h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

At one level, gun laws they hamper access, though for serious criminals, availability isn't a huge problem in the UK.

What reducing the number of guns in circulation to petty criminals and the general population does do is reduce the number of people who reach for one in hot blood to settle a trivial disagreement or to assist in petty crime, as well as lessening the number of poorly secured 'self defence' weapons picked up and used by children.

I suspect that 'defensive' weapons have probably killed many more people than they have saved - does anyone have any figures?

I don't believe strict controls prevent determined criminals from obtaining guns. What strict controls do is limit the opportunistic use of guns by, to be frank, nutters and accidental killings, eg children playing with their fathers gun.

It seems somewhat anomalous that in the 21st century a countrys legal system can condone a person killing an unarmed person, purely because the first person say, felt threatened in their own home, when the second person was merely about to steal the VCR. The punishment should be in proportion to the crime, shouldn't it?

Okay, so the second person could have had murderous intent, but usually they wouldn't, would they? Theft is far more common that murder. And usually where there is murderous intent, the murder is committed - it is rare that the potential victim gets the first shot.

Anyway this all seems to have hijacked the original thread. I think Captain Kebab got it right in post 127. The US has to be whiter than white in processing these captives.

Madent

There is definitely a difference between being fair, and being *seen* to be fair, even if that may seem a burden to people who believe, quite possibly with some justification, that they are being fair.

Er, Autist, they don't

Dangerous people, with access to the Black Market can buy guns if they want to. A state ban means nothing to them.

Considering what just happened in the law school in Virginia, this recent part of the conversation seems to have become tragically topical.

As I interpret it, mercenaries would fit under the definition of volunteer corps, and they would be entitled to be treated as prisoners of war.

This is actually why I read this stuff. I wanted to write a novel about mercenaries. I'm probably too out of touch with the military now. Someday I might start writing it as a hobby.

I don't think we've made a formal declaration of the fighters as unlawful combatants. I think the secretary of defense is calling them that because he doesn't want his statements in the press to be used to support any claims that they are POW's.

I recognize both the importance of acting honourably but the importance of avoiding the appearance of impropriety. However, if classified or operational security information is necessary for use in the tribunal, then I think protecting that information is more important. Also, there's no point in bringing these people to the United States. This appears to be a military matter right now.

I am kind of curious what the government wants to do with these people in the long run.

I don't want to get into the gun debate all that much, but I'd like to point out that we are not a democracy. We're a republic.

Incidentally, I personally own three pistols. One is a memento. One is the weapon I carry as backup and off duty. One is usually just left on the nightstand. All of them are loaded. I also have a fully automatic M-16.

I'm not sure what version of the militia Tonsil was referring to. I think the original militias were a vital part of society. Now days it's a little different. I've trained my officers to recognize and if necessary prosecute them.

The 'militias' that really aren't from today.

This is fascinating stuff. The sort of stuff that makes me glad I joined this sight.

Two bit,

Ok, you have three pistols and an M-16. It might be worth pointing out that you are a policemanand therefore trained to use these weapons (and theoretically in a sound psychological state).

But can you, as a trained officer of the law, really agree with the fact that absolutely any potential nutcase can walk into a shop and buy an M-16?

Wouldn't it make you feel a little more comfortable if you knew your government was actively doing something to restrict college shootings etc.

Why do you need an M-16, because you are worried that some nutcase will come after you with 2 M-16s. If only the police were allowed automatic weapons, the risk of you being attacked by one - off duty would be greatly decreased. And lets face it, if someone broke into your house, an M-16 wouldn't be much more effective than a pistol, its not exactly designed for close combat.

I'm not saying that you could get all guns off the street, and stop all shootings, but why does the average american need automatic weapons?

I understand that the right to bear arms is part of your constitution, but without limits, whats to stop people hiring their very own armoured battallion - "to protect my swimming pool"?

All those debates we've had, Two-Bit - er, you win.


Here's a thought, though. Would you rather be a policeman over there, where there is a chance you may be shot at, or over here, where it's unlikely you would be?

I thought that one might slide past. The M-16 is a work tool. It is a lot of fun too. I just got it a couple of months ago, and I forgot how much fun they were to shoot. They're easy to use to. We shoot it on the same range as the pistols, although at a longer distance. It was nothing to make headshots from 25+ yards froma standing postion.

I need an M-16 because it's the only rifle I'm allowed to carry. I don't like shotguns. I have it for two reasons. I work in a sububan and rural area. It's quite possible for me to need to shoot at a person who is more than 25 yards away. Secondly, if I have a hostage situation, I need a percsion weapon that allows me to make a head shot past a hostage. I'm not comfoprtable making such a shot with a pistol at more than 5 to 7 yards.

I would never us an M-16 inside of a house. The pistol is far more effective in close quarters.

It is automatic, but I can't imagine a time I'd ever use it in that mode except for having fun at the range. Most people don't realize that automatic weapons are hard to control. I'd far rather face a person with an automatic weapon than a hunting rifle. A person with a rifle is going to aim. Most people with an automatic are going to spray and pray.

I don't care if people have guns. I've only really felt threatened by a gun twice (once of duty and once on). They were both situations where there a gun was mentioned. I never saw them. I've encountered numerous armed citizens, and have never had a real serious issue with them.

I've taken guns from crazy people and criminals. I don't much care for criminals who carry guns, but I think that armed citizens are helpful.

I've read to post 40. Now need to read the rest.

<>

Odd that, criminals tend to agree. You're far more likely to be shot by your own weapon, than to shoot an intruder / attacker with it (if you're a citizen).

That's a dubious statistic. A weapon can easily serve its purpose without shooting someone. Mine has on several occasions.

Also, the shootings by your own weapon include things like suicides. That's not the gun's fault, that's your own. All of my guns are loaded and have no safeties engaged (except the M-16). None of them have shot anyone. They seem to be pretty safe to me.

On the other hand, when I come home late at night, I make it clear who I am when I come through the door.

The armed citizens situation is a little hazy. If an "armed citizen" becomes frustrated at the world, eg. he loses his job, and decides he hates the world and wants to kill someone, then he becomes an armed criminal in the blink of an eye. Remeber citizen and criminal are the same species

I'm a lot less hostile to an armed citizenry than most left-wing people. This comes from my reading about the Spanish Civil War where an armed citizenry not only held off Facism (although, sadly, did not defeat it) but also was capable of resisting the Spanish Government when it fell under the control of Stalin. However, I feel the US example is too lax. It may be the person, not the gun, that kills people, but the gun still makes it much easier.

It does, but it also levels the playing field. The smallest woman in the world can mount a defense against the largest thug on the block if she's properly armed and prepared to use it.

I read something today in a report on the long-term forcast for the US occupation of Afghanistan. Something I read between the lines gave me the strange idea that that facility in Guantanamo is going to be in use for a long time.

Another thing I read in the New Yorker from last week was about a gentleman who was chief of security at the towers who had recently retired from the FBI after spending years trying to track Bin Laden, with the cooperation of foreign law enforcement and intelligence agencies. In one particular instance, he wanted to talk to some suspects in Saudi Arabia about an embassy bombing. The Saudi security force picked em up, had a little talk with them and beheaded them the very next day.

Col. Jeff Cooper has a name for people who have a hate of firearms. He calls them hoplophobes.
But then, there are countries where you have to pay for the use of things like televisions over and over again, so I guess the idea of people owning firearms without the government peeking over their shoulder is a bit frightening.

Well, if the detainees are convicted of war crimes, and their sentence is imprisonment, then the most likely place for them to serve their term is in Cuba.

Actually, I have some freinds down there. I felt sorry for them when they were activated. I thought it sounded like it would be an awfully boring year for them. I guess they actually have something to do now.

I think the US did get a little upset with the Saudi's when they executed those people. I'm sure they appreciated their sentiment, but it makes interviews a little difficult.

I guess 'behead first, ask questions later' is even less likely to get answers than the 'shoot first' variant.

Regarding TV, on average, *everyone* pays. Advertising costs money, and even the people who buy the product but don't get influenced by the advert still end up forking out for it. Some methods are just more direct, and may even end up subsidising us here.

'Acitvated' does sound like some Universal Soldier kind of thing.
A guy in Washington presses a big red button, and somewhere in a deep bunker in Cuba, lights flicker on, freezers spring open, eyes light up, and DPM-clad bodies slowly twitch into life.