Move to ban rifles at home gathers pace

[Ender]

Sure, their democracy works, and that is, technically, a good thing. But it also means that the entire course of government can be changed by a handful of special-interest types with no education or experience in the things they are trying to change, and that change is being driven by fear and misinformation.

Democracy working as it should: the reason we still have an issue with teaching Creationism in schools.

And thus ... hand-wringing by Americans? Hilarious. It's extremely amusing to hear people say that gun control is driven by 'fear and misinformation' when from my perspective that's what drives the American pro-gun agenda. Sadly, people get to decide how they're ruled... damn, eh? Turns out if a majority of your population believes stupid crap that stupid crap is culturally relevant ... who knew democracy would end like this? Oh yeah everyone!

That anyone can say with a straight face that 'gun control' (a term so vague as to be useless) might be necessary in some countries (implicitly excluding America and Switzerland) is absolutely astonishing. The hand-wringing is even more amusing given that I haven't read anything to suggest this has a chance of going anywhere; but the very SPECTRE of a country DARING to change it's laws to move away from American preconceptions is terrifying, damn their system for legal change must be BROKEN!

So we can now fully expect to never hear you criticize, say, Proposition 8/science standards/monetary & fiscal policy/UHC then? After all, you are not an American and it was decided on through a fully legal process, so by your argument here you would have no grounds to criticize it even though it moves away from your ideals. Which by your argument is what matters, not the rationality of the decision.

[Ryan Thunder]

Because you totally need the capability to be lethal at ranges exceeding 100m for home defense.

Well, jokes aside just about any firearm can be lethal at 100 meters, the threshold for energy behind a ‘significantly dangerous’ projectile or fragment is usually given as about 17 joules, which is less then half the muzzle energy of even a .22 rimfire round from a handgun barrel, about as weak as bullets get. This is why its really really dumb to start banning calibers of ammo or specific types of guns other then those that are full auto, it makes little difference in the end in how well they can kill. Hit placement is what will determine if you die. Bigger projectiles are more lethal, but more relevantly they are more likely to cause instantaneous incapacitation of the target. Very important when the job is home defence or hunting.

Only 17 joules? I was under the impression that the threshold was more like 69 joules. Mind you, that was in a military context, in an article about high-explosives or artillery shells (or something along those lines.) Perhaps they were taking body armour into account or something.

That aside, when I say lethal up to a hundred metres, I'm not talking about the bullets themselves so much as the effective range of the weapon/user combination. An assault rifle lets you hit targets that far away with some semblance of accuracy. A pistol won't be effective much further than perhaps 20-30 metres out, unless I'm mistaken. Could you hit anything with any sort of reasonable accuracy at that range using 12 gauge buckshot?

In any event, my point was that I think you could chose a weapon that would be better suited to home defense and less suited to, say, open warfare.

People who support banning specific types of guns though, almost always have the true agenda of seeking to ban all guns and simply see these partial bans as a stepping stone. In many cases anti gun groups openly state this as the objective and means by which they operate. Because of this, all truth about the relative danger of different types of gun are irrelevant, they’ll use any excuse or load of bullshit they can generate to try to justify banning as much as they can get in one law. This is also why those of us who support gun rights are pretty much forced to object to any and all new limitations even if we might agree with them.

So, we can't enact a "good" proposal because it was endorsed by an organization with a "bad" agenda? Wouldn't that be kind of like (hypothetically) not supporting laws that make DUI illegal because they were proposed by MADD?

[His Divine Shadow]

I believe have just demonstrated that the AR would be better suited for HD than a shotgun, it has less penetration and is thus safer for your surroundings with the right ammo. That it can also be used at longer ranges is not really relevant to it's use as a HD weapon. There is no rule that says the gun must suck at all other uses.

And if you really wanted you could shoot slugs through a shotgun. Those are lethal att 100 yard ranges though they are not that accurate, so out to 70 yards would be more probable. Slugs are huge fucking, well slugs of lead, they are used alot for bear defence as they are one of the few rounds that reliably can take down a large bear.

[Ryan Thunder]

I believe have just demonstrated that the AR would be better suited for HD than a shotgun, it has less penetration and is thus safer for your surroundings with the right ammo. That it can also be used at longer ranges is not really relevant to it's use as a HD weapon. There is no rule that says the gun must suck at all other uses.

I never said it had to suck at everything else. I'd just rather my next door neighbour didn't have the firepower of an army rifleman sitting in his bedroom closet or what have you. (And I say bedroom closet because it's not of much use as a HD weapon if you have to go all the way down to the cellar to get it.)

[Coyote]

People who support banning specific types of guns though, almost always have the true agenda of seeking to ban all guns and simply see these partial bans as a stepping stone. In many cases anti gun groups openly state this as the objective and means by which they operate. Because of this, all truth about the relative danger of different types of gun are irrelevant, they’ll use any excuse or load of bullshit they can generate to try to justify banning as much as they can get in one law. This is also why those of us who support gun rights are pretty much forced to object to any and all new limitations even if we might agree with them.

So, we can't enact a "good" proposal because it was endorsed by an organization with a "bad" agenda? Wouldn't that be kind of like (hypothetically) not supporting laws that make DUI illegal because they were proposed by MADD?

What Skimmer says is truth, and it unfortunately makes the gun-rights group take a more radical stance than would usually be necessary. In principle, I actually support the idea of requiring training, licensing, and registration. Unfortunately, in every US State and city that these rules have been made, they all were followed by bans and confiscations, even though the people pushing the restrictions promised that such would never happen.

The gun-ban groups have proven that they are not negotiating in good faith, and there is no reason whatsoever for gun owners to trust them when they say "it's just a safety measure; we're not looking for a ban".

[His Divine Shadow]

I never said it had to suck at everything else. I'd just rather my next door neighbour didn't have the firepower of an army rifleman sitting in his bedroom closet or what have you.

Well thats entierly up to you, I rather prefer he did. I like guns and the idea of people owning them, more AR owners as long as they are not nuts or criminals makes me happy. Different strokes, different folks.

(And I say bedroom closet because it's not of much use as a HD weapon if you have to go all the way down to the cellar to get it.)

Then don't keep it in the cellar if it's an HD weapon?

[loomer]

I know that I'd feel a hell of a lot safer if I owned a decent HD gun (ideally a high powered pistol, specifically a Sig P228, and a shotgun, just in case.) and my housemates did. At least you yanks, Finns, Swedes and other nationalities can actually have HD guns.

To give you some perspective, here in Aus, no firearm can be purchased for HD purposes and they have to be kept in a safe bolted to the house. That last part is sensible, but depending on where you keep said safe, it can also be a problem.

In terms of handguns, one of the ideal HD (and just general defensive) weapons, I can't own it if it fires anything higher caliber than .32 (9MM) or has more than nine rounds in the stock magazine. Now, that in itself isn't an issue - there are plenty of .32 revolvers. But, if I want a semi-automatic, I have to find a low-cap 9mm. That's actually not as easy as it could be, though there, god bless them, companies selling Colt 1911 replicas chambered for 9mm.

Now, even if I do jump through the hoops to own a handgun, I am completely unable to obtain a CCW license, and have to keep the bloody thing in a safe, and if I shoot someone with it in self defense? Well, the charge probably jumps up from manslaughter to murder.

Just thought I'd give you all the reality of an Australian's home defense situation. Be grateful to even have pistols or shotguns available for it, because over here, we sure as hell don't legally have the right to.

[His Divine Shadow]

We can't have HD guns in finland or sweden. Only sporting and hunting guns. Unless you are a cop or private detective (I know one who has a CCW). A HD situation would involve you being able to get to your gun safe and unlock it and load it during the break in.

Fortunately crime like that is very rare here. It's not the reason I buy guns, but I do really appreciate that I am lucky enough to live in a place where I both don't need to and the government doesn't try to artifically keep civilian gunownership at pre 1870s level technologically speaking (banning stuff like pumps and semis and whatnot and limiting us to single shots).

[Coyote]

Now, even if I do jump through the hoops to own a handgun, I am completely unable to obtain a CCW license, and have to keep the bloody thing in a safe, and if I shoot someone with it in self defense? Well, the charge probably jumps up from manslaughter to murder.

Just thought I'd give you all the reality of an Australian's home defense situation. Be grateful to even have pistols or shotguns available for it, because over here, we sure as hell don't legally have the right to.

That sucks-- it's like the government telling you that your life isn't worth as much as a criminal's. Aren't you expected to abandon your house to a break-in and call the police from a cell or public phone and not interfere as the guy runs rampant in your home? I remember talking to one of my Australian acquaintences when I visited back in '95-'96. It sounded like he was required to leave the house if invaded, but he might have just been trying to make the point that, while it isn't "required", it is "better" to do it that way to protect himself from any legal issues if he were to defend himself/home.

[loomer]

Required? No, not by law. It's strongly advised we don't defend our property and remain unnoticed or don't enter the house if we notice something wrong. Basically, the legal protection reason.

That doesn't stop me from stowing heavy blunt objects in strategic locations where they make sense - if I keep it specially for self defense, it's a crime. If, however, I just happen to have a wrench on hand because the taps in the bathroom are stubborn to shut off, it's not.

[General Zod]

I never said it had to suck at everything else. I'd just rather my next door neighbour didn't have the firepower of an army rifleman sitting in his bedroom closet or what have you. (And I say bedroom closet because it's not of much use as a HD weapon if you have to go all the way down to the cellar to get it.)

As long as he's cleared by the government to own it, then it really doesn't matter if you want him to or not. As long as he's not doing anything illegal with it, chances are you'll never even know he has one. If you're really that terrified of people owning guns and you want to have a say over what your neighbors can own, I'd suggest a gated community.