No I don't plan to travel outside the US, why would I? Everything I love or need is right here.

I totally reject the view that banning of firearms has worked elsewhere, if that were so there would be NO INSTANCES of firearms being used in crimes of violence in those venues, which you know is not true, most recently a man in Wiggies own corner of the British Commonwealth murdered his family in this supposed haven from the evil firearm. All were confiscated so how could this occur?

Those who choose to remain in their coma of denial are welcome to do so as I have repeatedly stated, it's no difference to me. But if the time should ever come when we are in the same place and threatened by a violent madman, rest assured I will defend YOUR right to life as vehemently as I will defend my own.

But I will not die on my knees begging for my life.

The case in Wiggies country, was way out in the outback, it was on a farm and the firearm used was a shotgun.

...corner of the British Commonwealth...

There is no 'British Commonwealth', not since 1949, the 'Commonwealth of Nations' has been in existence before Queen Elizabeth II was crowned, and was elected as Head of the Commonwealth in 1953.

Contrary to belief, not all Member States are former Members of the British Empire, and most Member States are Republics.

I'll leave an Australian Citizen to answer your public slur on Australia, as they are best placed to respond, but know that attacking one member of the Commonwealth is an attack on all of the Commonwealth, the people of these Sovereign States are not only our friends, trading partners, and military allies, they are often family.

---

Thanks to lobbyists like the NRA, there can be no central database of who owns fire arms.
Step inside the National Tracing Center, where gun-related mysteries are solved with the help of a billion little slips of paper.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N118jYj2cA
However there are central databases of who owns vehicles.
https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/pia-cars-database-system-information
Make no sense to me.

In addition, handguns were not banned, target shooting with handguns was banned in 1997, but back then there was no right to use firearms for self protection, not since 1946. Repeal of the 1997 Legislation would only restore Target Shooting with handguns, a Sport.

As a Qualified Deer Stalker I am currently able to legally apply for a handgun for Humane Dispatch.

I won't be though, because the 1997 Legislation is so poorly written that I would be effectively legally incompetant with a firearm in a Public Place, and I regard that as a Safety Issue.

No gun here is 'banned', they are just made very difficult to source both legally and illegally, and I am fine with that, especially having served in the UK Military (which is no passport to Private Ownership of Guns BTW), I don't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry being able to walk about with lethal weapons as a Right.

Gun Ownership is for Sport and as a Tool in Countryside Management, and is rightly held up as a privilege for mature and responsible adults, with compulsory Third Party Insurance to the tune of £10 Million, after rigorous assessment by the Police.

Mature and responsible people do not defend their argument with silly Memes, or use language about shooting at a problem, a type of person, group, or religion; they contunously moderate their own public discourse to show that they are mature, responsible and Law Abiding always. So that they may continue to hold the privilege of Gun Ownership.

The fact is, your 2nd Amendment is a notion that almost the entire Rest of the World finds as a madness in modern Western Civilisation.

---

The fact is, your 2nd Amendment is a notion that almost the entire Rest of the World finds as a madness in modern Western Civilisation.

Yep an 18th century parchment dictating to a 21st century civilisation.

What is the average response time for Police (not that handgun in your pocket that you think is the Police), where you live?

It got so bad they stopped tracking it. Yes seriously, they are taking that long. Exception is "shots fired, officer down." That runs about 5 minutes. However in Alaska the time could be measured in days.

So, would you be happy with 8 minutes?

I'd be happy if they showed up at all.

Last time we had to call about a crazy person threatening people at work it took the LAPD 3 hours to show up. Fortunately the LAFD made him the filling in a burrito blanket and took him off to be evaluated long before then. And their communication was so great the LAPD didn't know the LAFD had handled their call.

At my house the response time is much better, perhaps because a lieutenant in the local police department is down the block?

As to 8 minutes, when I was a young kid the LADP had a set response time of 5 minutes to a call. They are that short of officers, but have plenty of them to do DWB stops and other useless things.

@ Gordon..... It's not about paranoia, it's about being PREPARED for a situation that COULD happen

I respect your feelings about this, JE. You definitely make a good case.

Back in 1989, I was working part-time at AAA, and all of a sudden I saw and heard police car after police car racing down the street. It turned out to be a disgruntled employee who came in to shoot some people at the newspaper plant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Gravure_shooting If some of those people had been armed, maybe there would have been less loss of life.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

But Gordon, what other civilised country in the world would allow a person to get hold of a Polytech AK-47S (a Chinese-made semiautomatic AK-47 derivative), a SIG Sauer P226 9mm pistol, and a duffel bag containing two MAC-11s?

@ Gordon..... It's not about paranoia, it's about being PREPARED for a situation that COULD happen

I respect your feelings about this, JE. You definitely make a good case.

Back in 1989, I was working part-time at AAA, and all of a sudden I saw and heard police car after police car racing down the street. It turned out to be a disgruntled employee who came in to shoot some people at the newspaper plant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Gravure_shooting If some of those people had been armed, maybe there would have been less loss of life.

Exactly the point Gordon, mass shooters are first and foremost COWARDS. This is proven by the fact they always choose so called 'safe places' or 'gun free zones' like schools, concert venues, or their former or current workplace instead of Police stations or Gun Shops. And when confronted by someone else who is also armed and WILLING to engage they quickly change their mind and surrender or run away(Parkland and Santa Fe).

Again, that person confronting the shooter needs to be trained and pass a certification of proficiency and safety which is part and parcel of Concealed Carry Licensing.

I do not support universal 'right to carry' without proper training and regulation. This is one of several positions on which I differ from the NRA. Also such training and licensing answers the anti-2nd Amendment cries of 'well regulated militia'. I also DO support background checks for all firearms sales or transfers, provided it is the same COMPREHENSIVE background check performed when applying for a CCW License.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

coward is the wrong word, suicidal is the correct word. it is a mental health issue and the sooner mental health issues are reported to a database so the guns can be removed the better.

(never mind 3/4 of the nra is paranoid)

[I do not support universal 'right to carry' without proper training and regulation. This is one of several positions on which I differ from the NRA. Also such training and licensing answers the anti-2nd Amendment cries of 'well regulated militia'. I also DO support background checks for all firearms sales or transfers, provided it is the same COMPREHENSIVE background check performed when applying for a CCW License.

It's only by conversing that we can find that all of us have more nuanced and agreeable positions on issues than superficially apparent. Meme pics just don't express it. :^) I would say a majority of people who would seem to be "anti-second amendment" or whatever would be for ownership and perhaps even CC with the requirements of background checks, a license, registration and training. This isn't to keep people from protecting themselves (which a simple ban would do more overtly) but simply to make it safer for everyone, and more difficult for criminals and the insane to acquire firearms.

Yes, some still will depending on desperation or money, but a solution doesn't have to be 100% effective to be better than nothing (ie we still lock our doors when we go out even though it isn't 100% effective and there are workarounds, because if you make it difficult enough the majority of criminals will give up.)

---

As to 8 minutes, when I was a young kid the LADP had a set response time of 5 minutes to a call. They are that short of officers, but have plenty of them to do DWB stops and other useless things.

Authorised Firearms Officers (AFO's) responded to the London Bridge Attack, and shot dead all the terrorists wielding knives with 8 minutes of the first 999 (911/112) call.

AFO's are Police with many years service, who first need the approval of their superiors before embarking on the series of tests for selection as an AFO Candidate; this includes a series of interviews, psychological and physical fitness tests, medical examinations, and assessment days, before permission is given to start AFO Training.

One of the requirements is that AFO Candidates are also Qualified Pursuit Drivers with several years experience, Pursuit Driving also has rigorous selection but those suitable have undertaken a minimum of 680 hours Advanced Pursuit Driver Training, with a Pursuit Test, see below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVtQ4NN5_-Q

Not all Officers pass the Advanced Driving Course, and it is a requirement for applying for an AFO position, there is no guarantee of success, candidates can be returned to their previous role at any point during training.

When training commences, Candidates spend a week getting to learn about a handgun, from field stripping to marksmanship, then a six weeks basic tactical training using Semi-auto Assault Rifles, they learn skills such as dynamic intervention, dynamic entry, but even a basic trained AFO can then receive further training as a Specialist Firearms Officer, getting a higher level of training, including advanced methods of entry and in the use of specialist weapons and equipment.

Throughout their service AFOs must pass refresher training and retests to maintain authorisation to carry firearms, in addition Health and Fitness problems result in temporary or permanent suspension from firearms duties.

Whilst they have 'Standing Authority' as an AFO to carry a sidearm, deployment of other weapons requires authorisation from an 'appropriate authorising officer' of Inspector rank or higher.

All of the above training is based on Special Forces Training, and the courses were developed with the involvement of the SAS/SBS.

We start with a basic recruit spending months at a Police College, then in the field standard Policing, then returning to Police College to undertake tests that are pass/fail, they have two years Probation, and at any point can be removed from the Police Service.

We have, arguably, the best trained Police in the World, and it will take a long time before any Brit would campaign to carry firearms for self protection, one day it might come, but that would be a long time off, and we'd ensure that the Selection, Training (including Refresher Training) , Testing (including retesting), and Licensing would at least match the basics that an AFO has to master, to be eligible for Concealed Carry, at the candidates expense, with no guarantee of course completion, or authorisation.

As it is I support the repeal of the Target Shooting Ban on Handguns, but I can never see this ever happening in my lifetime.

---

I do not support universal 'right to carry' without proper training and regulation. This is one of several positions on which I differ from the NRA. Also such training and licensing answers the anti-2nd Amendment cries of 'well regulated militia'. I also DO support background checks for all firearms sales or transfers, provided it is the same COMPREHENSIVE background check performed when applying for a CCW License.

There's some correlation in thinking between us, even if its just touching base, I would suggest that membership of a 'well regulated militia' should be a prerequisite for Firearms Ownership under your 2nd Amendment, currently you have nothing regulated and no local militia to join, where we differ is in the licensing, and registration, and what might be comprehensive to you might not be comprehensive enough for me.

Then again, you have frequently pointed out that this has nothing to do with me, and I accept that, but surely if you accept the need for a CCW Licence, then the logical step should be your Militia should issue you with a Regulated Licence to enable you to buy Firearms. The sticking point would be who regulates the Militia, and I think the Regulation should come from your Constitution, you need to Amend the 2nd Amendment to enable it to take on the regulatory role for any State Militia.

So there's light at the end of a tunnel, you lot just need to walk towards it, and agree on how the 2nd Amendment does it's job.

---

you need to Amend the 2nd Amendment to enable it to take on the regulatory role for any State Militia.

The problem with your solution is the composition of the UNITED States. We are technically 50 separate sovereign entities joined in a consensual Union. The 'State' militias are governed by the State in which they are resident and can ONLY be deployed by order of that State's Governor (the problem encountered by President Trump with regards to California border policing).

We are extremely protective of our States rights versus the dictates of the Federal Government. Any changes(Amendments)to the Constitution must be passed by both houses of Congress and then approved in referendum of voters by 2/3 of the States.

Then there is that very inconvenient portion of the 2nd Amendment that states simply (though not to some 'interpreters') "....shall not be infringed......". Infringement.......according to Webster:

infringed; infringing
transitive verb
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

As the 2nd Amendment states that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, any limitation of that right can be considered 'infringement'. We have taken the stance that Military grade weapons are not allowed in private ownership except in very special circumstances and with extensive Federal oversight.

To be clear, an AR style rifle as sold to civilians is NOT a military grade weapon, for many reasons.

We both agree that firearms have a lethal capability and should not be handled or used without proper training and without proper attitude. The big division in thinking I see on this subject can be simply explained by POV.

2nd Amendment supporters believe that each person is capable of learning to own, store and use a firearm responsibly and can be trusted to do in most cases.

2nd Amendment repealers do not believe that anyone is capable of responsible firearms ownership or making rational decisions and so must be prevented from possessing them. That's not what 'freedom of choice' is about.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

And what about all them dead school kids that will never be to contribute to the whole?

I'm sorry, but your stupidity knows no bounds.

To be clear, an AR style rifle as sold to civilians is NOT a military grade weapon, for many reasons.

I thought your post was a pretty good one...
...until I saw that bullsh*t.

The grade of the weapon , from what I've seen on these gun threads is not in dispute, what is though is that THEY are semi automatic weapons. FOR what legitimate purpose can a civilian put forward to own such a weapon?

Personal protection is not a good enough reason.

To be clear, an AR style rifle as sold to civilians is NOT a military grade weapon, for many reasons.

I thought your post was a pretty good one...
...until I saw that bullsh*t.

The grade of the weapon , from what I've seen on these gun threads is not in dispute, what is though is that THEY are semi automatic weapons.

Any amount of automation makes it a military grade weapon. A revolver isn't automated. A bolt action rifle isn't automated. A pump action shotgun isn't automated. Any automation it is a military grade weapon and the person who wants to own it can if he can get the BATF to issue him a tax stamp! None of this violates the second and it fixes 99% of the problem. Which is why it will be violently opposed.

The other issue is getting mental unstable people on a list and requiring that list to be checked before a firearm changes hands. Again this doesn't violate the second and it fixes a large part of the problem. Which is why it will be violently opposed.

Fair enough, but my main question is still unanswered. Why does a civilian want to own a SAW & for what purpose?

I thought your post was a pretty good one.....until I saw that bullsh*t.

It's even more amazing when a certain male wants to control whether a female wants to abort an unwanted pregnancy, but allows other males to abort school kids lives by the handful.

Some people really need to do some deep soul searching.

The difference is there, only men are allowed to perform abortions :-)