When will the uS Government wake up????

orangebird · 14-03-2005, 13:30

If this isn't enough to make them sit up and think about gun laws, I don't know what is....

Paul K · 14-03-2005, 13:34

Heard that on the radio yesterday

Americans love their guns and their rights to bear arms but since when was a purse a secure place to stow a weapon

Russ · 14-03-2005, 13:38

When will the US government wake up? Never - the uproar from the slack-jawed yokels who seem to view guns as trophies and ornaments would be deafening.

Xaccers · 14-03-2005, 16:31

Expect to see Charton Heston at a NRA rally in that town soon.
And Michael Moore blaming Walmart and Lockheed

This mother is totally irresponsible to have a deadly weapon in such easy access of her kids!

Anyone know what that state's firearms laws are regarding the storage of guns and ammo?

Fine, they have "the right to bear arms" which in one of the last topics involving Jerrek some of us pointed out was a mis-interpritation of that particular right, but make the gun ownership laws much stricter!
If I was in america and was so concerned that I felt I had to own a gun, then I'd keep it in a gun safe at home with the magazine out of it and safety most definitely on.
If I felt I needed one while out and about (first I'd consider moving to a safer area) then again I'd keep it with magazine out.

Actually, to be honest, I'd only have a gun for target practice and airsoft guns are good enough for that (and non-lethal)

If I wanted to defend myself then I'd have a tazer, either hand held or dart firing gun.

If you have kids then you don't keep loaded guns, it's not rocket science!

Why is it though in other countries where gun ownership and public carrying is alowed you don't get so many incidents?

I know in Israel you can carry a licienced gun (I could not get used to being stopped and asked if I had one when going into pubs and restaurants!), but in order to keep your licience you have to shoot regularly. I guess this helps remind people about proper gun handling, and also, with regular use, you have a better idea of where the gun actually is.

ZrByte · 14-03-2005, 16:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Actually, to be honest, I'd only have a gun for target practice and airsoft guns are good enough for that (and non-lethal)

Wasnt there a two year old killed with just such a gun about 2 weeks ago in the uk?

Paul K · 14-03-2005, 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Anyone know what that state's firearms laws are regarding the storage of guns and ammo?

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=TX
This bit is interesting

Quote:

A person commits an offense if a child under 17 gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal negligence failed to secure it or left it in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access. It is an affirmative defense if the access was supervised by a person older than 18 and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes; consisted of lawful defense of people or property; was gained by entering property unlawfully; or occurred during a time when the actor was engaged in an agricultural enterprise.

Flubflow · 14-03-2005, 17:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZrByte

Wasnt there a two year old killed with just such a gun about 2 weeks ago in the uk?

Indeed there was...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4317423.stm

although I think there is a difference between an "airsoft" gun and a pellet airgun (the latter of which it seems was used to kill the poor child).

Xaccers · 15-03-2005, 01:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZrByte

Wasnt there a two year old killed with just such a gun about 2 weeks ago in the uk?

No there bloody well was not!

That poor child was killed by an airpistol (legally owned too, I believe).
These are high powered, target/rat killing weapons.

Anything with a energy rating of over 1.35J is considered to be able to inflict a lethal wound (lethal being the legal term for any significant wound such as drawing blood)
Legally firing anything at higher than 1.35J at someone is illegal (there are specific clauses for paintball markers which fire well above this level but no one's ever been killed by a paintball..)

Airsoft weapons are normally restricted to 1J to make sure we're well below the limit. This equates to 328fps with a 0.2g plastic BB
Out of the box you're looking at only 260-280fps so well below 1J
Springers which are unfortunately readily available to chavs from market stalls are even lower.
A UK 1J airsoft weapon will sting when you're shot by it, may even produce a small welt, but after a few minutes that generally subsides.
In other countries, such as Norway and the US, there are no limits, and some sites in the UK still alow single action sniper rifles to run at 500fps but with minimum range limits, so their impact force is below 1J.
No one has ever died from being shot with an airsoft weapon.

Airguns are generally rated at 1000fps and beyond and fire metal pellets.

So, as you can see, there is a HUGE difference between airsoft and airguns (unfortunately, unlike paintball we can't rename our guns "markers" to make them sound nicer)

Flubflow · 18-03-2005, 16:57

I'll bet a 0.2g plastic BB travelling at 328fps into someones eyball could still probably ruin ones chance of becoming an airline pilot.

Xaccers · 19-03-2005, 01:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flubflow

I'll bet a 0.2g plastic BB travelling at 328fps into someones eyball could still probably ruin ones chance of becoming an airline pilot.

Quote:

The Home Office and the Forensic Science Service considers that the lowest level of muzzle energy capable of inflicting a penetrating wound is one foot pound (or about 1.35 joules): below these power levels, weapons are "incapable of penetrating even vulnerable parts of the body, such as the eye".[54] However, more recent analysis by the Forensic Science Agency for Northern Ireland has indicated that a more reasonable assessment of the minimum muzzle energy required to inflict a penetrating wound lies between 2.2 and 3.0 ft/lb

It'd sting like hell, cause the target to drop to the ground screaming (stop them attacking you too!) but wouldn't do any permanent damage.
Certainly wouldn't kill them!

As I said, airsoft guns are the only ones I'd have because of being an airsofter (used while skirmishing against others with eye/face protection).
I don't see why I'd need a firearm.
If I lived in an area where I felt so scared for my life that I needed protection, I'd carry something like a tazer or mace (assuming I wasn't able to move out of the area), I certainly wouldn't carry something designed to kill when used.

Anyway, back to the case at hand, according to paul's post this woman broke the law and her child paid the price.
Had she followed the gun laws then her child would not have been able to get hold of the gun.
Ban guns and again, you will have eventually another breach of the law where the same thing happens but with an illegally owned gun (maybe some "home boy" left his desert eagle lying around)
Having laws to protect people, no matter how strict, only work up to the point where they are not broken.

NitroNutter · 19-03-2005, 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

If this isn't enough to make them sit up and think about gun laws, I don't know what is....

Be willing to stake a few $$ on the fact that theres probably a lot more accidental road deatsh than accidental gun deaths.

BBKing · 19-03-2005, 13:02

And that people use cars far more than they use guns, thus invalidating the comparison.

Xaccers · 19-03-2005, 13:19

I thought something like 8/10 americans owned guns?

NitroNutter · 19-03-2005, 14:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

And that people use cars far more than they use guns, thus invalidating the comparison.

ummmm !!!

295 million population approx

unintentional gun deaths 1200

guns in .us circulation approx 212 million

approx 85 deaths per million cars in .us so if theres 212 million cars in circulation in .us that will equal some 18020 death by car accidents. Somewhat more than accidental gun deaths, pro rata

Thereby proving the point vehicles are far more dangerous so if the .us was to consider banning a part of their constitution of the right to be able to act in self defense bearing arms, then really cars should also become a consideration for banning. and fully validating the comparison.

ZrByte · 19-03-2005, 14:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

ummmm !!!

295 million population approx

unintentional gun deaths 1200

guns in .us circulation approx 212 million

approx 85 deaths per million cars in .us so if theres 212 million cars in circulation in .us that will equal some 18020 death by car accidents. Somewhat more than accidental gun deaths, pro rata

Thereby proving the point vehicles are far more dangerous so if the .us was to consider banning a part of their constitution of the right to be able to act in self defense bearing arms, then really cars should also become a consideration for banning. and fully validating the comparison.

The bit that makes the comparison invalid is that a Gun is designed to kill, simple as. A car is designed to transport people/goods but can also kill if used improperly. If a car was designed to kill with transportation being of secondary importance I think the comparison would hold more wieght.