having to defend ourselves against our own government. The truth is, if we knew exactly what we needed to posess in order to prepare for "unknowns," they wouldn't be unknown. So I'm willing to make a few reasonable concessions (i.e., nuclear weapons), but I'm not going to give up a tool--semi-automatic weapons--that might be very beneficial in many of those "unknown" scenarios. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Good argument, in many ways I agree. Just a couple of questions: Should a citizen be allowed to own chemical weapons to protect themselves from an invading force, or a rogue government? How about nuclear weapons? How about RPGs or mines? What about jet planes with laser guided missiles? How about short range missiles to protect your neighbourhood from a rogue government? Don't you think your average citizen should be able to own all those? If not, why not? See, those are what we of the pro-gun persuasion consider "reasonable compromises." We don't insist on having weapons that are regulated by the UN, require years of special training, or can cause mass destruction. There are very few "unknown" scenarios where owning the types of weapons you mentioned would benefit anybody. As for the rogue government scenario, that's not an easy question to answer, so I suggest dealing with that scenario if and when it happens. I'm sure Americans can build IED's just as well as Iraqis, with a little practice, but I don't spend a lot of time contemplating that scenario because needing to defend myself against my own government is pretty low on my list of concerns. I agree that civilian ownership of firearms helps facilitate the balance of power, but I don't think that means civilians need weapons equivalent to the army's. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I'm not trying to paint you as anti-gun; however, I do believe your arguments, even if you're just playing devil's advocate, are the same weak arguments used by the anti-gun lobby to try to discredit honest, law abiding gun owners. For example: As I think those of us supporting gun rights have clearly illustrated, accepting a ban on .50 caliber rifles and "assault rifles" would accomplish virtually nothing, as far as the safety of the United States is concerned. It would, however, limit the ability of American citizens to defend themselves and pave the way for future gun control legislation. So if we seem annoyed at you, it's because every time you suggest we should be more flexible, you give examples that have no basis in fact. I'm all for helping the other side understand our position in a calm, rational manner, and I'm not pushing for the repeal of any existing national gun control legislation, but I'm not going give up any of my rights in the name of compromise. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I am sure that without assault rifles some guys may come up with other methods, but removing the most simple means might confound the less motivated nutbar. You cannot tell me that semi-auto assault rifles are not more effective for violence than bolt actions. If that were the case our troops (not just snipers) would go into battle with bolt actions and pump shotguns. Either way I am not offering a normative perspective here just an observable fact. I think you are positioning my argument as being one of anti gun. I personally do not have a strong position one way or another. I like guns and would love to be able to shoot anything without restriction, however I am not going to have a heart attack over any new rules. The whole point of my argument was one of trying to point out that there is a radical element in the gun community that tarnishes the many. I am not sure why so many people are trying to straw man my position into that of an anti-gun leftie. This is the very thing that makes people in the middle see the pro-gun crowd as militant, and subsequently causes them to err on the side of the anti-gun crowd. When someone is saying something regarding gun control that you disagree with and you go on the attack you come across as the very stereotype that the anti-gun crowd try to perpetuate. You keep telling us you support our right to own guns, but then, in the same breath, you tell us we should consent to only having the guns that are, by your own admission, less effective for certain applications. Also, you continue to erroneously lump all hunting rifles into the bolt action category and all semi-automatics into the military rifle category. I happen to own a semi-automatic .308 hunting rifle that accepts detachable magazines. Into which category does it fit? For those of us who desire to own firearms for more than hunting, bolt action rifles are simply not adequate. If they were, as you keep pointing out, our troops would use them in combat. We've repeatedly pointed out to you that "assault weapons" are involved in an infinitesimally small fraction of American shootings, and yet you keep accusing us of being extremists for not consenting to the banning of such weapons. Why are we extremists for resisting the banning of something that really isn't a problem? Should we agree to a baseless reduction of our rights simply to appease the anti-gun lobby? Is that really your idea of "meeting in the middle?" And then next year should we agree to another baseless ban? And another the year after that? How long should we let this go on? Or is your real point that YOU don't see a reason for us to own these weapons; therefore, you don't see any reason why we shouldn't just let them be banned, in order for gun owners as a whole to appear more centrist? Being a moderate isn't about trying to meet in the middle on every issue. A true moderate looks at each issue based on the facts and picks the position, left, right, or center, supported by the facts. Trying to appease both sides simply for the sake of avoiding conflict accomplishes nothing, and giving up rights, without cause, simply to make one side happy is beyond foolish. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

How do they come across as being fanatical? *** When thier president who claims to be representing law abiding gun owners, stands up and states "They (presumably the legal authorities) can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands" to tremendous applaus, most people do not see Mr. Rogers promoting safe sportsmanship. That sort of silliness, members who wear fatigues to gun shows and anti-gun-law rallies, and of course death threats sent to people like Wendy Cukier, tend to leave a people with a bad impression. To say that these guys represent sporting gun owners is like saying that the large biker gangs represent motorcycle riders. They may have started out as an organization dedicated to promoting safe gun sportsmanship but they have allowed the political fringe to tarnish their credibility. "From my cold dead hands" is a rallying cry. Charlton Heston quoted it when he was given an antique rifle in appreciation for his contributions to the NRA. It was not entirely inappropriate. Again, as we've repeatedly try to explain to you, legitimate gun ownership is not limited to sporting purposes, and neither is the NRA. As stated in a previous post, I agree that many gun enthusiasts could help the image of gun owners in general by toning down the fatigues, etc., but beyond that, none of the concessions you've suggested are justifiable or reasonable. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. It's about defense. Semi-automatic weapons are far superior to bolt action rifles in most defense scenarios. As the facts I posted clearly state, assault weapons are really not a major problem in the U.S. The vast majority of criminals use pistols because they are so easily concealable. Removing every "assault weapon" from the United States would not even make a noticeable dent in violent crime statistics. Comparing owners of "assault weapons" to smokers is a false analogy because smokers endanger the public every time they smoke; whereas, you'd be hard pressed to find an "assault weapon" owner who has ever endangered the public. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

If you haven't used something in the last year or two, the chances are you don't really need it. Some people are obviously quite happy to cart a shed load of stuff around that they don't use. Personally I can't be arsed which is why I don't carry a canoe around with me either. I haven't used my reserve parachute in the last year or two. I haven't used the seatbelts in my car in the last year or two. I haven't used the fire extinguisher in my house in the last year or two. Shall I go on? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I'm not saying this is the reason, but it is worth pointing out that gun crime is the highest in the states with the strictest gun laws. To most of us, this issue isn't about the number saved or lost; it's about having the right to defend oneself, without being completely dependent on the government. Didn't answer my question. Let's try again. Why are the homicide rates so much higher in the US than in other western nations where this so-called "defense" is not available. The rate of other violent crimes is not so different from nation to nation, just homicides. We're a more violent country than most western nations. We always have been. Our culture is less homogenized than most western countries, and we have a pretty significant class divide. The violence written into our nation's DNA is the biggest factor. Readily available guns make it easier for some of that violence to be carried out, but as I've already stated, most of us agree that that's not a good enough reason to ban them. I've lived in America my whole life (27 years). I've never seen a shooting, and I've never seen someone brandishing a firearm in public. I have known a couple of people who've accidentally shot themselves in the foot or leg, but idiots are usually capable of hurting themselves without guns. Statistically, I believe your odds of being killed by a gun in America are about the same as your odds of being killed on a skydive. If you avoid violent neighborhoods, don't get involved with gangs, and don't handle firearms without proper training, your odds get MUCH better. Most level-headed Americans simply aren't that worried about gun violence. There are plenty of other threats that are much more likely to kill us. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I was actually amazed at how common this misconception was, as the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban neared its sunset. I had an absurd number of people ask me if I planned on buying a machine gun once they were legalized again. They were shocked when I told them that the ban had nothing to do with machine guns. It didn't help matters that media outlets unfamiliar with the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic rifles did their parts to perpetuate the myth. CNN even did a piece where a police officer fired a fully automatic AK-47 at a stack of cinder blocks, obliterating the blocks, and told the audience that it was the type of gun covered by the ban. He then picked up a semi-automatic AK-47, identified it as a non-banned gun, and fired it at a piece of paper, while the camera focused on another set of cinder blocks, inadvertently (CNN claimed) giving the impression that not only were the banned guns fully-automatic (which they weren't) but also much more powerful (which they weren't). I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I'm not saying this is the reason, but it is worth pointing out that gun crime is the highest in the states with the strictest gun laws. To most of us, this issue isn't about the number saved or lost; it's about having the right to defend oneself, without being completely dependent on the government. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I'm am not on top of all the gun laws myself, but anyway I was not referring to fully automatic weapons but the ones that have been converted to semi-auto. I know that even here in Canada you could buy an AK (semi-auto) up untill the early 90's. I also seem to recall that there was a thread on this site about California banning the 50 cal sniper rifle (I could be wrong as I did not read the thread in depth so I apologise if I have my facts all wrong on this one). How someone could possibly protest that is beyond me. For that matter how could such a thing be legal in the first place? Anyway, I am just saying that the pro-gun lobby would do well with a little flexibility and some leadership that comes across as more balanced. Excerpt from "Gun Facts Version 4.1," Page 12-13. Copyright 2006, Guy Smith www.GunFacts.info, All Rights Reserved .50 CALIBER RIFLES Myth: .50s are the favorite weapon of terrorists Fact: Statistically speaking, the majority of terrorist attacks are in the form of bombings (90%), kidnapping (6%), armed attack (2%), arson (1%), firebombing (1%), and other methods (2%).65 Of the “armed attacks”, the most favored weapons used were fully automatic AK-47 rifles. Fact: A commercial .50 caliber costs upwards of $10,000 each, yet terrorists can buy the favored AK-47s in Pakistan for less than $200. They will opt for the more practical rifle. Fact: .50 rifles are heavy (20-35 pounds), expensive (from $3,000 to $10,000 each) as is the ammunition ($2-5 per each round for military quality), impossible to conceal (typically four feet long), most are single shot (slower to reload than a hunting rifle) and impractical for terrorist. Fact: .50 rifles have only been used in 18 crimes in the history of the United States.66 Myth: American gun makers sold .50s to terrorists Fact: This “study” by the anti-gun Violence Policy Center was inaccurate. The rifles in question were sold to the United States government. The U.S. government gave the rifles to Afghan freedom fighters to defeat the former Soviet Union. There is no direct connection and none of the rifles have been used in terrorist actions.67 Myth: .50 caliber shooters are terrorists in training Fact: The average .50-caliber enthusiast is a successful businessman with an annual income of $50,000 or more – hardly a terrorist profile.68 Myth: The Founding Fathers would have had no use for a .50-caliber rifle Fact: Common guns of the early American republic were larger than .50 caliber, many measuring up to .812 caliber. The famous Kentucky Rifle (a name eventually given to most rifles made by German immigrants) was usually .60 to .75 caliber. Myth: .50s are capable of piercing airline fuel tanks from a mile away Fact: Most expert long distance shooters cannot hit a stationary target under perfect, windless weather conditions at such distances (with one notable exception in Vietnam69). Ill trained terrorists shooting a high-recoil .50 caliber rifle at a fast moving target – such as a 600 mph airplane – have no chance. Myth: The bullet from this gun can penetrate concrete bunkers Fact: "It takes 300 rounds to penetrate 2 meters of reinforced concrete at 100 meters.”70 At $5 per round, it would cost a terrorist $1,500 in ammunition to shoot into one bunker. Myth: The .50 caliber round is capable of piercing light armor at 4 miles71 Fact: "At 35 meters distance [0.5% of the mythical distance], a .50 round will go through one inch armor plate."72 Fact: "It is exceedingly difficult to hit a target, even a large one, on one shot at anything over 1200 to 1500 yards by even highly trained individuals ... The ammo is designed for a machine gun, and is generally only good for 2-3 minutes [fraction of a degree] of accuracy. That equates to a 30-45 inch circle at 1500 yards with a perfect rifle, no wind or other conditions and a trained shooter."73 Myth: .50 caliber rifles can knock a helicopter from the sky Fact: The terminal energy of a .50 caliber (6,000 ft-lbs) is not enough to knock a modern military aircraft from the sky unless it hits a critical component like a fuel line. Records exist showing this has been done with common, smaller caliber assault rifles such as AK-47s. Myth: These guns are for snipers Fact: Americans have been long distance target shooters since revolutionary times. According to writings of the time and using simple Kentucky long rifles and muskets, Americans were shooting small targets upwards of 150 yards.74 Fact: “The use of it [.50 caliber] by the IRA in Northern Ireland to shoot both soldiers and police officers at very short range (never more than 275 yards) also gave the weapon a worldwide notoriety when the world's media slapped a ‘sniper’ label on the terrorists taking the shots. They obviously were not and soon ran scared when professional snipers were deployed to stop them.”75 65 Dexter Ingram, “Facts and Figures About Terrorism”, Heritage Foundation, September 14, 2001 – some attacks had multiple methods 66 General Accounting Office, “Weaponry: .50 Caliber Rifle Crime”, Report no. OSI-99-15R, revised Oct. 21, 2001 67 Barret Manufacturing letter on their web site available January 12, 2001. Confirmed during a visit by the BATF according to Dave Kopel in a National Review article “Guns and (Character) Assassination”, December 21, 2001 68 Congressional testimony of John Burtt, Fifty Caliber Shooters Policy Institute 69 C. Sasser and C. Roberts, "One Shot, One Kill: American Combat Snipers in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Beirut", referring to Marine Sniper Carlos Hathcock 70 “An Infantryman's Guide to Combat in Built-up Area" (MOUT) field manual 90-10-1, US Army, May 1993 71 Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senate testimony, March 9, 2001 72 “An Infantryman's Guide to Combat in Built-up Area" (MOUT) field manual 90-10-1, US Army, May 1993 73 Ibid 74 Clayton Cramer, “Firearms Ownership & Manufacturing In Early America”, unpublished, available at www.ClaytonCramer.com 75 Mark Spicer, “Sniper”, Salamander Books Ltd., 2001 I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

This is true and I agree that some of the radical anti-gun types tend to go to extremes with thier views to the point where supporting gun owner rights is almost politically incorrect. I think where the pro-gun community gets hurt is with thier representation and their tendency to see sinister intent behind gun legislation. For example many pro-gun types like to refer to historical figures that have advocated gun control such as Hitler and Stalin as a basis for thier fear based argument. The rational being that if gun control is acheived then we will live in a totalitarian state. What they miss is that most politicians who go for gun control are not budding Hitlers but merely responding to a the wishes of a portion of their voting base and are at worst political opportunists who are doing so to win a few votes. When they start fear mongering about totalitarianism their credibility plummets. I beleive in the right to own firearms and I see the value in being able to protect your family from violence but again the pro-gun lobby needs to take a step back and see how thier representatives come across to the average non-gun owner. If they can work to change that image they will make more headway. It would also do them well to show some flexibility with respect to gun laws. Why do so many gun advocates get upset when a state tries to ban military style firearms? Many non-gun owners have no problem with the guy who wants to own a shotgun or hunting rifle, and they may not even have a problem with the idea of pistols or concealed carry laws, but when you read about people who own an assortment of AK-47's, AR-15's and G3's that tends to fuel thier concerns about the pro-gun community. This is true and I agree that some of the radical anti-gun types tend to go to extremes with thier views to the point where supporting gun owner rights is almost politically incorrect. I think where the pro-gun community gets hurt is with thier representation and their tendency to see sinister intent behind gun legislation. For example many pro-gun types like to refer to historical figures that have advocated gun control such as Hitler and Stalin as a basis for thier fear based argument. The rational being that if gun control is acheived then we will live in a totalitarian state. What they miss is that most politicians who go for gun control are not budding Hitlers but merely responding to a the wishes of a portion of their voting base and are at worst political opportunists who are doing so to win a few votes. When they start fear mongering about totalitarianism their credibility plummets. I beleive in the right to own firearms and I see the value in being able to protect your family from violence but again the pro-gun lobby needs to take a step back and see how thier representatives come across to the average non-gun owner. If they can work to change that image they will make more headway. It would also do them well to show some flexibility with respect to gun laws. Why do so many gun advocates get upset when a state tries to ban military style firearms? Many non-gun owners have no problem with the guy who wants to own a shotgun or hunting rifle, and they may not even have a problem with the idea of pistols or concealed carry laws, but when you read about people who own an assortment of AK-47's, AR-15's and G3's that tends to fuel thier concerns about the pro-gun community. Every time I walk into a gun show and see booths draped in confederate flags and salesmen decked out in full fatigues, I want to go, "Are you kidding me? Is this really the image that's going to convince Mr. and Mrs. America we're not a bunch of nuts?" So to that extent, I agree with what you're saying. With that said, you seem to have bought into a lot of the propaganda about military style weapons. Can you tell me what is more dangerous about an AR-15 or a semi-automatic Kalashnikov (AK-47) than a semi-automatic hunting rifle of a similar caliber? The answer is "nothing." Despite often being referred to as "high powered rifles" by the media, most "assault weapons" actually fire smaller, less powerful rounds than most hunting rifles. They're also less accurate than most hunting rifles. The sniper rifle the military used for many years was simply a heavy barreled version of a hunting rifle that can be purchased at any Wal-Mart. A gun designed for hunting can just as easily kill you just as dead as a gun designed for military application. Being scary looking does not make a gun more dangerous. Portraying "Assault Weapons" (I use the quotation marks because true assault weapons are select fire, meaning they can be switched to fully-automatic) as evil killers is the anti-gun lobby's way of discrediting many honest, law abiding gun owners and making a partial gun ban seem reasonable to those ignorant about firearms. Here is an excerpt from "Gun Facts Version 4.1," Page 26-28. Copyright 2006, Guy Smith, www.GunFacts.info, All Rights Reserved Myth: Assault weapons are a serious problem in the U.S. Fact: In 1994, before the Federal "assault weapons ban", you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon”.142 In the first year since the ban was lifted, murders declined 3.6%, and violent crime 1.7%.143 Fact: Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1%144 Fact: Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the former Federal and California "assault weapons" confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides.145 Fact: Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem: For California: • Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%) involved an "assault weapon". • San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were "assault weapons". • San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were "assault weapons". • “I surveyed the firearms used in violent crimes...assault-type firearms were the least of our worries.”146 For the rest of the nation: • Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were "assault weapons". • Just over 2% of criminals that used guns used “assault weapons”. Fact: Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons are models covered under the 1994 "assault weapons" ban.147 Fact: In Virginia, no surveyed inmates had carried an "assault weapon" during the commission of their last crime, despite 20% admitting that they had previously owned such weapons.148 Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime”.149 Fact: Even the government agrees. “ . . . the weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban - since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes”150 Myth: One out of five police officers killed are killed with assault weapons151 Fact: This “study” included firearms not on the former Federal “assault weapons” list. Including various legal firearms152 inflated the statistics almost 100%. Fact: Only 1% of police officers murdered were killed using “assault weapons”. They were twice as likely to be killed with their own handgun.153 Myth: Assault weapons are favored by criminals Fact: Only 8% of criminals use anything that is classified (even incorrectly) as an "assault weapon"154, though fewer than 1% claimed to use these firearms when committing crimes.155 Fact: Criminals are as likely to carry single shot (derringer) handguns than they are to carry "assault weapons".156 Fact: "Assault rifles have never been an issue in law enforcement. I have been on this job for 25 years and I haven't seen a drug dealer carry one. They are not used in crimes, they are not used against police officers."157 Fact: "Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that "assault weapons" are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."158 Thoughts: “Assault weapons” are large and unwieldy. Even misclassified handguns tend to be bigger than practical for concealed carry. Criminals (who, incidentally, disregard concealed carry laws) are unlikely to carry "assault weapons." Myth: Assault weapons can be easily converted to machine guns Fact: Firearms that can be “readily converted” are already prohibited by law. Fact: None of the firearms on the list of banned weapons can be readily converted.159 Fact: Only 0.15% of over 4,000 weapons confiscated in Los Angeles in one year were converted, and only 0.3% had any evidence of an attempt to convert.160 Fact: Recall the Rodney King riots in that anti-gun city of Los Angeles. Every major news network carried footage of Korean storeowners sitting on the roofs of their stores, armed with “assault weapons”.161 Those were the stores that did not get burned to the ground, and those were the people that were not dragged into the street and beaten by rioters. "You can't get around the image of people shooting at people to protect their stores and it working. This is damaging to the [gun control] movement."162 Myth: Assault weapons are used in 16% of homicides Fact: This figure was concocted to promote an “assault weapons” bill in New York. The classification scheme used encompassed most firearms sold in the U.S. since 1987 (center fire rifles and shotguns holding more than six cartridges, and handguns holding more than 10 rounds). By misclassifying “assault weapons”, they expanded the scope of a non-problem. Myth: The 1994 (former) Federal Assault Weapons Ban was effective Fact: “ . . . we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”163 Fact: The ban covered only 1.39% of the models of firearms on the market, so the bans effectiveness is automatically limited. Fact: "The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”164 Fact: "The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”165 Fact: "The ban triggered speculative price increases and ramped-up production of the banned firearms”166 Fact: "The ban … ramped-up production of the banned firearms prior to the law's implementation”167 and thus increased the total supply over the following decade. Fact: The Brady Campaign claims that “After the 1994 ban, there were 18% fewer "assault weapons" traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994”. However they failed to note (and these are mentioned in the NIJ study) that: 1. “Assault weapons” traces were minimal before the ban (due to their infrequent use in crimes), so an 18% change enters the realm of statistical irrelevancy. 2. Fewer “assault weapons” were available to criminals because collectors bought-up the available supply before the ban. Myth: Nobody needs an assault weapon Fact: There are many reasons people prefer to use these firearms: • They are easy to operate • They are very reliable in outdoor conditions (backpacking, hunting, etc.) • They are accurate • They have value in many self-defense situations Fact: There are many sports in which these firearms are required: • Many hunters use these firearms • Three-gun target matches • Camp Perry competitions, especially the Service Rifle events • DCM/CMP competitions • Bodyguard simulations Fact: Ours is a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. "No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control." Washington Post editorial September 15, 1994 "Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic, purely symbolic move ... Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer, Syndicated Columnist, The Washington Post, April 5, 1996 141 Department of Defense Small Arms Identification and Operations Guide 142 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994 143 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, Preliminary Summary, 2004 144 Gary Kleck, “Targeting Guns”, 1997, compilation of 48 metropolitan police departments from 1980-1994 145 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1993 146 S.C. Helsley, Assistant Director DOJ Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California, October 31, 1988 147 From statewide recovery report from Connecticut (1988-1993) and Pennsylvania (1989-1994) 148 Criminal Justice Research Center, Department of Criminal Justice Services, 1994 149 Philip McGuire, Handgun Control, Inc., April 7, 1989, Mohr C. "House Panel Issue: Can Gun Ban Work." New York Times. April 7, 1989. P. A-15 150 “Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96.”, National Institute of Justice, March 1999 151 This claim was made by the anti-gun Violence Policy Center in their 2003 report titled “Officer Down” 152 The “study” included legal models of the SKS, Ruger Mini-14, and M1-Carbine, which were all in circulation before the federal “assault weapons” ban and which were excluded from the ban. 153 “Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted”, FBI, 1994 154 Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Firearm Use by Offenders”, November 2001 155 Ibid. 156 Ibid 157 Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Constance, Trenton NJ, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Aug 1993 158 Ibid 159 BATF test as reported in the New York Times, April 3, 1989 160 Jimmy Trahin, Los Angeles Detective, Congressional testimony, Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, May 5, 1989, 101st Congress, 1st Session. May 5, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. p. 379 161 Washington Post, May 2, 1992 162 Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Washington Post, May 18, 1993 163 “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003”, National Institute of Justice, June 2004 164 “Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96.”, National Institute of Justice, March 1999 165 Ibid 166 Ibid 167 Ibid I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Reference(s)? FBI UCR, and equivalent reports from other nations. See the two posts that preceded yours. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Well, for starters, you're assuming that nobody in the U.S. ever uses legally owned guns for self-defense. Some statistics suggest that legally owned firearms are brandished and/or fired in self defense, by American civilians, approximately two-million times each year. Also, you're still basing your assumptions on the known, while completely discounting the unknown. By being armed, there are certain catastrophic scenarios for which Americans are most likely much better prepared than citizens of countries that don't allow gun ownership. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.