So are you saying that most gun deaths or shootings are caused by criminals?

The statistics I am quoting on deaths, yes... information on non-fatal shootings is a bit more difficult to dig up. I am in process of researching it.

Most gun deaths in the USA are either homicide, making the shooter a criminal, or they are police against a criminal.... or they are accidental.

Remember if a police officer shoots someone dead when it isn't justified, that makes the police officer a criminal...

So, 11078 firearm homicides vs 606 accidental firearm related deaths... Yes, it looks like criminals are WAY out front in that horse-race.

Even *IF* the shooter was NOT a criminal before committing murder by firearm, they certainly are afterwards...

So your question doesn't really make sense.

You are correct, I didn't word it clearly. What I meant to ask is whether the shootings are being mostly committed by people who are career criminals, because pretty much they are the only ones that are going to try and get an illegal gun. Most murders are crimes of passion or on the spur of the moment, so these people are unlikely to go to the trouble of getting an illegal gun for a crimes they weren't planning to commit.

So my question is, who are the people actually using guns to shoot people?

---

Reality Internet Personality

I got different numbers.

230 justifiable homicides by citizens in 2010.
8,257 by criminals 2010
309 by law enforcement, on or off duty, justifiable or criminal. 2013
This doesn't count suicides or accidental shootings.

How many of the 8,257 criminal would have been justified if the other guy had a gun? The good part is most of the 8,257 were gang bangers banging each other. But they are all fine church goers when those with an agenda report the numbers. Most church goers give up the watch and live. It's the occasional wacko that gets all the ink; as long a he doesn't use a knife.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_2013

---

With shotguns, why do you even need a shot capacity of 5? 1 or 2 should be sufficient if you only need it to defend against wild beasts.

And pistols, seriously, again without restrictions on caliber its again possible for civilians to carry hand cannons around. Those things are again way to much firepower (they aren't even practical).
at.

I respect everyone's opinion but these kinds of statements always crack me up. They are made by folks who have never been in harms way. Until you have been in harms way you do not know what you are talking about. Just how cool can you keep looking death in the eye with only one or two chances to survive and your wife and children are behind you counting on you to save them from dieing.

When it comes down to protecting your family and your self you can never have enough fire power. So until we get to your 'Perfect World' me and mine are armed to the teeth.

---

...

So? The AR-15 is a civilian weapon. Like the M-16, it fires a 5.56mm (.223) round. What do you object to? The way it looks?
Not exactly a 'high powered round'.

No, but an AR-15 is literally an M-16 that can only shoot semi-automatic. I think its ridiculous to say that civilians can use the exact same guns as they use in the military as long as those guns can only shoot semi automatically. How does that make those guns any less deadly or any more safer than giving them actual military rifles that can shoot on full auto?

AFAIK a 50 caliber HANDGUN is legal. I wouldn't use one. Too much of a 'wrist-breaker'. Heck, a 44-magnum is a wrist-breaker.

Sniper rifles used to be exclusively bolt-action, but I have heard of an M1-Garand being used as a sniper rifle. It is a WWII-era US Infantry weapon that is gas-operated semi-automatic, 8-shot 'clip'. Btw, it is a 30-06 caliber round (7.62x63mm, a bit longer than the .308... same bullets though.)..
Guess what, the 30-06 is also POPULAR in hunting rifles. And, last I checked, the M1 is perfectly legal for civilians to own.

Yeah, used to be bolt action. There are also semi-auto ones. Definitely some of the .50's are semi-auto.

Oh, I am not a gun nut. I just grew up around them and have a reasonably good memory and some individual preferences. Believe it or not, there are some people that eat, sleep, drink, and POOP guns... To each their own, I suppose.

Poop guns? You might want to see a doctor if that happens ;)

You answered your own question here. Guns are relatively easy to get illegally. Our borders (land and sea) are VERY porous. Look at the 'War on Drugs'. Total fuster-cluck. Made things MUCH worse. Prohibition (the 'War on Booze') didn't work either. Made things MUCH worse. Do I think that a 'War on Guns' would end well? Heck no I don't.

You reduce the availability of guns, the criminals are just going to horde what they have and keep using them.

The reason its easy to get guns illegally is because its easy to get them legally. Plenty of supply, therefor low prices and easy availability. Reduce supply, prices go up, it becomes harder to get guns. Sure, initially the ones that have guns are going to horde them and use them. But then they get caught, their guns get confiscated and destroyed, and slowly you reduce their supply even further. Will it completely solve gun crime? No, and it will take some years before you really start to notice the effects. But it will work.

And maybe the mistake Americans make is that they declare war on all their problems. The war on poverty, the war on death, the war on terror, the war on drugs. It shows a rather blunt and one sided approach to a problem.

Uhh... That would be 'lack of balls'. ;) Even your criminals have been... neutered, it seems. Its why Putin is giving you all such troubles of late. He still has his.

Right, and it has nothing to do with the fact that guns are expensive, hard to get (you need connections to the hardcore criminal organizations) and is generally not worth the risk (pull a gun on someone when robbing a store for maybe a few hundred euros and immediately risk a much higher jail time and police effort to find you. And pull that gun on the police while trying to escape and you are also more likely to get shot. Lack of balls or common sense?

Ok... a moment.

Accidental discharge of firearms .............. (W32–W34) 606

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf
Table 10, page 40 of 118.

606 deaths due to accidental discharge of firearms in 2010 in the USA... 606 too many, to be sure, but still not quite a raging epidemic.

Still almost 2 people a day that die because of it, most of them children.

Hello everyone :) Okay... please don't get mad... the link below isn't very recent, but I came across it whilst pondering a possible link between paranoia and gun ownership. (This was in part brought up by the high profile trial of the South African, Oscar Pistorius, and discussions I have had with friends who have no concept of why anyone would want or feel the need to have a gun in a bedroom. loaded or not. I do not understand it myself either - but I know of it from having spent a few years in apartheid South Africa. There, the risk of having a gun pulled on you, for example, by an angry motorist for something as innocuous as allowing a vehicle driven by a non-white to pull into the lane of traffic ahead of you - particularly if you were a woman - was very high indeed. :/)

South Africa's gun laws used to reflect those of the USA, but only with regard a very small minority of the general populace in the former. What I mean by this is...

Amongst the white Afrikaans in apartheid South Africa, the percentage of gun ownership at least equalled or even exceeded that of America.

Despite recent attempts to curb gun ownership in that country, as has been the case in America, they are still almost exclusively owned by Afrikaans whites amongst whom there is heavy resistance to gun control, and a very high degree of paranoia and distrust/fear of their fellow man.

This is over a year old but is sort of relevant to my point...
Historian says Opposition to Gun Control is Grounded in the Paranoia of Post-Civil War America

So... :) Is it a difference of culture, or are some nations just a little less paranoid do you think?

Ps. I have only ever used one weapon - a pineapple (against a mugger) and it worked very well.

Pps. I don't carry one around with me at all times - though sometimes wonder whether I should

Ps. I have only ever used one weapon - a pineapple (against a mugger) and it worked very well.

That made me smile. In WWII this was called a "pineapple".

---

No, but an AR-15 is literally an M-16 that can only shoot semi-automatic. I think its ridiculous to say that civilians can use the exact same guns as they use in the military as long as those guns can only shoot semi automatically. How does that make those guns any less deadly or any more safer than giving them actual military rifles that can shoot on full auto?

Yes, the AR-15 *IS* an M-16 with the full-auto firing mode removed. Even the later models of M-16 (specifically the M-16A2 and M-16A4) had the 'full-auto' mode removed and replaced with a 3-round 'burst' mode (3 shots per trigger pull). The military considered this to be superior. Note: the 3-round burst mode is *STILL* illegal for civilians. The distinction between bolt-action/semi-automatic (1 shot per trigger pull) and full-automatic/burst mode (multiple shots per trigger pull) *IS* (in almost all cases) the legal difference of importance between military and civilian firearms. Besides, many VERY popular 'hunting' rifles use ammo that is bigger than the little .223 pop gun of an M-16. The single shot at a time semi-auto IS safer than the 'spray and pray' full auto. You are a LOT less likely to hit the wrong target with semi-auto than with full auto.

I don't think you understand much about guns. ANY firearm is deadly. You can kill someone just as dead with a .22S ('22 Short') as with a > .50 caliber 'elephant gun'.

Civilians are restricted from full-auto/burst fire modes. Proper control of these weapons takes some special training and lots of practice. Even the US military has pretty much gotten away from full auto on standard infantry weapons. Danger of friendly-fire and collateral damage causalities
and all.

In WWI, the standard US infantry rifle was the 03-Springfield. A 30-06 bolt action.

In WWII, the standard US infantry rifle was the M1-Garand. A 30-06 semi-automatic.

Then the standard US infantry rifle went to the M-14 (same design as the M1, but used the shorter 7.62mm NATO (.308 Winchester) round. Again, semi-automatic.

During the Vietnam war, the US military adopted the M-16 (5.55x45mm NATO), initially with a full-auto mode, later dropped down to 3-round burst mode.

Even the military has decided against full-auto for its standard Infantry rifle.

I agree that civilians have no need for fire-modes greater than semi-automatic. But semi-automatic should be and needs to be legal.

There are a few differences between military/law enforcement weapons and civilian weapons. Four that come to mind are:

Main importance:

1. Fire mode. The most important.
2. Ammo type. Also very important. Military/law enforcement is permitted ammo that differs from what civilians are allowed. Amount of 'gun powder' is one difference. Law enforcement, for instance, is allowed to obtain ammo with a bit higher of a 'gun powder' charge than civilians are allowed to buy. Also bullet design. Military and law enforcement make frequent use of things such as 'armor piercing' ammo. Civilians are not allowed to possess/use this.

The next two are of some controversy, and the law is going back and forth on allowing/restricting these for civilian use.

3. Magazine capacity. Some military weapons have insanely high magazine capacities that civilians have absolutely no need for. Things like 100 (or more) round 'snail drums'. But, other than that, attempts to force smaller magazines (especially on handguns) won't do a thing. It only takes about 2 seconds to eject one magazine and snap in another. It doesn't really matter if the magazine only holds 8 or if it holds 10 to 20 rounds....

4. The LEAST important. Appearance. Cosmetic Features. Things like folding stocks, and 'military design'. I suppose that some people think it makes the weapon 'look scarier'. But, speaking as one that has been both shot AT (multiple times) and shot (once -- I don't like to talk about it... hurt like a mofo), *any* time a firearm is pointed at me, it is scary. I don't care if it is some little pop gun or if it is a .50 caliber machine gun... Deadly is Deadly.

Note: The definition of assault rifle depends on either cosmetic features and/or magazine capacity. IE NOT VERY IMPORTANT.

The reason its easy to get guns illegally is because its easy to get them legally. Plenty of supply, therefor low prices and easy availability.

A survey of incarcerated felons in 1983 by the US Department of Justice showed that criminals use small-caliber, small-frame, inexpensive handguns in less than three percent of violent crimes.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08357.v1

And maybe the mistake Americans make is that they declare war on all their problems. The war on poverty, the war on death, the war on terror, the war on drugs. It shows a rather blunt and one sided approach to a problem.

I agree. The approach is definitely counter-productive. Full of (remember the term?) unforeseen consequences.

The 'lack of balls' comment of mine was a joke... hence the ';)' I put in it.

Still almost 2 people a day that die because of it, most of them children.

Lets look again at the data source I quoted.

Accidental discharge of firearms .............. (W32–W34)
Total 606
By age group:
<1 year –
1 - 4 : 25
5 - 14 : 37
15 - 24 : 145
25 - 34 : 107
35 - 44 : 91
45 - 54 : 89
55 - 64 : 50
65 - 74 : 38
75 - 84 : 19
>=85 : 5
Not stated –

Again the source:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf
Table 10, page 40 of 118... Data for 2010.

The 15-24 year age range is a bit ambiguous because it includes both adults and children.

The unambiguous children (1-4, and 4-14) total 62
The unambiguous adults (25 and older) total 399
The unambiguous adults make up almost 2/3rds of the total (65.8%)

Hardly 'most of them children'. Now I have already said that 606 deaths due to accidental firearm discharge is 606 too many. But once again, that is hardly the fault of the firearm, but the fault of the firearm owner for not having taken... suitable precautions.

When my children came along, I either got rid of my guns, or placed them into secure off-site storage (the few that are family heirlooms, etc.). I am careful, and do NOT want my kids to accidentally get injured or killed. I was also taught gun safety by both my father (when I was a child) and by a former employer (when I had to carry a gun on the job). Its a shame that others are not equally as careful.

With shotguns, why do you even need a shot capacity of 5? 1 or 2 should be sufficient if you only need it to defend against wild beasts.

And pistols, seriously, again without restrictions on caliber its again possible for civilians to carry hand cannons around. Those things are again way to much firepower (they aren't even practical).
at.

I respect everyone's opinion but these kinds of statements always crack me up. They are made by folks who have never been in harms way. Until you have been in harms way you do not know what you are talking about. Just how cool can you keep looking death in the eye with only one or two chances to survive and your wife and children are behind you counting on you to save them from dieing.

When it comes down to protecting your family and your self you can never have enough fire power. So until we get to your 'Perfect World' me and mine are armed to the teeth.

Why don't you tell us your story of when this happened to you and how the gun saved you.

---

Reality Internet Personality

KWSN..

We agree on censorship.

I have posted, and been in touch with the Moderator's, regarding this issue.

Guess it's just the 'American' in us.

I'm sorry you thought it was just the feminist cabal comments that were the issue. It shows how embedded sexism is that you can't even see it...and don't threaten people with the moderators while complaining that someone has been threatened with moderators. Free speech cuts both ways. I get to have it too.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Yes, the AR-15 *IS* an M-16 with the full-auto firing mode removed. Even the later models of M-16 (specifically the M-16A2 and M-16A4) had the 'full-auto' mode removed and replaced with a 3-round 'burst' mode (3 shots per trigger pull). The military considered this to be superior. Note: the 3-round burst mode is *STILL* illegal for civilians. The distinction between bolt-action/semi-automatic (1 shot per trigger pull) and full-automatic/burst mode (multiple shots per trigger pull) *IS* (in almost all cases) the legal difference of importance between military and civilian firearms. Besides, many VERY popular 'hunting' rifles use ammo that is bigger than the little .223 pop gun of an M-16. The single shot at a time semi-auto IS safer than the 'spray and pray' full auto. You are a LOT less likely to hit the wrong target with semi-auto than with full auto.

So essentially you are giving civilians military weapons with a fire mode that only makes guns more likely to hit what they are aimed at. How is that a good idea?

I don't think you understand much about guns. ANY firearm is deadly. You can kill someone just as dead with a .22S ('22 Short') as with a > .50 caliber 'elephant gun'.

Of course, although I would argue that you still have a better chance if you are hit by 9mm rounds compared to something coming out of a .50 sniper rifle. But that aside, this is exactly the reason you should be careful with guns and not just make them available to everyone without a criminal record and enough money. They are carrying deadly weapons around for which most people have absolutely no use.

Civilians are restricted from full-auto/burst fire modes. Proper control of these weapons takes some special training and lots of practice. Even the US military has pretty much gotten away from full auto on standard infantry weapons. Danger of friendly-fire and collateral damage causalities
and all.

I thought the full auto was mostly there for suppression fire. Though I suppose that works equally well with 3 round bursts.

I agree that civilians have no need for fire-modes greater than semi-automatic. But semi-automatic should be and needs to be legal.

Why?

3. Magazine capacity. Some military weapons have insanely high magazine capacities that civilians have absolutely no need for. Things like 100 (or more) round 'snail drums'. But, other than that, attempts to force smaller magazines (especially on handguns) won't do a thing. It only takes about 2 seconds to eject one magazine and snap in another. It doesn't really matter if the magazine only holds 8 or if it holds 10 to 20 rounds....

I suppose the logic behind forcing smaller magazines for civilian weapons is that you make it harder for people to carry a lot of ammo around. This way it possibly weighs more and takes up more space. Of course, a spree shooter who is intent on killing as many people as possible probably won't be deterred by this, but for everyone who is not planning on murdering as many people as possible it restricts how much ammo they carry around.

A survey of incarcerated felons in 1983 by the US Department of Justice showed that criminals use small-caliber, small-frame, inexpensive handguns in less than three percent of violent crimes.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08357.v1

You realize that study is from 1983? My guess is that demographics and the use of guns may have changed since then.

The 'lack of balls' comment of mine was a joke... hence the ';)' I put in it.

Yeah, but then you started talking about Putin, so I thought it was serious :P

Lets look again at the data source I quoted.

Accidental discharge of firearms .............. (W32–W34)
Total 606
By age group:
<1 year –
1 - 4 : 25
5 - 14 : 37
15 - 24 : 145
25 - 34 : 107
35 - 44 : 91
45 - 54 : 89
55 - 64 : 50
65 - 74 : 38
75 - 84 : 19
>=85 : 5
Not stated –

Again the source:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf
Table 10, page 40 of 118... Data for 2010.

The 15-24 year age range is a bit ambiguous because it includes both adults and children.

The unambiguous children (1-4, and 4-14) total 62
The unambiguous adults (25 and older) total 399
The unambiguous adults make up almost 2/3rds of the total (65.8%)

I stand corrected.

Hardly 'most of them children'. Now I have already said that 606 deaths due to accidental firearm discharge is 606 too many. But once again, that is hardly the fault of the firearm, but the fault of the firearm owner for not having taken... suitable precautions.

When my children came along, I either got rid of my guns, or placed them into secure off-site storage (the few that are family heirlooms, etc.). I am careful, and do NOT want my kids to accidentally get injured or killed. I was also taught gun safety by both my father (when I was a child) and by a former employer (when I had to carry a gun on the job). Its a shame that others are not equally as careful.

Yeah, but for every responsible adult that ensures that their children do not have access to guns or the ammo to use them there is one that is lazy, forgetful or just outright stupid and leaves a loaded gun laying around the house where one mistake can have deadly consequences.

But sure, often nothing happens, but I think it is indicative of how many Americans view deadly weapons: a toy. Hell, some manufacturers even market it as a toy. And they will be more careful around their kitchen knives then around a gun.

Ps. I have only ever used one weapon - a pineapple (against a mugger) and it worked very well.

That made me smile. In WWII this was called a "pineapple".

I see the resemblance. :) Given how bad I am at throwing, it's probably just as well it wasn't one of those... I would no doubt have blown myself up

Other defensive weapons

Going back a bit in this thread...
There is one big difference between guns and knives.
With a knife the assailant has to be "up close and personal" with the victim, and it is very much one at a time. With a gun (excluding the small "up the shirt sleeve" types) the assailant can be some distance away, a few yards with a small hand gun, or hundreds of yards with a rifle, and with either type can attack a number of victims in a very few seconds. Automatic fire allows more damage to be caused, or more fear generated (more often than not the latter).
And yes, a knife in the wrong hands is a deadly weapon, so is a gun, or a fist...

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

So essentially you are giving civilians military weapons with a fire mode that only makes guns more likely to hit what they are aimed at. How is that a good idea?

You keep missing my point. You have claimed that the M-16 is 'too powerful' for civilians in its AR-15 civilian version. I say it isn't. Here is why:

The 5.56x45 NATO cartridge used in the M-16 uses a 4g (62 grain) bullet has a muzzle velocity of about 3100 feet per second.

Compare this to the 30-06 cartridge (7.26mm) -- a VERY popular hunting cartridge. Using a popular bullet mass of 9.7g (150 grains -- they come much more massive) it is also capable of a muzzle velocity of about 3100 feet per second. Almost 2.5x the mass and nearly identical muzzle velocities.

Kinetic Energy equals 1/2 * mass * square of the velocity. 2.5x the mass = 2.5x the *WHACK* when it hits, ceteris paribus. Simple physics.

A standard HUNTING RIFLE is WAY more powerful than a bloody M-16, for gosh's sake.

I repeat, why do you object to an AR-15 (civilian version, no burst/full auto mode)? It *LOOKS* scary? That is the only thing left to complain about. To me, ANY firearm pointed at me looks scary... The gun's appearance isn't what is dangerous.

Yeah, but for every responsible adult that ensures that their children do not have access to guns or the ammo to use them there is one that is lazy, forgetful or just outright stupid and leaves a loaded gun laying around the house where one mistake can have deadly consequences.

But sure, often nothing happens, but I think it is indicative of how many Americans view deadly weapons: a toy. Hell, some manufacturers even market it as a toy. And they will be more careful around their kitchen knives then around a gun.

I agree that there are an awful lot of lazy, forgetful, or outright stupid (to use your words) people out there in the world. The USA does NOT have a monopoly in that respect, though we likely do have a bit more than our Fair Share of 'em.


The schools here in the USA are already teaching automobile operation and safety (driver's education) and sex safety too (sex-ed)... Perhaps a mandatory (no opt-out possible) class on firearm operation and safety might do some good... Especially with a visit to prison to hear convicted murders (that used guns) serving life-in-prison sentences tell about how much they screwed up their lives. Perhaps... Just a thought.

As to 'toys' and the M-16... When it was introduced, it got a bad reputation among soldiers as having been 'made by Mattel' mostly because it had a lot of plastic parts (replacing use of wood in older weapons) that tended to break. Mattel was a manufacturer of plastic toys such as Barbie dolls. And it didn't help that Mattel also made a toy M-16 (rather realistic looking).

But that said, I do not allow my children 'toy guns', and heavily discourage 'gunfire play'. A firearm is a serious, dangerous tool, not a plaything. I also don't let them near lawn mowers or chain saws for that same reason.

But responsible, law-abiding, non-crazy adults? I don't have any problem whatsoever with them owning/using guns.

An AR-15? I have no use for one... don't want one... But if others do, why not?

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Why don't you tell us your story of when this happened to you and how the gun saved you.

Sorry but I repeat until you have been there you will not understand. It is like describing the color red to a blind person.

---

...

You keep missing my point. You have claimed that the M-16 is 'too powerful' for civilians in its AR-15 civilian version. I say it isn't. Here is why:

The 5.56x45 NATO cartridge used in the M-16 uses a 4g (62 grain) bullet has a muzzle velocity of about 3100 feet per second.

Compare this to the 30-06 cartridge (7.26mm) -- a VERY popular hunting cartridge. Using a popular bullet mass of 9.7g (150 grains -- they come much more massive) it is also capable of a muzzle velocity of about 3100 feet per second. Almost 2.5x the mass and nearly identical muzzle velocities.

Kinetic Energy equals 1/2 * mass * square of the velocity. 2.5x the mass = 2.5x the *WHACK* when it hits, ceteris paribus. Simple physics.

A standard HUNTING RIFLE is WAY more powerful than a bloody M-16, for gosh's sake.

I repeat, why do you object to an AR-15 (civilian version, no burst/full auto mode)? It *LOOKS* scary? That is the only thing left to complain about. To me, ANY firearm pointed at me looks scary... The gun's appearance isn't what is dangerous.

Most hunting rifles aren't semi automatic and while they are more powerful they their design makes them also slightly more difficult to handle outside careful hunting scenarios. Modern assault rifles however, are designed with the military and its needs in mind. That means the rifle has to be useful in combat scenarios. Now, why would you give civilians a rifle that is basically just a military rifle only with no burst or full auto fire options? I mean, I get that hunting rifles might be legal for anyone who wishes to hunt, I just do not understand the logic behind allowing weapons like an AR-15 or an AK-47 to be sold to civilians.

And that is just the Assault rifles. Then we aren't even talking about cases where people can legally get their hands on .50 semi automatic sniper rifles, things that again, were designed for the military to take out armored cars or targets from over a kilometer away.

But to be honest, only a fraction of all gun murders is done with rifles. Most are pistol related. Which to be honest, I do not understand why everyone can have those. They aren't designed for hunting, they are easy to conceal, cheap and therefor ideal weapons for criminals.

I agree that there are an awful lot of lazy, forgetful, or outright stupid (to use your words) people out there in the world. The USA does NOT have a monopoly in that respect, though we likely do have a bit more than our Fair Share of 'em.

Oh of course. But in most other countries those idiots can't leave loaded guns around the house where they can cause deadly accidents. Our idiots are still idiots but less of a danger to their surroundings and more just a danger to themselves.

The schools here in the USA are already teaching automobile operation and safety (driver's education) and sex safety too (sex-ed)... Perhaps a mandatory (no opt-out possible) class on firearm operation and safety might do some good... Especially with a visit to prison to hear convicted murders (that used guns) serving life-in-prison sentences tell about how much they screwed up their lives. Perhaps... Just a thought.

Probably not a bad idea considering that any alternative that involves restricting access to weapons is unrealistic.

Why don't you tell us your story of when this happened to you and how the gun saved you.

Sorry but I repeat until you have been there you will not understand. It is like describing the color red to a blind person.

Who says I haven't?

Tell me about the situation where you needed your gun to save your life. I'm interested.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Most hunting rifles aren't semi automatic and while they are more powerful they their design makes them also slightly more difficult to handle outside careful hunting scenarios.

Мишель I disagree with the last part of that statement. You obviously have not handled very many hunting rifles. Or have been hunting very much. There is no such thing as carefull hunting scenario unless you are in a fenced in canned hunt ( Which are unsportsman like anyway IMO )
The best handling hunting rifle I ever owned was Winchester model 94 lever action. I still regert selling it over 30 yeras ago. Any rifle or shotgun I ever owned was well balanced, wieghed what I wanted to carry all day and handled just fine in the real world of hunting. In fact my AR-15 comes in well over two pounds heavier than my Remington model 700 in 30.06 caliber with a scope.

---

[/quote]

Old James

and your event was?

---

...

and your event was?

You're the one complaining that no one can understand what its like to have your life in danger. I lived for 20 years in one of the roughest parts of London, so there have been one or two incidents. I never thought any of them would have been made better by me having a gun.

---

Reality Internet Personality