Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

dudeone

US gun owners show off their Christmas 'toys'

362 posts in this topic

It may be "unknown", but only by people such as yourself. The fact is, restrictions on certain types of weapons has worked all over the world. The evidence has been posted in many threads, since Newtown.

You seem to keep clinging to this idea that people are different in the US and that "research" needs to be done to find out what this fundamental difference is.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is able to see the obvious answer: That the US has a lot more guns than the rest of us and they make it much easier for people to get their hands on them.

Americans aren't crazier, nor angrier than other nationalities. However, this continued resistance to common sense limitations on weapons which are not necessary for hunting or personal protection, shows that they are certainly in denial.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So afraid? So now because my room is in the basement and I have a German Shepard, who is an awesome family dog and I have guns to hunt and target practice, which are in a locked safe that can be accessed easily, this all makes me so afraid?

I'm sick of your comments, you are truly retarded and have no idea what your even typing. What's the harm in having a little bit of security? All it takes is one time that's it. Sure it may never happen, I don't loose sleep at night.

But also just the other day 4 people broke into a house around me, all of them had weapons, including a gun. The home owner was taken to hospital.

Just because you think we live in a perfect world and nothing could ever Happen doesn't mean I have to, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm afraid of everything.

I honesty feel sorry for you, if you think nothing could ever happen to you.

i personaly have had to deal with 3 break ins in various places. Take a guess on what police response time is 15 km out of town.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if retarded hurt your feelings, your either not very smart, or ignorant of the facts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be "unknown", but only by people such as yourself. The fact is, restrictions on certain types of weapons has worked all over the world. The evidence has been posted in many threads, since Newtown.

You seem to keep clinging to this idea that people are different in the US and that "research" needs to be done to find out what this fundamental difference is.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is able to see the obvious answer: That the US has a lot more guns than the rest of us and they make it much easier for people to get their hands on them.

Americans aren't crazier, nor angrier than other nationalities. However, this continued resistance to common sense limitations on weapons which are not necessary for hunting or personal protection, shows that they are certainly in denial.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if retarded hurt your feelings,  your either not very smart, or ignorant of the facts.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans have a violence problem in general, it's not limited to murder and shootings, you just wish to focus on this as your demon du jour coincidentally when incidents occur and it's all over the media.

The US is not "the rest of the world". There is a different mindset in the US, there are different laws, different approaches to freedoms. You don't work within a country's constructs by pointing out how "the rest of the world" is. That's a non-starter with US politics.

This is much like dealing with a child with learning disabilities or some other ailing mental problem. You first find out what their problem is, then work with them individually in the manner that helps them learn and function correctly. Going by your approach, you just tell them that the rest of the school is fine and to do things the way the others are. I fully expect in your retort to go "but guns aren't like children therefore *plugs fingers in ears and goes 'la la la la la'*!".

Your approach to a problem ignores past failures of your idea, ignores what is actually in the realm of realistic to change, and demonstrates an inability to recognize the US problem is unique given the circumstances within the country. So until youcan change the way you approach it, you're stuck on the same problem many others on this forum are.. pitching unrealistic ideas and ignoring both the way the US does things, the failed attempts at gun control in the past, and it's own sovereignty.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Z, but I don't buy the "we're different here in the states" argument. IMO, it's a cop-out intended to deflect attention away from the dreaded gun-control idea.

You may think that we're stuck on gun control, but the way we see it, you've got your eyes and ears closed and are hoping the whole problem will just go away.

It won't. Not until Americans wake up and admit that guns are the problem.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not my feelings that need protecting. Just makes you look ignorant using that as an insult.

You also make a lot of assumptions--that my pitying you and your fear was based on owning a german shepherd, or living in a basement? Truly bizarre assumptions.

Also, I don't think we live in a perfect world.

I don't think nothing could ever happen to me.

Your post is so full of of bizarre assumptions I don't even know where to start.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies for the personal attack. Guns and gun ownership are a hot topic fr me because almost everyone who tries to talk about the subject have no idea what they are talking about, and just rely on the media.

Also sure I may be assuming but all you have been doing is assuming. You assume because I own firearms and would use them if necessary to protect my family that I'm afraid of the boogeyman. You couldn't be any further from the truth.

I'm pretty sure this is what you said "Man I just feel sad for you guys.. So afraid."

That was after I mentioned my guns were quick to access in my safe, and that my room is in the basement and that I have a German Shepard.

So your ether assuming because of all those things I'm afraid or mostly the owning a firearm part? Again a terrible assumption. You don't know me from Adam, so to assume that I'm a terrified person because I own a few firearms is rediculuse.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hard to not make those sort of assumptions based on your past posts such as:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Z, but I don't buy the "we're different here in the states" argument. IMO, it's a cop-out intended to deflect attention away from the dreaded gun-control idea.

You may think that we're stuck on gun control, but the way we see it, you've got your eyes and ears closed and are hoping the whole problem will just go away.

It won't. Not until Americans wake up and admit that guns are the problem.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japan is a country full of people who do crazy things, yet gun violence has basically been eradicated.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

It's amazing. Even if the numbers aren't 100% accurate and all incidents of gun violence haven't been reported, Japan is without a doubt way down the list for violent crime involving guns.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to drop the banhammer on hammers and clubs. :)

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.

And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

While the FBI makes is clear that some of the "murder by rifle" numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.

Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.

The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional. We face far greater danger from individuals armed with carpenters' tools and a caveman's stick.

And it seems fairly obvious that if more people had a gun, less people would be inclined to try to hit them in the head with a hammer.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I have learned from almost 9 years on this board, is that the longer you are around, the more you find that you have in common with people whom you first thought were at odds with your opinion on virtually everything. This thread is a perfect example: It's one of the few times that inane and I have agreed on something. As time passes, I'm sure there will be others.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the NRA has its way gun owners will have new accessory toy to play with - a silencer.

Silencers: The NRA’s latest big lie

Silencers could give the next Adam Lanza even more time to kill -- but to the NRA, they protect kids' hearing

BY ALEXANDER ZAITCHIK

A gruesome holiday season exercise: Think of some firearms and accessories that might have added to the body counts of Aurora and Newtown. More starkly, imagine the means by which coming Auroras and Newtowns will be made more deadly.

The exercise starts with a militarized baseline, as both shooters unloaded designed-for-damage rounds from high-capacity magazines loaded into assault rifles. Improving their killing efficiency would require one of two things: the ability to shoot more bullets faster, or more time. A fully automatic machine gun would provide the first. More minutes to hunt, meanwhile, might be gained by employing a noise suppressor, those metallic tubes better known as silencers. By muffling the noise generated with every shot by sonic booms and gas release, a silencer would provide a new degree of intimacy for public mass murder, delaying by crucial seconds or minutes the moment when someone calls the police after overhearing strange bangs coming from Theater 4 or Classroom D. The same qualities that make silencers the accessory of choice for targeted assassination offer advantages to the armed psychopath set on indiscriminate mass murder.

It should surprise no one that the NRA has recently thrown its weight behind an industry campaign to deregulate and promote the use of silencers. Under the trade banner of the American Silencer Association, manufacturers have come together with the support of the NRA to rebrand the silencer as a safety device belonging in every all-American gun closet. To nurture this potentially large and untapped market, the ASA last April sponsored the first annual all-silencer gun shoot and trade show in Dallas. America’s silencer makers are each doing their part. SWR Suppressors is asking survivalists to send a picture of their “bugout bag” for a chance to win an assault rifle silencer. The firm Silencero — “We Dig Suppressors and What They Do” — has put together a helpful “Silencers Are Legal” website and produced a series of would-be viral videos featuring this asshole.

This Silencer Awareness Campaign is today’s gun lobby in a bottle. The coordinated effort brings together the whole family: manufacturers, dealers, the gun press, rightwing lawmakers at every level of government, and the NRA. Each are doing their part to chip away at federal gun regulation in the name of profits and ideology. Together, they plan to strip the longstanding regulatory regime around silencers, and reintroduce them to the gun-buying public as wholesome, children-friendly accessories, as harmless as car mufflers.

In case you’re wondering, the answer is yes, the gun lobby’s grand strategy rests grotesquely on fake concern for child hearing health. Among the opening shots in the campaign was a feature in the February 2011 issue of Gun World, “Silence is Golden,” penned by the veteran gun writer Jim Dickson. “One only has to look at children in the rest of the world learning to shoot with silencers, protecting their tender young ears, to see what an innocent safety device we are talking about here,” writes Dickson. “To use an overworked propaganda phrase, legalize silencers ‘for the sake of the children.’” [Emphasis mine.]

Proponents of healthy hearing will be heartened to know the NRA shares Gun World’s concern for America’s tender young ears. The organization officially entered the silencer-awareness fray in November of 2011, around the time the Utah-based American Silencer Association was founded. It’s opening statement took the form of an article posted to its lobbying division website: “Suppressors: Good for our hearing… And for the shooting sports.” With this piece, the NRA finally acknowledged the relationship between health care costs and guns.

“Billions of dollars are spent every year in our healthcare system for hearing loss conditions, such as shooting-related tinnitus,” explained the NRA. It was a very important point that had long been overlooked in the gun control debate; because if there is a single pressing gun safety issue in America today, it is the hearing, comfort and convenience of recreational shooters who find orange earplugs unsightly. The NRA is also extremely concerned about the fright children may receive from shooting or standing near the reports of high-caliber weapons. These jolts could have a lasting and detrimental developmental impact, possibly imbuing America’s impressionable and tender young brains with the notion that guns are loud, dangerous things. The NRA firmly believes that American freedom is best served by giving 9mm gunfire the feel and sound of a toy cap gun. As the NRA’s Lacey Biles put it during last April’s Dallas Silencer Shoot, silencers are good for “getting younger folks involved [in guns]. They’re less afraid of the loud bang.”

For these reasons, the NRA believes America must “move to eliminate the laws, regulations and policies that discourage or prohibit suppressor use.”

And move we have. The NRA has enjoyed state-level success chipping away at restrictions on the use of silencers around the country, an effort that has proceeded largely unnoticed in the shadows of higher-profile battles over the spread of Concealed Carry and Stand Your Ground laws. Silencers are currently legal with permit in 40 states, a growing number of which are rescinding bans on their use while hunting.

The gun lobby’s silencer campaign has bigger prey in mind than state hunting laws. Silencers are among the few accessories regulated by the National Firearms Act. To purchase or transfer a silencer, you must acquire a special license, enter the serial number in a federal registry, and pay a $200 fee. (The fee, which equaled a de facto ban in 1934, has not been adjusted for inflation in 79 years.) For gun extremists who struggle with introductory-level American history and political theory, the licensing regime is half Stamp Act, half Yellow Badge. What most outrages the manufacturers about the regime is that it works. By licensing silencers, tracking and taxing their exchange, the government has kept them from flooding the market like so many other military-market gun accessories with cameos in recent massacres and serial sniper attacks. “Simple licensing requirements weeds out both blatant criminals and a certain kind of stockpiling insurrectionist who refuses to engage with the federal government,” says Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “The law has been effective.”

Aside from offering a very expensive alternative to earplugs, what conceivable sporting or personal-defense purpose is served by pouring silencers into a gun market dominated by semi-automatic pistols and assault rifles? If history offers any useful clues, and it usually does, the answer is none. The history of the silencer is a twentieth century tale populated by Mafiosi hits, hidden snipers, and special ops ambush teams. It all adds up to decades worth of “negative branding baggage” that the gun lobby is now trying to scrub away like a used car-salesman winding back the speedometer on a lemon.

The silencer began innocently enough. When Hiram Percy Maxim patented the first silencer in 1908, he was just a nice fellow working in the family business, a guy who simply enjoyed finding ways to make loud things quiet. Among Maxim’s many other inventions was an early muffler design for car engines. A quarter-century later, silencers still hadn’t acquired the bad rep they have today. Their best-known criminal use at the time of the 1934 law was as an aid in late-night poaching.

Society did not form its lasting perceptions of the silencer in the decades of Percy’s .22 pistols and midnight pig poaching. The image the NRA must scrub is the one that formed early in what might be called the Second Silencer Age, when a new breed of steel “cans” emerged and became associated with rapid, discreet, controlled killing. The silencers the gun lobby is trying to mainstream can make ninjas of high-caliber handguns, long-barrel sniper rifles, and assault weapons, all commonly featured in military-themed silencer ads. The Second Age that produced these tools was commenced not by a charming dynastic American industrial engineer with wide interests like Percy Maxim. Rather, it was born in the rural Georgia kill-gadget lab of a notoriously cracked and ruthless CIA black ops contractor, known in gun circles as the Wizard of Whistling Death.

* * *

Mitch WerBell gained his reputation for cold-blooded efficiency during his days with the CIA’s wartime precursor, the OSS. After the war he maintained his ties to the Agency as a man who could be depended on to figure out how make problems go away. His accomplished his revolutionary leap in silencer technology in 1967, during a short break from international intrigue. The previous year, federal agents raided WerBell’s mercenary training camp in Florida, where he was in the final stages of preparing an army of Miami-based Cubans to invade Haiti and oust “Papa Doc” François Duvalier.

WerBell patented his silencer under the name of his boutique weapons development firm, SIONICS, or Studies In the Operational Negation of Insurgents and Counter-Subversion. WerBell’s silencer was the first to successfully muffle automatic and semi-automatic weapons fire. On some weapons, the silencer also increased accuracy and power. Knowing he had a big breakthrough on his hands, WerBell convinced a group of rich investors that his invention would make them new fortunes, and just maybe win the Cold War for the West along the way. Oddly, the gang of investors included the eccentric and liberal antiwar philanthropist Stewart R. Mott. According to some accounts, WerBell sold Mott by telling him the principles behind the silencer could be adapted to lawn mowers and other devices to reduce suburban noise pollution.

WerBell’s silencer not only decreased the volume of the gun’s report and increased its accuracy; it also reduced the powder flash of machine gun fire, opening up new possibilities for nighttime ambush and assassination missions. WerBell packed his silencer and flew to Indochina, where he wowed American and South Vietnamese brass. Orders from the Pentagon soon followed, and in 1968 WerBell began large-scale production of his silencers under a SIONICS subsidiary he named Environmental Industries, a sarcastic reference to his intended contribution to solving the strains of overpopulation.

The timing of the new silencer’s introduction to Vietnam was just right for business. By 1968, the U.S. had pivoted from away from its early strategy that included an effort to “win hearts and minds,” and had embraced a model of search-and-destroy exemplified by the death squads of the CIA’s Phoenix Program. The M-16s carried by these special units were retrofitted with SIONICS silencers. They soon reported increased lethality and accuracy in ambushes and targeted killings. In his out-of-print 1978 masterpiece, “Spooks,” former Harper’s editor Jim Hougan reports that Green Beret officers singled WerBell’s invention out for praise in Congressional budget hearings.

According to Hougan, WerBell consumed the Army’s official kill counts like a 12-year-old reads box scores. From his compound in Georgia, he relished Pentagon data demonstrating his silencer’s economy and lethality. In the late 1970s, he boasted to Hougan that Army rifles equipped with his silencers helped kill nearly 2,000 Vietcong in the first six months, and reduced the number of bullets per kill to one-point-three rounds, a feat he boasted was “the greatest cost-effectiveness the Army’s ever known.” Whatever the actual numbers, the SIONICS silencer was widely recognized as a huge advance in the science of killing. WerBell emerged from the shadows to become a patriotic cult hero to the fathers of those now agitating for silencer deregulation. In 1972, WerBell played a starring role in David Truby’s admiring study of these new tools and their uses, “Silencers, Snipers, and Assassins: An Overview of Whispering Death.”

WerBell didn’t stop tinkering after reinventing the silencer. He also developed the gun he thought his silencer deserved. The result was the ultimate greaser. The ultra-sleek and compact MAC 11 weighed and sized little more than a conventional pistol and spat 14 bullets per second, or 850 a minute. Had WerBell been working today, he might have produced a semi-automatic version for the civilian market. In the early 1970s, the Pentagon was the only game in town. WerBell fought hard for but failed to land a massive contract to make the MAC a standard-issue weapon. Had he succeeded, SIONICS might be a household name today. (This is how gun empires are born. Gaston Glock designed his first gun competing in an open tender bid to produce a sidearm for the Austrian Army.)

The Pentagon’s rejection was the first of two that deepened WerBell’s bitterness at the government he served for so long. As he courted clients among foreign intelligence agencies, the State Department denied him an export license, arguing that the spread of WerBell’s silencers was likely to increase the risk of assassinations around the world. A sign of saner times gone by, there was in the early 1970s no American Silencer Association to help WerBell market his products to preppers with “bugout bags,” and no Wayne LaPierre or Chris Cox to strategize state and national-level assaults on the National Firearms Act. Instead, WerBell the Wizard of Whistling Death hit the road to peddle his remaining inventory on the global grey and black markets. He sold his wares out of a suitcase like the house-calling gun dealer in Taxi Driver, shooting up stacks of telephone books before giddy prospective clients who marveled over the little machine gun emitting such seductive sibilance, ssyyyt ssyyyt ssyyyt, the contract killer’s lullaby.

Before leaving the sideshow stage of history, WerBell made one last lunge for greatness. His hopes of building a gun empire stymied, in 1972 WerBell began planning an amphibious invasion of a tiny Bahamanian archipelago known as Abaco, which was home to a small separatist movement. WerBell enlisted financial support from real estate mogul and Libertarian Party leader Mike Oliver, whose Phoenix Foundation existed to seed utopic Libertarian projects like the one WerBell imagined on the beaches of Abaco — an independent global tax haven, home of SIONICS headquarters, and the Undisputed Silencer Capital of the World. As with his planned invasion of Haiti eight years prior, WerBell was still training his mercenaries when the whole thing fell apart from infighting and a surprise visit from the Feds.

* * *

Telling Mitch WerBell’s story is just a long way of demonstrating why the new NRA-backed Hearing Heath First! silencer-promotion campaign is a particularly hideous and towering architectural example of the Gun Lobby’s Nouveau Bat crap Style, which if not ridiculed and condemned is guaranteed to crash down on all of us, leading to new and yet more lethal mutations in our national plague of gun violence.

There are very good reasons why the silencer industry is contending with a nasty case of Vietnam Syndrome. The reason the public associates silencers with death squads, assassination raids, and mafia hits is because these were the uses WerBell had in mind when he engineered them. They are also the uses to which they are best suited and most needed, if that’s the word. It wasn’t all that long ago that even the Freaks of Fairfax understood that the silencer’s dark reputation was deep and well deserved. As recently as 2000, the NRA showed a rare sensitivity for public perceptions and forbade a silencer manufacturer from exhibiting its wares at the NRA’s national convention. Kevin Brittingham, of the silencer maker Advanced Armament Co., says the NRA’s executive office called him before the millennial year convention in Charlotte and told him not to come. “We don’t want the news media focusing on your table and putting guns in a bad light,” the NRA explained.

A decade later, the NRA has cozied up to the industry view that everyone should have a silencer, and that the days are over when WerBell’s toys were the accessory love that dare not speak its name. The NRA now sees the widespread negative view of silencers as a branding problem to be corrected through advertising and public relations.

Toward this end, the gun lobby is on multiple fronts advancing the argument that silencer-phobia is the product of popular culture demonization and sensationalism.

“Unfortunately, too many Americans (including some gun owners) still fall victim to the unfair portrayals of silencers by Hollywood,” the NRA-ILA gently chides its members. Gun World’s Jim Dickson, meanwhile, prays for an America that allows its film industry to assist in “the transformation of an innocuous safety and noise-reduction device to a sinister assassin’s tool in the public mind.”

If anybody reading this needs one more nudge before abandoning in finality the idea of any kind of “dialogue” with the gun lobby, I suggest reading the NRA and the gun press bleat about the way violent movies have besmirched the good name of the honorable American silencer. They’re pointing to the same Hollywood gun makers routinely employ to product-place its wares, from best-selling pistols to fully automatic shotguns. (In 2011, Glock handguns made corporate cameos in 15 percent of No. 1 films.) The gun lobby pointing to Hollywood is as rich as Wayne LaPierre censuring video games, which thrives at the service of the gun-industry in ways we’re just now beginning to understand.

If the current campaign succeeds in delisting silencers from NFA regulation, the gun lobby likely won’t wait long before targeting the remaining regulatory regimes limiting the circulation of fully automatic machine guns and even hand grenades. Do not be surprised when you see a 2014 Gun World feature extolling freshwater blast fishing as a great way to connect kids and nature, while reducing the risks of fishing with sharp steel hooks, some of which have dangerous double jags. If you can’t see the safety rationale here, or the Freedom Logic that undergirds it, then you obviously do not care about America’s children and their millions of young tender fingers.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/silencers_the_nras_latest_big_lie/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wish someone bought me a gun for xmas. With all this talk of fire arms lately and mental people running around killing people I think I need to take up target shooting again. I used to belong to a gun club when i was 13 here in Victoria shooting .22 at targets I used to do ok.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suppressors have been around for approaching 100 years and with some exceptions aren't nearly as quiet as in the movies.

The other thing is, someone that wants one for illegal purposes can just make one themselves, even a potato stuck over the end of a barrel is very effective for one shot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suppressors have been around for approaching 100 years and with some exceptions aren't nearly as quiet as in the movies.

The other thing is, someone that wants one for illegal purposes can just make one themselves, even a potato stuck over the end of a barrel is very effective for one shot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.