Re 44

RpR

I get the impression that there is a streak of irrational behaviour running thru’ the make up of some white Americans. How else does one explain the desire to own personal weapons other than for personal protection in a society allegedly at peace with itself ?

That, might explain the issue. Perhaps white America is not at peace with itself ? I mention white America because the news concerning firearms abuse seems to stem from this grouping.

I’m fairly neutral on this subject, it is after all a problem for America. You’re quite right, I haven’t spent any time in America but, I do know firearms. My knowledge of personal weaponry is yours multiplied by a factor of probably ten.

When your write “take Cape buffalo” I imagine that is a euphemism for “kill Cape buffalo” ? Why would you want to kill such a magnificent creature ? Can’t be for beefburgers, I imagine you’ve enough of your own. Perhaps for some mysterious American ritual yet to cross to our shores.

If you have ever communicated with persons who have hunted non-predator game animals in Africa, the animals taken are a feast for the locals.
One cannot ship meat back to the U.S. without a horrid amount of time and paperwork so prime cuts are consumed on site and the rest is given to the locals.

The person , who is well, and best, known among shooters, that has shot Cape Buffalos with hand-guns was born and raised in South Africa so your invective based on ignorance will be treated as such.
He was also the first person to do so.

[I]” My knowledge of personal weaponry is yours multiplied by a factor of probably ten.” [/I]– If you are an armorer, or former, then your dismissive, and some what paranoid, attitude speaks more of an irrational attitude from you than any one who owns firearms

Your prejudiced use of the term “White” say more for your ignorance of firearm ownership in the U.S. than anything else, (I have met a goodly number of American Indian and Latino firearm owners, although Latinos are actually just as white as Germans), you have written.

This country has never been at peace with itself.
The closest it comes is during and after major wars when foxholes quickly eliminate most ethnic biases.

Most of you probably know nothing more of violence, much less firearms, than is trotted out by the left-wing news medias in the U.S., that can to a degree, excuse your attitudes but in this case ignorance is neither bliss, nor wise.

“why any one would want to own one ?”

Power

You are speaking from a point of ignorance as you have not spent time, or at least any amount of time if you have been here, to have even a slight understanding of why U.S. citizens have firearms, although I would imagine that would be, in a broad sense, the same reason persons in Europe, including Russia, (I spoke to my Russian instructor who was born and still travels there about owing firearms there), have firearms.
No single reason but they very from sport, to hunting, to self-defense, to collecting.

I am aware of several gents who have multiple five-shot revolvers of they type that can be, and have been used to take Cape Buffalo.
Some of the gents physical condition no longer allows them to shoot these firearms at all or if they do, with reduced charges to nothing more than target level loadings.

Why do they have them?
For the same reason people collect stamps or anything, they find them fascinating.
Some buy firearms so decorated that shooting them is something that will never happen, as it would reduce their value by four figure sums.

If one thinks they are owned for power, then the reason for not owning must be fear of them, as a firearm is an inanimate object that represents nothing but a tool.
The words some use to say firearms represent a penis, reflects strongly that that person may be suffering from a bit of animistic thinking as a firearm is nothing more than a chunk of metal or space age plastic and nothing more.

Bit amusing to read your comments full stop, but lets leave it there.
Is it not scary to wonder about the mental state of your neighbourhood weirdo, safe in the knowledge that he (it is generally a he) can obtain a weapon more or less at will? At least my local nutter can’t do much more than rant in the street or buy a hammer…

Maybe those school leaders dread the idea of a shooting happening at their schools?

To your first point: No a neighborhood weirdo cannot obtain a firearm at will, even though news sources make it seem so.
Of course how do you identify a “neighborhood weirdo”?
I have had long conversations with a fairly large number of firearm store owners and workers, if you come in, the way you speak will quickly determine the ease or difficulty in actually touching, much less buying a firearm.

There were a few talking heads on television that said, and these were persons professionally familiar with the scenario, in the past many of the persons that have committed the killings would have been institutionalized but political forces closed the institutions and now they run free and there is nothing that can be done about it as if anyone including professional law enforcement tries to get them off the streets ACLU lawyers make the lives of those trying to get them off the streets so miserable, they simply no longer even try.

Second point: IF they truly dreaded that idea there would be no resistance to allowing adults in schools to armed but they are so incompetently ignorant they rationalize it, and this has been said, when a journalist went to a school asking opinions of armed educators “What if an armed educator kills an innocent person while trying to stop a shooter?”
So they would rather play craps and let the kids die if a shooter does show up.

If kids could still store shotguns in their lockers, at least they could try to get to their guns and shoot back.
Some stores in Minn. have “gun free zone” signs on their doors, yep, that strikes fear in the hearts of criminals of any type.

RpR I think the first line of your reply, just shows how ignorant, naive, and paranoid YOU are. How the hell do you know what I know/dont know?. Talk about being presumptuous.

Jim.
Lincoln .7

No this statement by you makes my rhetoric fully accurate: “And buried on New Years day “!! BUT that said, although I intended to, I failed to indicate, that, that bit of writing was aimed at the generic rhetoric of firearm phobia being displayed by many on this thread, so I actually do apologize for writing in a manner that made it look like it was directed only to you.

And buried on New Years day !! It says it all. I.M.H.O it’s about time they involked an age limit, as they do on alcohol.
It would be interesting to see a comparison chart, regarding which is the lesser of two evils.
Que the Forum number cruncher..C.D. Warren?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

It is a bit amusing to read your ignorant, naive and paranoid comments of firearms in the U.S. of A.

There are age limits, some stricter now than thirty years ago.
Into the seventies it was not uncommon in my High School, Senior classes of over 200, for persons to take their shotgun to school and leave it in their lockers so they could go duck hunting after school.

Nowadays a bracelet trinket that resembles a gun will get on expelled from school,
but then those school leaders probably spent time among person such as yourselves as children.

Can somebody clear something up for me too, please? The gun lobby claim the Constitution is inviolate and can never be changed, but surely the very fact that they got this archaic right to bear arms through the 2nd amendment makes a nonsense of that; if you can amend the constitution to bestow a right, surely it can also be amended to take that right away for the greater good?

It can be amended if one can get the amendment out to be voted on by the individual States voters.
Then the majority of the voters in 3/4 of the States must approve the amendment.

That is not going to happen.

Silly how the military uses so many civilian engines. And with so few changes to their maintenance schedules. Silly, them military folks.

Withe the rationalizing you are using for logic that would be normal.
Which combat aircraft are you speaking of?

There have often been civilian versions of military engines, so it is not the matter of engine source as much as it is type.
They want eight engines, which means to be down to only two or three engines, five to six would have to fail, with four engine it would only take one or two.
Fortunately “all we gotta do” is usually not accepted on military aircraft.

The type of rationalizing you use is what created the F-111B and F-35.

Commercial engines are worked much harder than bomber engines. Bombers no longer fly NOE because look down radars can pick them out of ground clutter. A B-52 flies once a week. Typically on a 5 hour training sortie. A commercial airliner will fly twice a day (or more) six days a week and will rack up an average of 60 flight hours.

Thank God your opinion and reality are totally different.
One hundred commercial hours are not even close to the pounding military engines take in fifty hours.

http://www.mcconnell.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123406214

http://http://theaviationist.com/2014/06/04/b-52-deployed-to-fairford/

From 2014:

The B-1 averaged a 53.7% ready rate and the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit achieved 30.3%, while the B-52 averaged 80.5% during the 2000–2001 period. The B-52’s $72,000 cost per hour of flight is more than the B-1B’s $63,000 cost per hour, but less than the B-2’s $135,000 per hour.