-
This was made in a funnel, in emulation of Weston's Pepper #30.
-
These remarks pertain to the USA, although our global friends may enjoy them, it must of necessity be at a slight remove.
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Entrenched in these words is the idea of individual liberty, the right of each of us, one by one, to seek out what it best for us and ours. Entrenched in these words is the idea that the government should at no time and in no way attempt to restrict our individual freedoms, our individual search, our individual labors. Ours is a nation built, the idea goes, on the efforts of individuals. The west was won by steely-gazed men with Colt pistols and strong-willed horses.
Whether the second amendment is really about militias, privately owned guns, or donuts does not matter. We have internalized it as a central idea of gun ownership as American. Some deplore it, and some approve it; all agree that it's deeply American. The myths and legends of the American West helped entrench these ideas, our heroes are soldiers, sharpshooters, experts with the rifle or the pistol.
Sergeant Alvin York is famous as the pacifist who became a war hero, because of his skill with guns. A pacifist. They made at least one movie about him.
Guns, guns are just tools. They're things. They're not more dangerous than chainsaws, or cars, or fire, or poison. Wags are fond of saying "guns don't kill people, people do" or sometimes "bullets do" or something.
In a literal way, these things are true, but the deeper truth is that whoever says this is looking for a way to not talk about what it is that kills people. Guns kill people in a lot of ways, but the uniquely American way they kill is enabled by their power as a fetish object. Little kids raised on videos are fascinated with Dad's gun. Unhinged men collect the things and purchase gimmicks to enable them to shoot them more efficiently. The suicidal snuggle their gun, the solution to all of their problems except one.
The trouble arises not with gun use or gun proliferation, it arises when someone gets the idea that the answer is embodied in the gun. Perhaps the answer is to put the gun to his own head, or to shoot his girlfriend, or his dog, or a whole batch of people at a concert. Perhaps the answer is to shoot that cop, or that perp, or that enemy.
The Gun enables me to choose. The Gun enables me to make choices that are denied to people who do not possess The Gun.
In this world there's two kinds of people, my friend. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You: dig.
Those with loaded guns do not dig, those with running cars do have jobs, those with money make the rules for everyone without it.
-
Start 'em young.
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Doll_Gun.jpg)
-
Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. . . .
Whether the second amendment is really about militias, privately owned guns, or donuts does not matter.
Actually, it matters a great deal.
For many years, there was an extended debate among legal scholars, echoed in a number of appellate cases, about whether the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1791, referred to a private right to possess firearms or to a collective right that could only be exercised by a militia—such as the federally-chartered reserve military organizations maintained by the individual states (the "National Guard"). Prior to 2008, I think the weight of legal opinion was that the provision was intended to refer to the latter.
That year, in an appeal captioned District of Coumbia v. Heller (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf), the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the opposite interpretation, invalidating a Washington, D.C. local law that effectively prohibited personal possession of firearms, ruling that
the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful fire arm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. (Opinion of the Court, p. 64.)
In subsequent litigation, the Supreme Court extended to the states the constitutional principle that possession of firearms was a personal rather than a collective right. (For those reading this from other countries, I should point out that the District of Columbia, as the national capital, is an enclave of the federal government, and therefore Heller did not directly address the authority of the individual states to ban firearms.)
This case law settled the fundamental constitutional issue. However, both the federal government and the states retain broad discretion—precisely how broad will probably need to be determined by future litigation—to regulate firearms. What is clear is that neither can pass laws that explicitly or implicitly ban gun possession by individuals.
How much regulation there will be in the future is essentially a political issue which, I suspect, will be determined on a state-by-state basis rather than by the federal government. The United States is a huge and very diverse country. Gun control laws and regulations that make sense to the voters in Maryland, where I live, may seem ludicrous to voters in Montana. And vice versa.
There may be some areas where Congress will pass new legislation for the entire country—for example, to close some loopholes in the federal gun registration requirements or to regulate additional types of rapid-firing weapons and large magazines or accumulations of ammunition. But getting a national consensus on the proper extent of gun control has proved extremely elusive, and absent a considerable shift in public opinion it appears to me that these decisions will largely be left to the states.
-
The point is that it doesn't matter culturally. The attitudes of people in Montana toward the 2nd amendment are not predicated particularly on case law or other legal doctrine, but on other rather squishier factors.
-
Self Portrait.
Kent in SD
-
Illustration for a book.
Selfie with my .44 Ruger Redhawk 10"
-
Jus added this little beauty to my collection. Lockup and action are like a Swiss watch. These were discontinued by Colt in 1985 due to the very high production costs which resulted in extremely high sales prices. Rumor has it they will reintroduce The Python next year but I fear the old school talent has been replaced by CNC programmers.
(https://pbase.com/keving/image/169013736.jpg)
-
Jus added this little beauty to my collection. Lockup and action are like a Swiss watch. These were discontinued by Colt in 1985 due to the very high production costs which resulted in extremely high sales prices. Rumor has it they will reintroduce The Python next year but I fear the old school talent has been replaced by CNC programmers.
(https://pbase.com/keving/image/169013736.jpg)
I understand you're feeling about the old school talent. I was lucky to be able to pick up a Gold Cup MKIV Series 70, Factory tuned (must be +20 y ago) The only thing I changed was the sear spring for a Les Bears, polished by myself. (I should have given the piece a better cleaning before taking it's picture...)
-
Great piece and a great shot! The B&W works very well for it. I worked in a large gun shop here in CT off & on in the 70's, 80's, 90's. True to those times, I like many, were too enamored of the S&W M29 :). I also remember guys buying the Gold Cups and totally ignoring the fact that it was sprung for 185 WC mid rage ammo, they started running hot .45's through them and pounded many to the point of uselessness.
-
And here's another from a couple years back. It's a Pedersoli repro of the Sharps Rifle that was featured in the movie "Quigley Down Under". The wide range tang rear sight was added by me. In most respects it's the same as the one used in the movie, 34 inch barrel, double set triggers, etc. I did opt for the .45-70 over the movie's .45-110 as you can not safely use modern smokeless powders in anything larger that the -70 in that caliber (or so my research told me). I did not want to have to mess about with all the cleaning etc. that is a must when using black powder.
Recoil is very mild given the weight of this thing and it's a hoot on the steel gongs set out at 200, 500, yards. This was just a quick shot of it taken on my kitchen table, I could not resist getting the fringed suede cover for it.
Turns out there is a whole following for this type of shooting with the World Series equivalent match being held in Montana and it's called The Quigley. It attracts shooters from the world over to compete. Online there are cartridge belts etc. that are copies of the one Tom Selleck wore in the film as well.
(https://pbase.com/keving/image/169018215.jpg.original)
-
And here's another from a couple years back. It's a Pedersoli repro of the Sharps Rifle that was featured in the movie "Quigley Down Under". The wide range tang rear sight was added by me. In most respects it's the same as the one used in the movie, 34 inch barrel, double set triggers, etc. I did opt for the .45-70 over the movie's .45-110 as you can not safely use modern smokeless powders in anything larger that the -70 in that caliber (or so my research told me). I did not want to have to mess about with all the cleaning etc. that is a must when using black powder.
Recoil is very mild given the weight of this thing and it's a hoot on the steel gongs set out at 200, 500, yards. This was just a quick shot of it taken on my kitchen table, I could not resist getting the fringed suede cover for it.
Turns out there is a whole following for this type of shooting with the World Series equivalent match being held in Montana and it's called The Quigley. It attracts shooters from the world over to compete. Online there are cartridge belts etc. that are copies of the one Tom Selleck wore in the film as well.
(https://pbase.com/keving/image/169018215.jpg.original)
Ha, we have the same gun taste, I have a 45-70 gvt as well, and did we say S&W?:
-
Is someone recognizing this .22?
-
Browning Medalist??
-
Kind of surprising to me that when most all of you think of a gun, you post a photo of a pistol. I'm from the Northern Plains/West and my thoughts always go to either a rifle or a shotgun. I do own two pistols--a very small Sig Sauer .380 which I bought a year ago (and have yet to even fire ;D ) and a Ruger .22/.22 magnum revolver that I sometimes hunt squirrels with. Other than that about 90% of my time with a gun is hunting ducks/pheasants/geese with a shotgun, and the other 9% is spent hunting antelope (or sometimes deer or elk) with a .30-06 rifle. For a life long outdoors guy like me, my first thoughts always go to a rifle.
Kent in SD
-
Browning Medalist??
Almost!!!!
It’s a FN Medalist.
Brownings patent made in Belgium in the famous FN factory.
-
Kind of surprising to me that when most all of you think of a gun, you post a photo of a pistol. I'm from the Northern Plains/West and my thoughts always go to either a rifle or a shotgun. I do own two pistols--a very small Sig Sauer .380 which I bought a year ago (and have yet to even fire ;D ) and a Ruger .22/.22 magnum revolver that I sometimes hunt squirrels with. Other than that about 90% of my time with a gun is hunting ducks/pheasants/geese with a shotgun, and the other 9% is spent hunting antelope (or sometimes deer or elk) with a .30-06 rifle. For a life long outdoors guy like me, my first thoughts always go to a rifle.
Kent in SD
I had a Ruger m77 in .243Win and still owning a 45-70 gvt and a winchester 30-30 lever. But, I was target shooter at 25m with revolver and Pistol, and 100m with rifle,not a hunter.
-
Hi Kent, I am also a serious long range shooter although not a hunter. My current "reach out and touch someone" rig is a Sako TRG-42 in .338 Lapua and topped with a Premiere Reticle scope and Richard Near muzzle break. Again, between the weight of the rig and the action of the muzzle break the recoil is very manageable.
The downside is the terrific muzzle blast that is directed to the sides by the muzzle break. I generally try to get a table far away from other shooters so as not to hammer them, it has, on occasion flipped over some 1/2 full styro coffee cups on adjacent benches. I'm using Lapua brass with 300 Gr. Lapua SCENAR projectiles. These run supersonic out to about 1800 yards or so.
The other obvious downside is the cost, it cost me over 200 bucks for 100 EMPTY Lapua cases!! Add that to the projectile cost and 70-80 grains of powder and you've got some pricey reloads. Oh well, I didn't get into this to save $$
-
Hi Kent, I am also a serious long range shooter although not a hunter. My current "reach out and touch someone" rig is a Sako TRG-42 in .338 Lapua and topped with a Premiere Reticle scope and Richard Near muzzle break. Again, between the weight of the rig and the action of the muzzle break the recoil is very manageable.
The downside is the terrific muzzle blast that is directed to the sides by the muzzle break. I generally try to get a table far away from other shooters so as not to hammer them, it has, on occasion flipped over some 1/2 full styro coffee cups on adjacent benches. I'm using Lapua brass with 300 Gr. Lapua SCENAR projectiles. These run supersonic out to about 1800 yards or so.
Why not put a suppressor on it? I was quoted a price of $800 to put one on my
30-06.
Kent in SD
-
I have enjoyed collecting BB/pellet/airsoft replica guns and often use them as photo/video subjects. This helps me to learn about photography and videography as well as learning how to handle various guns. Plus they are fun to shoot in my garage! Here's an example of a video I made with my Cowboy six shooter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo8qYW12ifA&t=26s
-
While this thread has not turned into a political fight (way to go, folks, that puts a smile on my face!) it has illustrated the point of my essay (drawn from a much larger piece) which is that Americans have a different attitude toward guns, generally speaking, than non-Americans (I do see you, Ivo, but you're outnumbered by Americans, which is the point).
-
^ Are you saying that the multiple "UUUU"s confused you into believing this isn't a political thread? Actually, it really wasn't, until your post.
EDIT: To clarify, the thread started as a potential political thread, but did not really develop into one.
-
I read it as a political thread and offered my contribution as if it was such.
-
I read it as a political thread and offered my contribution as if it was such.
My starting post was intended to be... stimulating, let's say. While not an overtly political picture, in this climate, especially when paired with the subject of the thread, the picture could easily be read as a political statement. "Political" photographs have certainly been made with less overt symbolism.
I followed up with an overtly political mini-essay, intended to provoke discussion or perhaps insight? I extracted it from a larger work I made some time ago (as noted) which was intended, as much as it was intended at all, to explain Americans to Europeans.
So, yeah, I intended it as a direct response to Jeremy's new policy on political discussion. I am intellectually disappointed, and emotionally pleased, to see that the tenor has remained largely apolitical. I trust and assume that all will carry on as they see fit.
-
Why not put a suppressor on it? I was quoted a price of $800 to put one on my
30-06.
Kent in SD
It shipped with a threaded barrel but suppressors are running over a g note for this beast plus the 200 bucks vig to Uncle Sam, not to mention the almost 12 month wait. I'm still holding out hope that suppressors are removed from the NFA's purview.
-
While this thread has not turned into a political fight (way to go, folks, that puts a smile on my face!) it has illustrated the point of my essay (drawn from a much larger piece) which is that Americans have a different attitude toward guns, generally speaking, than non-Americans (I do see you, Ivo, but you're outnumbered by Americans, which is the point).
I agree with your writing.
But note that some states in the US have a more stringent restriction on the possession of fire arms than some countries in Europe. Other states are incredibly liberal.
Pe: with the correct permit I can own and practice a .44, .45, etc. In NY state there is (was) a limitation on the super calibers, if my info from begin 2000 was correct.
?
-
...with the correct permit I can own and practice a .44, .45, etc...
Remind me never to piss you off again, Ivo ;)
-
I dug up the pic from a couple of years back. It's the SAKO TRG-42 after mounting the scope. Please, no comments on the booze bottles in the shot, it's a part of my so called man cave.
(https://pbase.com/keving/image/147581618.jpg)
And while we're at it I thought that some shots of some of my vintage sound equipment might not be out of line.
Marantz 2585, all recapped and restored, paid a bundle for this but damm it sounds sweet!!
(https://pbase.com/keving/image/142377009.jpg)
A nicely restored TEAC A-4300 Auto Reverse tape deck
(https://pbase.com/keving/image/141833421.jpg)
Myold realistic STA-120 Receiver, supposedly these were rebadged Hitachi's. Above it is a Realistic 8 track recorder along with another and some old 8 Track tapes.
(https://pbase.com/keving/image/127927296.jpg)
-
Remind me never to piss you off again, Ivo ;)
I’m pretty accurate in the range of 25m, groups of 10cm single handed on a good day. Beyond that distance my groups are increasing to a shot gun pattern.
And, Slobodan, I would not worry, a .44 is not exactly in the LRBM range. So, you are safe.
😬😬
-
I’m pretty accurate in the range of 25m, groups of 10cm single handed on a good day. Beyond that distance my groups are increasing to a shot gun pattern.
And, Slobodan, I would not worry, a .44 is not exactly in the LRBM range. So, you are safe.
😬😬
Several times I have dropped an antelope from 500+ yards (457 meters.) :) The states on the Great Plains/West are pretty relaxed about guns, as long as you don't have a criminal history. Full auto rifles are legal (with requisite permit,) as is a .50 BMG rifle. I have a concealed carry permit from my state but rarely use it. Mostly use it to carry my pocket size .380 when out late at night taking photos. The areas I go are generally very desolate so I'm not so much afraid of being a tempting target for criminals, but I'm a little cautious about all the mountain lions around. Last month our governor passed a law making it legal for anyone without a criminal record to carry a concealed pistol without a permit. I'm not so sure that was a good idea. The permits are easy to get and I do feel better about having the sheriff's office run a check before issuing. But like I said, I'm not a big pistol guy in the first place. One thing I have found interesting so far is that I'm the only one here that seems to be the more traditional outdoor hunter type guy. I'm perfectly happy parking my Forester at a dead end ranch road and then wandering miles of open prairie on foot with my rifle on my shoulder until the sun sets. Maybe I'm an anachronism.
Kent in SD
-
Several times I have dropped an antelope from 500+ yards (457 meters.) :) The states on the Great Plains/West are pretty relaxed about guns, as long as you don't have a criminal history. Full auto rifles are legal (with requisite permit,) as is a .50 BMG rifle. I have a concealed carry permit from my state but rarely use it. Mostly use it to carry my pocket size .380 when out late at night taking photos. The areas I go are generally very desolate so I'm not so much afraid of being a tempting target for criminals, but I'm a little cautious about all the mountain lions around. Last month our governor passed a law making it legal for anyone without a criminal record to carry a concealed pistol without a permit. I'm not so sure that was a good idea. The permits are easy to get and I do feel better about having the sheriff's office run a check before issuing. But like I said, I'm not a big pistol guy in the first place. One thing I have found interesting so far is that I'm the only one here that seems to be the more traditional outdoor hunter type guy. I'm perfectly happy parking my Forester at a dead end ranch road and then wandering miles of open prairie on foot with my rifle on my shoulder until the sun sets. Maybe I'm an anachronism.
Kent in SD
If I lived in your area, I would be with you on the prairie. For sure.
In my region, a dead end street means the beginning of someone else’s real estate. Pointing a gun in whatever direction is aiming at someone in deathly range.
Shooting is only possible in shooting ranges or in restricted hunting area.
-
Apparently, wolf and wild boar populations in Europe are steadily increasing and are now impacting sheep herd and farmers.
It looks like more hunters are needed.
-
Apparently, wolf and wild boar populations in Europe are steadily increasing and are now impacting sheep herd and farmers.
It looks like more hunters are needed.
A perfect metaphor for Europe? ;)
-
A perfect metaphors for Europe? ;)
Oh, we finally get political! ;D ;D ;D
Kent in SD
-
Indeed, it is now a political issue. The left wing of Social democrats in Germany is promoting the legal protection and diversity, while the conservatives demand some kind of control. Even Angela Merkel got involved, but so far, the number of the predators is increasing. Also the swines are out of control and causing a lot of damage. The Denmark government is building a fence along its southern border with Germany to stop the swines from entering the country and the spread of African swine fever.
Wolf management is a political issue and there was even a clause on the need to come up with a strategy on wolves in last year’s coalition deal between the conservatives of Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Social Democrats.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-wolves/whos-afraid-of-the-big-bad-wolf-german-government-wants-looser-rules-on-shooting-the-predator-idUSKCN1OX175
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.4998834/denmark-builds-15m-border-fence-to-keep-out-german-wild-boars-1.4997032
-
Apparently, wolf and wild boar populations in Europe are steadily increasing and are now impacting sheep herd and farmers.
It looks like more hunters are needed.
Do you mean the 1 wolf couple here in Flanders and the 20 sheep they killed? I think we leave the wolfs and give them a bit room to live... :-)
-
I wouldn't worry about one lonely wolf pair. If everything goes well, they may even start a new generation of wolves in Flanders. Would be a good opportunity to come up now with a new Belgian chocolate bar showing the handsome couple on the wrapper.
http://www.flanderstoday.eu/baby-wolves-flanders-next-year-says-conservation-expert
However, in Germany they have now over 600 wolves with over 1000 sheep killed in a year. But they have also an overpopulation of deer, so they need there hunters shooting both, wolves and deer.
-
... in Germany they have now over 600 wolves with over 1000 sheep killed in a year...
The numbers I’ve come across are almost double that, and in a single day:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/10/leaked-document-says-2000-men-allegedly-assaulted-1200-german-women-on-new-years-eve/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.69cde766d073
-
Most of those attackers were never caught. Actually, only two men were convicted after 1,200 sexual assaults in Cologne. Following that event, Germans rushed to get revolvers and small arms licences.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl04r1OjRQs
For Merkel, who had won praise for opening Germany's borders to those fleeing conflict and persecution, it was a nightmare start to the year. Her popularity plummeted as the anxiety that had been bubbling about the refugee influx burst into the open, leading to angry protests and a surge in support for the anti-Islam, anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.
...
Voters punished Merkel by handing her conservative party a series of defeats in regional elections, whereas the populist AfD gained ground. The once untouchable chancellor admitted in September she wished she could "turn back time" to better prepare for the refugee crisis, and promised there would be no repeat of the unprecedented influx.
https://www.thelocal.de/20161215/year-after-cologne-sex-assaults-germany-frets-over-integration
-
Most of those attackers were never caught. Actually, only two men were convicted after 1,200 sexual assaults in Cologne. Following that event, Germans rushed to get revolvers and small arms licences.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl04r1OjRQs
https://www.thelocal.de/20161215/year-after-cologne-sex-assaults-germany-frets-over-integration
Germany has very restrictive laws regarding weapons.
People don't just "rush" to get revolvers and small arm licenses. They wouldn't get them just so.
Let alone carrying them.
Even in Switzerland, where every citizen without a "criminal record" has the right to posses weapons there are strict rules about how to store or transport them.
It is not the same to own a weapon than to carry it
I would be careful when choosing the sources of information and the spreading thereof. There is a lot of rubbish around
-
Germany has very restrictive laws regarding weapons. People don't just "rush" to get revolvers and small arm licenses. They wouldn't get them just so. Let alone carrying them.
Even in Switzerland, where every citizen without a "criminal record" has the right to posses weapons there are strict rules about how to store or transport them. It is not the same to own a weapon than to carry it
I would be careful when choosing the sources of information and the spreading thereof. There is a lot of rubbish around
No doubt that the German gun laws are more restrictive than in USA or in eastern Europe. However, the quoted article (from the www.thelocal.de) explicitly states that Germans rushed to obtain small arms licences, and add that the number of applications in Bavaria in the first three months of 2016 equaled that for the whole of the previous year. I haven't read anything from that publication before, but it seems to be established and respectable.
Wikipedia: The Local is a multi-regional, European, English-language digital news publisher with local editions in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. Each site, while alike in appearance, has separate editorial teams, each focused on its respective market.
https://www.thelocal.de/20161215/year-after-cologne-sex-assaults-germany-frets-over-integration
-
No doubt that the German gun laws are more restrictive than in USA or in eastern Europe. However, the quoted article (from the www.thelocal.de) explicitly states that Germans rushed to obtain small arms licences, and add that the number of applications in Bavaria in the first three months of 2016 equaled that for the whole of the previous year. I haven't read anything from that publication before, but it seems to be established and respectable.
https://www.thelocal.de/20161215/year-after-cologne-sex-assaults-germany-frets-over-integration
Thank you for the hint
Never heard before of that publication
Nevertheless they write "Meanwhile Germans rushed to obtain small arms licences, with the number of applications in Bavaria in the first three months of 2016 equaling that for the whole of the previosu year." no revolvers mentioned. Small arms are "non-lethal", blank firing guns they precise, which - if you dig a little in the same publication, ara not much more than pepper spray IMHO
Of course you write in good faith. Only that there are many "low level" publications around.
If you are interested in Germany or Switzerland (or the rest of the world) for example you can choose NZZ, FAZ, Süddeutsche Zeitung etc. Most have an English versions and ARE serious and journalistic excellent. Some have English editions, I believe
-
Thank you for the hint
Never heard before of that publication
Nevertheless they write "Meanwhile Germans rushed to obtain small arms licences, with the number of applications in Bavaria in the first three months of 2016 equaling that for the whole of the previosu year." no revolvers mentioned. Small arms are "non-lethal", blank firing guns they precise, which - if you dig a little in the same publication, ara not much more than pepper spray IMHO
Of course you write in good faith. Only that there are many "low level" publications around.
If you are interested in Germany or Switzerland (or the rest of the world) for example you can choose NZZ, FAZ, Süddeutsche Zeitung etc. Most have an English versions and ARE serious and journalistic excellent. Some have English editions, I believe
Revolvers was my wording, that's how I interpreted small arms. Maybe incorrectly, but why would anybody buy a blank-firing or starting pistol for self-defense?
Thank you for the links to the other German publications. For the last few years, I've been reading daily spiegel.de which has also pretty good coverage of the world events.
EDIT: Just looked at the FAZ website, and found there a very informative article about Kingfishers, with exquisite images of these colorful birds.
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/faszination-eisvogel-wie-ein-blitz-vom-himmel-16122185.html
-
Revolvers was my wording, that's how I interpreted small arms. Maybe incorrectly, but why would anybody buy a blank-firing or starting pistol for self-defense?
Thank you for the links to the other German publications. For the last few years, I've been reading daily spiegel.de which has also pretty good coverage of the world events.
Not your blame. Any normal person reads that and perceives as you did. Probably they do it on purpose.
That in Cologne happened of course and many people went hysteric maybe.
But it was not a mass hysteria.
Why would people seek licenses they are not going to get, by law?
And what are you going to do with a gun that has to be in a safe with the ammunition separated from the gun, as the law prescribes?
A publication like that lives from the clicks, I presume. Sensation sells better than real life.
Just my humble opinion
-
With all that new information, I was going to suggest that it would be easier to carry a pepper spray, but now I found out that in Germany it it is illegal to carry any form of pepper spray, regardless of its purpose, at demonstrations and large public gatherings.
So it looks like the only way to get a kick from pressing the nozzle on the pepper spray is to take it on a hike through some wild blueberry meadows. For the record, in Canada, the surest way to find some plump and photogenic bears is to visit the rural garbage dumps.
-
Revolvers was my wording, that's how I interpreted small arms.
"Small arms" is technically any hand held gun. A pistol is a "small arm," as is my deer rifle or shotgun. It differentiates from larger weapons such as artillery.
Kent in SD
-
EDIT: Just looked at the FAZ website, and found there a very informative article about Kingfishers, with exquisite images of these colorful birds.
Agree :)
I meet those birds very seldom on the riverside.
And the experienced eye sees more :)
I met once a photographer with a big telephoto lens in a parking lot. I asked him what he was doing and he indicated me the owl he was taking photos of.
I'd had never noticed the bird otherwise :)
-
"Small arms" is technically any hand held gun. A pistol is a "small arm," as is my deer rifle or shotgun. It differentiates from larger weapons such as artillery.
Kent in SD
Whatever.
In the article we're discussing they specify later that they referred to "non-lethal" weapons.
Journalists sometime use diffuse terminology to attract attention
As stated, you don't get legally weapons in Germany just so. Therefore you don't apply for licenses you are almost sure not to get.
That was the context
-
..lTherefore you don't apply for licenses you are almost sure not to get..l
Strange logic. Then why is there an application process for something you can’t get? If you can apply, you can get. Probably not everyone, but some will get.
-
German laws were created by German Shepherds for German sheeple. With the invasion of wolves, the sheeple realized the shepherds are not protecting them sufficiently anymore and decided to take matters into their own hands.
-
Strange logic. Then why is there an application process for something you can’t get? If you can apply, you can get. Probably not everyone, but some will get.
Q.E.D.
You read rubbish and find out for yourself that what the journalist writes is trash.
With that very logic you're using
In principle you can apply for anything.
Say: You go to a restaurant and apply for shoes.
They'll say you "impossible, we don't sell shoes". And that's it.
If you read in the papers that thousands of Germans are applying in restaurants for shoes, you suspect that it's not true ;)
You can apply maybe but if you don't fulfill some conditions you get a NO. And in Germany this is restrictive. Unless you have a good reason, it would be NO
If you are registered as having done something legally wrong, it is NO
In some more permissive countries like Switzerland just belonging to some national groups excludes you from legally purchasing a weapon
-
... Say: You go to a restaurant and apply for shoes...
Only sheeple would do that. You see, wolves are smarter than that. They do not get their shoes from restaurants. They know where shoe suppliers are. Soon sheeple will find out that too.
-
When googling for "murder weapons in Germany" the www.local.de came again to rescue.
Surprisingly, Germany has one of the highest rates of gun ownership worldwide, yet also one of the lowest rates of gun-related deaths.
To get a gun, Germans must first obtain a firearms ownership license (Waffenbesitzkarte) - and you may need a different one for each weapon you buy - or a license to carry (Waffenschein).
Applicants for a license must be at least 18 years old and undergo what’s called a reliability check, which includes checking for criminal records, whether the person is an alcohol or drug addict, whether they have mental illness or any other attributes that might make them questionable to authorities.
They also have to pass a “specialized knowledge test” on guns and people younger than 25 applying for their first license must go through a psychiatric evaluation.
One must also prove a specific and approved need for the weapon, which is mainly limited to use by hunters, competitive marksmen, collectors and security workers - not for self-defence.
Once you have a license, you’re also limited in the number of and kinds of guns you may own, depending on what kind of license you have: Fully automatic weapons are banned for all, while semiautomatic firearms are banned for anything other than hunting or competitive shooting.
Under the reforms passed in the wake of a 2009 mass shooting, gun owners are also subject to continued monitoring by the government with officials able to ask gun owners at any time to enter their private property and check that they are properly storing their weapons.
https://www.thelocal.de/20160616/five-things-to-know-about-guns-in-germany-us-gun-control-laws
-
When googling for "murder weapons in Germany" the www.local.de came again to rescue.
Surprisingly, Germany has one of the highest rates of gun ownership worldwide, yet also one of the lowest rates of gun-related deaths.
https://www.thelocal.de/20160616/five-things-to-know-about-guns-in-germany-us-gun-control-laws
It’s a bit like Belgian weapon law.
Hunters have to pass difficult exams to get a hunters license hence the possibility to buy hunting weapons.
Sport shooters have to subscribe to a club and prove annually a minimum of practice in the shooting ranch. Sport shooters can only buy sport calibers. (Luckily .44 and .45 is considered as super caliber) snub style guns (4”, 2”)are not considered as sport weapons and we won’t get a license for it. Depends how good you know the local police officer responsible for arm licences.
About the question: why buying an alarm pistol for self defense: it has to see with the distance between arms and public. The public opinion is very biased against private weapons. It is not easy to officially get a gun. People’s who are interested in guns are often not willing to overcome the effort and legal stuff to obtain a licence, instead they soften the urge to own the real deal by getting a counterfeit.
It all changed end 90’s. A Winchester 30.30 was considered as hunting rifle and any +18 could buy one.
One infamous guy walked in our local gun shop and walked out with a Winchester and a box ammunition. One hour later he shot a nanny and the baby and a toddler, 200 meter away from the gun shop, because the nanny was a black woman. 😭
Weapon legislation was modified within a month and all weapons fell under police license.
It was possible to buy military rifles. Don’t forget we have famous weapon industry and lobby in Belgium (FN with the FAL, Mimimi, etc) the licence was granted by the governor, not the local police. After a raid with assault weapons, it’s not possible anymore to get military weapons and ammo.
Same with shotguns. In the 80’s, several brutal political inspired raids (some say it was the military police) with little loot but high casualties resulted in a complete prohibition of riotguns and short riot guns with pistol grips became very forbidden property.
......
When another massive shooting incident in the US shocks the US and the world, there is no understanding for the US second amendment anywhere in Europe and people’s wonder when the US politicians will finally get the balls to make work of a real weapon legislation. Personally, I don’t have an opinion on the subject, it’s US citizens business. And for same reason, buying a alarm gun looks strange for an American, it’s strange voor an European to find a revolver in a blister in Wallmarkt. Different worlds....
-
What is interesting and, I believe, important about European gun control laws is not that they are directly particularly effective but rather the ease with which they are passed. Some lunatic does a bad thing, and the populace says more or less with one voice "well, let's pass a law prohibiting those guns" and it simply happens.
In the USA this does not simply happen, and this speaks strongly to the US attitudes towards guns.
In Belgium you have, no doubt, many sad teenagers. As we do in the USA.
The difference is that in the USA it is not uncommon for that teenager to say "You know what would make me feel better? I should get some guns, and go shoot a bunch of people at a school!" and in Belgium this is, I think, pretty rare. Not because this gun or that gun is or is not prohibited, but because the attitudes of most people in Belgium are simply different. The sad teenagers lean toward other ideas for dealing with their sadness.
Not to suggest, of course, that even in the USA sad teenagers grab a gun first. Those people are rare here as well. But they are far more common here than anywhere else.
-
What is interesting and, I believe, important about European gun control laws is not that they are directly particularly effective but rather the ease with which they are passed. Some lunatic does a bad thing, and the populace says more or less with one voice "well, let's pass a law prohibiting those guns" and it simply happens.
In the USA this does not simply happen, and this speaks strongly to the US attitudes towards guns.
In Belgium you have, no doubt, many sad teenagers. As we do in the USA.
The difference is that in the USA it is not uncommon for that teenager to say "You know what would make me feel better? I should get some guns, and go shoot a bunch of people at a school!" and in Belgium this is, I think, pretty rare. Not because this gun or that gun is or is not prohibited, but because the attitudes of most people in Belgium are simply different. The sad teenagers lean toward other ideas for dealing with their sadness.
Not to suggest, of course, that even in the USA sad teenagers grab a gun first. Those people are rare here as well. But they are far more common here than anywhere else.
I’m not sure what would happen if a Belgian sad teenager can find a gun in every drawer of the house, or even have it’s own or take it out of moms purse.
-
The sad teenagers lean toward other ideas for dealing with their sadness.
I could reply about how “disappointed youngsters” found connection with Isis, but this would be very over the red line of political debate, so I mute myself.
-
What is interesting and, I believe, important about European gun control laws is not that they are directly particularly effective but rather the ease with which they are passed. Some lunatic does a bad thing, and the populace says more or less with one voice "well, let's pass a law prohibiting those guns" and it simply happens.
In the USA this does not simply happen, and this speaks strongly to the US attitudes towards guns.
In Belgium you have, no doubt, many sad teenagers. As we do in the USA.
The difference is that in the USA it is not uncommon for that teenager to say "You know what would make me feel better? I should get some guns, and go shoot a bunch of people at a school!" and in Belgium this is, I think, pretty rare. Not because this gun or that gun is or is not prohibited, but because the attitudes of most people in Belgium are simply different. The sad teenagers lean toward other ideas for dealing with their sadness.
Not to suggest, of course, that even in the USA sad teenagers grab a gun first. Those people are rare here as well. But they are far more common here than anywhere else.
The attitudes are indeed different in different countries.
It's worthwhile to quote another example. In Canada's north, many Inuit youths have access to and use long guns to hunt seals, hares and various birds. They don't use their guns (or extremely seldom) to kill other people. Unfortunately, their suicide rates (for both, boys and girls) are very high.
-
Just to go back to the statement that gun permit applications in Germany tripled after that incident (New Year's eve, was it?). Did it go from 10 to 30 or from 100,000 to 300,000? It makes a difference to the points people are trying to make. I didn't see a specific number quoted but I could easily have missed it.
This is analogous to an advertisement stating that a digicam has a 3x zoom lens. A 10-30e (35 mm equiv) zoom range buys you a completely different camera than one with a 30-90e range. The actual number matters, the ratio alone doesn't mean much.
This kind of incomplete reporting of information is too widespread. When a politician gives a speech in which he decries that xxx millions are being spent on something and that there should be cuts, two things almost never happen. The reporting does not compare the number xxx with anything else in the budget, so it's difficult to know what it really means. Is it really a lot or is it a drop in the bucket? It just sounds like a lot. The other thing that's almost never seen in media reporting is the cost of NOT spending that money.
A good example of the latter is a recent pronouncement by the current premier of Ontario. One of his suggested cuts to health care expenses was to stop using anaesthetics during colonoscopies because it would be cheaper to not do so. I'm sure that's true, it would be cheaper. It would be cheaper to not have a police force or an army too. Or paved roads. Or air traffic control. At least within those narrow budget sectors. There may be resulting increases in costs elsewhere however. E.g., people might choose not to have colonoscopies because it would be too onerous, which would result in more colon cancers in the future. It is easy to pretend that you're saving money by not doing something, but it is an incomplete analysis at best.
Another example is a recent estimate that it will cost about $70 billion dollars to clean up orphan gas and oil wells in the province of Alberta. Past environmental legislation either allowed orphan wells to happen, or if outlawed, it was not adequately policed. I'm willing to bet that someone along the line said that keeping environmental costs down in this manner would help create jobs, or some such nonsense. But the costs didn't disappear, they were just handed off to someone else to pay.
-
In a historic first, I'd agree with Robert ;)
-
I also agree with Robert, specifically with his last three paragraphs. Not with his opening salvo.
According to my sources, as of December 31, 2018, over 600,000 German citizens owned firearms licenses, including over 50,000 new licenses just in 2018.
So the annual addition in firearm licenses is not 10 nor 30, and also not in excess of 100,000. Let's assume that in the recent years the annual number of new gun licences was around 50,000. Considering this volume, the relative comparison stating a triple increase after the 2015 New Year event is perfectly reasonable. The 53,000 new licences in 2018 constitute only 9% increase, but that is based on an already significantly increased base. It would be even more telling to see a graph showing absolute numbers between 2012 and 2018, but I don't have access to those statistics.
As of December 31, 2018, 610,931 German people were issued firearms licenses. The figures equated to a huge increase of over 50,000 more licenses in 2018.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6598027/Germany-sees-huge-rise-number-weapon-license-applications.html
Another fact not obvious from the stats above, and also not widely publicized is that precisely because of the strict gun laws, more bad guys and also more law-abiding Germans resort to knives. That was also documented in my aforementioned youtube link where the young girl showed the reporter her pocket knife. This is in no means an isolated case, I personally knew a retired German engineer, a rather stately fellow, who over the years amassed a good collection of various knives for self-defense, and carried one even on his bike trips, so the number of knives carried everyday by people in Germany could be rather high.
German media do not report most knife-related violence. Crimes that are reported are often dismissed as "isolated incidents" that are unrelated to mass immigration. Moreover, many crime reports, including those in police blotters, omit references to the nationalities of the perpetrators and victims — apparently to avoid inflaming anti-immigration sentiments.... Many Germans have the sense that danger lurks everywhere, but the lack of official statistics seemingly allows German authorities to pretend that the problem is imaginary. Police reported more than 4,100 knife-related crimes in 2018, compared to around 3,800 reported during 2017 — and only 400 in 2008. Overall, during the past ten years, knife-related crimes in Germany have increased by more than 900% — from one a day to more than ten a day.
Germany's knife-crime epidemic has continued nonstop into 2019. During the first 45 days of 2019, police reported more than 500 knife crimes — an average of 11 a day.
Mourtala Madou, a 33-year-old illegal immigrant from Niger, has been sentenced to life in prison for stabbing to death his 34-year-old German ex-girlfriend and decapitating their 21-month-old daughter at a subway station in Hamburg. The grisly crime has drawn renewed attention to Germany's spiraling epidemic of stabbings and knife violence, which has raged since Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed into the country more than a million mostly male migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
The double murder in Hamburg occurred the morning of April 12, 2018, one day after a family judge denied Madou (also known as Mado Bido M. or Mourtala M.) joint custody of his daughter. Madou followed the mother, Sandra P., and their toddler, Mariam, into the Jungfernstieg station in downtown Hamburg. In front of many passers-by, he opened his backpack, pulled out a knife and stabbed his stroller-bound daughter in the abdomen. He then slashed her neck and severed her head. Madou subsequently plunged the knife into Sandra P.'s back and cut through her vital organs. She died less than an hour later at a nearby hospital.
During interrogation by police, Madou explained: "This is my child. This is my blood. The mother separates me from the child. Then I separate the child from her."
On February 15, 2019, the Hamburg District Court (Landgericht Hamburg) sentenced Madou to life in prison for two counts of murder. In addition, the court established a "particular severity of guilt" (besondere Schwere der Schuld), a legal mechanism applied to sentences for especially brutal crimes. That verdict disqualifies Madou from automatically being eligible for parole after serving 15 years, as otherwise is the normal practice in Germany. A lawyer representing Sandra P.'s sister said that the sentence handed to Madou was "the maximum we could legally achieve."
Police and prosecutors had initially tried to conceal from the public that Madou had decapitated the baby, but a commuter — Ghanaian citizen Daniel J., a gospel singer at an evangelical church in Hamburg — who happened to arrive at the subway station moments after the attack filmed the scene on his phone.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13802/germany-stabbings-knife-crimes
I happen to agree also with Robert's second paragraph. The camera zoom ratio is completely meaningless to me (especially in 10-30mm range), and usually I carry two cameras - one with a prime wide angle or 24-85mm lens and the other with a 70-200mm lens.
-
Actually, it matters a great deal.
For many years, there was an extended debate among legal scholars, echoed in a number of appellate cases, about whether the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1791, referred to a private right to possess firearms or to a collective right that could only be exercised by a militia—such as the federally-chartered reserve military organizations maintained by the individual states (the "National Guard"). Prior to 2008, I think the weight of legal opinion was that the provision was intended to refer to the latter.
That year, in an appeal captioned District of Coumbia v. Heller (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf), the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the opposite interpretation, invalidating a Washington, D.C. local law that effectively prohibited personal possession of firearms, ruling that
In subsequent litigation, the Supreme Court extended to the states the constitutional principle that possession of firearms was a personal rather than a collective right. (For those reading this from other countries, I should point out that the District of Columbia, as the national capital, is an enclave of the federal government, and therefore Heller did not directly address the authority of the individual states to ban firearms.)
This case law settled the fundamental constitutional issue. However, both the federal government and the states retain broad discretion—precisely how broad will probably need to be determined by future litigation—to regulate firearms. What is clear is that neither can pass laws that explicitly or implicitly ban gun possession by individuals.
How much regulation there will be in the future is essentially a political issue which, I suspect, will be determined on a state-by-state basis rather than by the federal government. The United States is a huge and very diverse country. Gun control laws and regulations that make sense to the voters in Maryland, where I live, may seem ludicrous to voters in Montana. And vice versa.
There may be some areas where Congress will pass new legislation for the entire country—for example, to close some loopholes in the federal gun registration requirements or to regulate additional types of rapid-firing weapons and large magazines or accumulations of ammunition. But getting a national consensus on the proper extent of gun control has proved extremely elusive, and absent a considerable shift in public opinion it appears to me that these decisions will largely be left to the states.
The right of the federal government (and the Supreme Court *is* federal govt.) to opine on the first two Amendments, given that those are worded as absolute prohibitions against infringement by federal government, is quite dubious. While the Supreme Court's opinion on these Amendments may be considered to have merit, their right to enforce those opinions is clearly prohibited by the very wording of those Amendments.
-
The right of the federal government (and the Supreme Court *is* federal govt.) to opine on the first two Amendments, given that those are worded as absolute prohibitions against infringement by federal government, is quite dubious. While the Supreme Court's opinion on these Amendments may be considered to have merit, their right to enforce those opinions is clearly prohibited by the very wording of those Amendments.
What? This is an absurd position, for several reasons, not least among which you are pretty clearly not certain of the very wording you refer to.
-
What? This is an absurd position, for several reasons, not least among which you are pretty clearly not certain of the very wording you refer to.
'Absurd' is not logical, it's emotional. The several reasons are of course missing. And the very wording is clear: "Congress shall make no law..." and "...shall not be infringed".
"Shall not" and "make no law" are absolutes, not relative.
-
Congress is not the Federal Government, and definitely isn't the Supreme Court.
The idea that the Supreme Court is not in a position to opine on the Amendments to the Constitution is ridiculous. It directly contradicts the powers of the Supreme Court as laid out in the Constitution in Article III section 2 paragraph 2, the bit which reads: the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, and frankly sounds like a lunatic theory cribbed from some fringe gun-rights web site. It is ludicrous and wrong.
-
Congress is not the Federal Government, and definitely isn't the Supreme Court.
The idea that the Supreme Court is not in a position to opine on the Amendments to the Constitution is ridiculous. It directly contradicts the powers of the Supreme Court as laid out in the Constitution in Article III section 2 paragraph 2, the bit which reads: the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, and frankly sounds like a lunatic theory cribbed from some fringe gun-rights web site. It is ludicrous and wrong.
Congress and the Supreme Court are two of the 3 branches of the federal government.
Your answer is so full of emotion that it's nearly incoherent. To repeat: The Bill of Rights, particularly in this case the first two Amendments, are clearly from their wording absolutes, and prohibit the government (Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court) from abrogating the rights described therein.
I'd suggest that you've been blinded over many years of relativistic indoctrination to accept that which the founders laid down as unacceptable. There's a very good reason that the people of the U.S. have held these Amendments (rights) as sacrosanct over the centuries, and that reason is obvious to any freedom loving Citizen (as opposed to Subject).
A government of the people puts the people first, as citizens, not subjects. The government's right to administrate and govern is laid out in the Constitution, and the 10th Amendment makes it clear that their powers are limited. I get from your answers that you believe the government to be more of a ruler than an administrator and enforcer of existing law, and that they have carte blanche to seize more power whenever they so decide.
-
You have no idea of my politics, to be blunt, and since we seem to be talking past one another, each claiming that the other is holding an insane position, I will simply let it rest there.