marcelo_malara wrote:In fact according to Barnes (Cartridges of the World) it was so powerful that was overkilling even for elephants, and was only used in extreme danger cases.
I believe it was intended to penetrate the skin of a charging rhino....
Virginia Tech
I believe it was intended to penetrate the skin of a charging rhino....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
-
marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1850
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
Hi guys (I do realize this topic is old but I couldn't resist) 
I do think that there should be restriction laws, semi-auto's and auto's should be banned. Yes, handhelds and rifles (shotguns may be overkill for anything these days
) should be legal for defense of one's home and loved ones. There should definitely be restrictions after Colombine (a little old, but it still it sucked) and Virginia Tech on large guns and handhelds with large magazines. I remember the VT attack vividly, I was in middle school at the time and everyone kind of knew something was up, but nobody had any details. It was only after people took a discreet peek on their computers or got home that the true horror was revealed. At school the next day all hell broke loose and everyone was talking about VT, and having everyone talking about one thing atleast in one grade was a hard enough thing to do, let alone the entire school in chaos.
Another thing, for you British guys out there, it sounds like from some of the previous posts that you guys get the impression that half of us have automatic's in our homes and half of those carry them around in public
As an American, I must say that it is nice on this side of the world and you guys must only be getting news of the bad side of things over here. America is not a giant ghetto full of criminals and thieves. Now grantit, some of the teenagers and kids here are wacky, but by no means is America a rats nest full of nutters. Anyway, America is larger than the UK, so there is obviously going to be some more in the news than you guys. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against you guys over on that little island of yours, but I want to make it clear that it is not like Colombine, 911, or VT over here every day, or every month for that matter.
PS: I realize I am a worked up American Redneck (More like a Lumberjack or cowboy, I may live in VA, but I was born in New York and am a true brother of the Northwoods)
I do think that there should be restriction laws, semi-auto's and auto's should be banned. Yes, handhelds and rifles (shotguns may be overkill for anything these days
) should be legal for defense of one's home and loved ones. There should definitely be restrictions after Colombine (a little old, but it still it sucked) and Virginia Tech on large guns and handhelds with large magazines. I remember the VT attack vividly, I was in middle school at the time and everyone kind of knew something was up, but nobody had any details. It was only after people took a discreet peek on their computers or got home that the true horror was revealed. At school the next day all hell broke loose and everyone was talking about VT, and having everyone talking about one thing atleast in one grade was a hard enough thing to do, let alone the entire school in chaos.Another thing, for you British guys out there, it sounds like from some of the previous posts that you guys get the impression that half of us have automatic's in our homes and half of those carry them around in public
As an American, I must say that it is nice on this side of the world and you guys must only be getting news of the bad side of things over here. America is not a giant ghetto full of criminals and thieves. Now grantit, some of the teenagers and kids here are wacky, but by no means is America a rats nest full of nutters. Anyway, America is larger than the UK, so there is obviously going to be some more in the news than you guys. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against you guys over on that little island of yours, but I want to make it clear that it is not like Colombine, 911, or VT over here every day, or every month for that matter.PS: I realize I am a worked up American Redneck
(More like a Lumberjack or cowboy, I may live in VA, but I was born in New York and am a true brother of the Northwoods)First you seam to be assuming that guns are primarily for self defence. There is also target shooting, hunting, and collecting.Ramius wrote:...
I do think that there should be restriction laws, semi-auto's and auto's should be banned. Yes, handhelds and rifles (shotguns may be overkill for anything these days
Second rifles make very bad home defence weapons. Their tendency to over penetrate being one reason.
Rifles and shotguns also make poor self defence weapons for outside the home. Heavy and cumbersom for a start.
No that since they started regulating them licenced automatic weapons have been used in I believe 2 crimes. One of which was commited by a police officer.
Both of these events included breaking laws or regulations prior to them. If all had been followed they wouldn't have happened. Adding more laws to charge people with afterwards isn't necessarily going to help. ...There should definitely be restrictions after Colombine (a little old, but it still it sucked) and Virginia Tech on large guns and handhelds with large magazines.
You sound nothing like a redneck. More like a city boy who ... (I better not go there) :)PS: I realize I am a worked up American Redneck
Ramius,
The main reason why the US is focussed in gun crime and people having weapons comes from the fact that the US is the world's most advanced country and allows explicitly through its constitution the right of its citizens to routinely bear arms.
The misuse of guns is obviously far more severe in some other countries than in the US, but then there seems to be the unspoken and politically incorrect assumption that these other countries are less well developed (ie. less civilised) so it is not so newsworthy. Hence Columbine gets more publicity than say the murder of children in Rwanda or Dafur.
In Britain guns are supposedly tightly controlled, certainly for the law abiding, such that most police officers do not carry firearms. Of course as in other countries those outside the law do not have to conform, so gun crime in Britain is worse than it has ever been.
Going off slightly on a tangent, earlier this week a court in Birmingham (that is the Birmingham in England, not the one in Alabama) jailed two people for killing a drug addict burglar they caught breaking into their home. I don't believe that a US court would have convicted them for anything, as the US doesn't go in for political correctness the way we do.
The main reason why the US is focussed in gun crime and people having weapons comes from the fact that the US is the world's most advanced country and allows explicitly through its constitution the right of its citizens to routinely bear arms.
The misuse of guns is obviously far more severe in some other countries than in the US, but then there seems to be the unspoken and politically incorrect assumption that these other countries are less well developed (ie. less civilised) so it is not so newsworthy. Hence Columbine gets more publicity than say the murder of children in Rwanda or Dafur.
In Britain guns are supposedly tightly controlled, certainly for the law abiding, such that most police officers do not carry firearms. Of course as in other countries those outside the law do not have to conform, so gun crime in Britain is worse than it has ever been.
Going off slightly on a tangent, earlier this week a court in Birmingham (that is the Birmingham in England, not the one in Alabama) jailed two people for killing a drug addict burglar they caught breaking into their home. I don't believe that a US court would have convicted them for anything, as the US doesn't go in for political correctness the way we do.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Conventional wisdom here in the US is that if you shoot an attacker in your home you probably wouldn't be prosecuted and if you were most jurys would refuse to convict you.
With respect to gun control and V. Tech, if just one of the students in one of those classrooms had been armed and trained to use his/her weapon, things might have turned out quite differently. I don't know whether that is the solution, but it's one possibility. Most of these crazies seem to rely on the victims being helpless though, and just the possibility that there might be an armed citizen nearby might be a deterrent. Would it result in more accidental deaths? Undoubtedly. Would it be worth it? I don't know. Trying to make every single public place secure from this kind of thing has it's costs also.
With respect to gun control and V. Tech, if just one of the students in one of those classrooms had been armed and trained to use his/her weapon, things might have turned out quite differently. I don't know whether that is the solution, but it's one possibility. Most of these crazies seem to rely on the victims being helpless though, and just the possibility that there might be an armed citizen nearby might be a deterrent. Would it result in more accidental deaths? Undoubtedly. Would it be worth it? I don't know. Trying to make every single public place secure from this kind of thing has it's costs also.
-
Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
RF,
Your quite correct that there is a fundamental difference between how the American founding fathers and framers of the US Constitution define rights, and how rights are defined in most other democracies.
In America the rights and liberties of the individual are paramount. Central to the American view of individual rights is private property and the right to defend ones private property-even by deadly force. Although this must be balanced against the rights of the collective whole to a degree, it was not meant that the rights of the collective good would be at equalibrium with the rights of the individual. It was to be biased to the rights of the individual, even at the expense (to a reasonable degree) to rights of the collective whole. Most other systems place the rights of the collective whole above the rights of the individual.
The framers were concerned that individual rights could be infringed by majority rule. Thus there are safe guards to prevent population centers and the populous States from controlling everything at the expense of the rural States, and also individuals. The Government is supposed to have rather limited powers.
To further protect the rights of individuals and the private property of individuals, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. The 2nd Ammendment is really centered in this veiw of individual rights and attendant private property rights. The language of the second ammendment is such that "this right shall not be infringed."
Your quite correct that there is a fundamental difference between how the American founding fathers and framers of the US Constitution define rights, and how rights are defined in most other democracies.
In America the rights and liberties of the individual are paramount. Central to the American view of individual rights is private property and the right to defend ones private property-even by deadly force. Although this must be balanced against the rights of the collective whole to a degree, it was not meant that the rights of the collective good would be at equalibrium with the rights of the individual. It was to be biased to the rights of the individual, even at the expense (to a reasonable degree) to rights of the collective whole. Most other systems place the rights of the collective whole above the rights of the individual.
The framers were concerned that individual rights could be infringed by majority rule. Thus there are safe guards to prevent population centers and the populous States from controlling everything at the expense of the rural States, and also individuals. The Government is supposed to have rather limited powers.
To further protect the rights of individuals and the private property of individuals, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. The 2nd Ammendment is really centered in this veiw of individual rights and attendant private property rights. The language of the second ammendment is such that "this right shall not be infringed."
Going off somewhat at a tangent, an interesting thought occurred to me on this paragraph.Dave Saxton wrote:
The framers were concerned that individual rights could be infringed by majority rule. Thus there are safe guards to prevent population centers and the populous States from controlling everything at the expense of the rural States, and also individuals. The Government is supposed to have rather limited powers.
In 1860 majority rule did prevail over the right of individual states to leave the Union, it triggered the US Civil War in the following year.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Yes, in that particular case the Federal government won in a dispute over whether the individual states have a right to break up the union. That is different from individual rights but it does relate to state's rights. It was controversial then (obviously) and there are some people in the south who still believe it was wrong. They call it the Northern War of Aggression.RF wrote:
Going off somewhat at a tangent, an interesting thought occurred to me on this paragraph.
In 1860 majority rule did prevail over the right of individual states to leave the Union, it triggered the US Civil War in the following year.
But are individual states rights different from indivudual person's rights?
Again (without commenting on the rights or wrongs of the matter) in the 1960's the federal government intervened in several US states over the issue of bussing where individual states refused to comply with federal legislation, even to the point of threatening to place the Alabama National Guard under direct federal control.
Again (without commenting on the rights or wrongs of the matter) in the 1960's the federal government intervened in several US states over the issue of bussing where individual states refused to comply with federal legislation, even to the point of threatening to place the Alabama National Guard under direct federal control.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Federal law treats them differently. There are different laws pertaining to each. I'm not a legal expert, but I'm pretty sure the threatened intervention in the 60's was related to individual rights being violated. Federal laws, where they exist, trump state laws. For example, during the arab oil embargo a national speed limit was enacted. That has now expired, and the states now again set their own limits.RF wrote:But are individual states rights different from indivudual person's rights?
Again (without commenting on the rights or wrongs of the matter) in the 1960's the federal government intervened in several US states over the issue of bussing where individual states refused to comply with federal legislation, even to the point of threatening to place the Alabama National Guard under direct federal control.
Of course, states sometimes refuse to enforce federal laws. When that happens, it's hard for the federal govenment to do much about it because of the cost involved. Usually its not a huge problem, but in the Alabama case the president decided it was worth enforcing.
-
Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
The rights of States and those of the Federal Gov are ambigious, and probably intentionally so. This allows difficult issues to be haggled out on a case by case basis. The courts have had to deal with such issues for 220 years.
The Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the Federal Gov power to regulate commerce among the states and virtually eliminates States from having radically different applications of laws. The Federalist Papers gives some insight into how the Framers differed in such views. As I recall, Madison was more in favor of stronger central Gov, with Jefferson taking the oppossing view.
State laws and constitutions must be fairly consistant with the US Constitution.
The Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the Federal Gov power to regulate commerce among the states and virtually eliminates States from having radically different applications of laws. The Federalist Papers gives some insight into how the Framers differed in such views. As I recall, Madison was more in favor of stronger central Gov, with Jefferson taking the oppossing view.
State laws and constitutions must be fairly consistant with the US Constitution.
That's not a good example. The federal law didn't mandate that the states change their speed limit to 55. It merely stated that if they didn't they weren't elegible for federal hiway matching funds. I lived in Washington state at the time. They passed a new speed limit law with the rational that it was needed to secure matching funds. The state court over turned it as that wasn't one of the allowed reasons for setting speed limits. The legilature then passed another law setting the speed limit to 55 for safty reasons, one of the allowed or legitamate reasons. The Feds of course didn't care what rational was for resetting the speed just that it was reset.Bgile wrote: .... For example, during the arab oil embargo a national speed limit was enacted. ....
-
Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
The 55 mph speed limit was just silly. In fact on some roads sections out in the vast west of the USA, any speed limit is silly. In many cases driving slower doesn't save fuel either. What was supposed to be a temporary measure turned into a rediculous, unpopular, and unenforcable, albastross lasting nearly 20 years. It highlights a modern problem; that of the (unelected) bureucrats actually mandating policies and defacto laws, circumventing the normal processes and in ways the Constitution itself.
The western States finnally turned the bureuacrat's leverage on setting speed limits around, by threatening the withholding of road and fuel taxes collected by them from the Federal Gov.
The peoples of the western States have long been at odds with the bureucrats. The interests of population centers (usually espoused by the bureucrats) and the interests of peoples living in rural States is the type of problem foresaw by the Framers leading to the safe guards and compromises written into the Constitution, and this is one modern example. This ongoing problem is especially onerous concerning land use and land access, because 80% of the land in the western States are public lands, oversaw by the various Federal bureucrats
The western States finnally turned the bureuacrat's leverage on setting speed limits around, by threatening the withholding of road and fuel taxes collected by them from the Federal Gov.
The peoples of the western States have long been at odds with the bureucrats. The interests of population centers (usually espoused by the bureucrats) and the interests of peoples living in rural States is the type of problem foresaw by the Framers leading to the safe guards and compromises written into the Constitution, and this is one modern example. This ongoing problem is especially onerous concerning land use and land access, because 80% of the land in the western States are public lands, oversaw by the various Federal bureucrats