Cache of guns stolen from LAPD

[Robert_S]

Without liberty and freedom, none of those things mean anything. I'd rather be dead than live a life of slavery and servitude, and a free man can usually find food, water, shelter and healthcare when he needs it, whereas slaves and sheeple have no choice but to take whatever their masters give them...or don't give them. Just ask the residents of the gulags in the USSR how that worked out for them. Not so well.

Strangely enough most slaves don't commit suicide, most people in oppressive regimes do their best to survive. I'll stick to staying alive then I will worry about the freedom bit

Suicide requires initiative, as I found out to my dismay during a rather severe bout of depression.

[Gallstones]

This debate polarises it all into black and white it's not like that ,there are many shades of difference between anyone can have any guns they desire and nobody can own no guns at all ???

Having civilian guns for 'self defence' is a black and white issue, anyone found possessing one should be executed on the spot (well in theory they get a mandatory 5 years) but I suppose there is a chance they could be handing over them over but not very likely

{:Deep Sigh:}

MrJonno, you have made this same statement elsewhere and IMO nearly word for word.
I asked then but did not get an answer from you. I ask again...

...in this world of yours where there are no guns, no implements whose only purpose is to inflict death, just how will this "on the spot execution" be carried out?

[Gallstones]

What? You wouldn't come for them yourself. Piffle, I say! (I can't believe "piffle" is in the online dictionary.

Thats the libertarian idiocy of thinking they are independent and self-reliant, me I believe you should never do anything that can't be done better in a group preferable professionals who are trained to do that sort of thing

Why am I imagining ice skating right now?

[MrJonno]

The important word is civilian, there is no difference to me (or legal one for that matter) is an armed agent of the state wears a police uniform, a military one or is an intelligence agent (well they carry guns on tv). I would prefer there was an absolute minimum of state employees carrying firearms but I do accept there is a jusification in some circumstances for them to carry one.

A policeman/anti terrorist SAS shooting someone with an illegal firearm dead is something I don't have a problem with but even then I would expect them to fill in the paperwork

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The important word is civilian, there is no difference to me (or legal one for that matter) is an armed agent of the state wears a police uniform, a military one or is an intelligence agent (well they carry guns on tv). I would prefer there was an absolute minimum of state employees carrying firearms but I do accept there is a jusification in some circumstances for them to carry one.

I'm with you on that, to a certain degree. The number that constitutes "minimum" would be the sticking point.

A policeman/anti terrorist SAS shooting someone with an illegal firearm dead is something I don't have a problem with but even then I would expect them to fill in the paperwork

I had to "do the paperwork" once, in LA. Doubly complicated as I was active duty Navy at the time. The Board declared it a righteous shoot in the end. The Navy took nearly a month longer to say I did what was needed.

[MrJonno]

Well I know the US for some reason treats the deployment of force differently if they are police , national guard or the military but there generally isnt such a difference in the UK.

If a problem can be dealt with by unarmed police officers (like 99.9% of them) thats what we do, if it needs a special armed police unit ok, if we have a little civil war (Northern Ireland) or terrorists have taken over an embassy with send in the military. It's an escalation of force but legally there isnt a lot of difference

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well I know the US for some reason treats the deployment of force differently if they are police , national guard or the military but there generally isnt such a difference in the UK.

If a problem can be dealt with by unarmed police officers (like 99.9% of them) thats what we do, if it needs a special armed police unit ok, if we have a little civil war (Northern Ireland) or terrorists have taken over an embassy with send in the military. It's an escalation of force but legally there isnt a lot of difference

MJ, if I had been unarmed that time I would have been seriously injured or dead. The final Navy report emphasized the need for us to go armed on that kind of job.

[MrJonno]

Never said I had a problem with the military have weapons when appropiate (ie when the fire brigade goes on strike every so often the army takes over and you don't need an assault rifle to put out fires)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Never said I had a problem with the military have weapons when appropiate (ie when the fire brigade goes on strike every so often the army takes over and you don't need an assault rifle to put out fires)

This was in South Central LA, not a combat zone (well, not in the military sense anyway.)

[MrJonno]

Never said I had a problem with the military have weapons when appropiate (ie when the fire brigade goes on strike every so often the army takes over and you don't need an assault rifle to put out fires)

This was in South Central LA, not a combat zone (well, not in the military sense anyway.)

Well I can understand the police/military wanting to be armed anywhere in the US and while I would be very sad if the British police ever wanted to routinely armed (through probably much as they would be) they would have my support

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Never said I had a problem with the military have weapons when appropiate (ie when the fire brigade goes on strike every so often the army takes over and you don't need an assault rifle to put out fires)

This was in South Central LA, not a combat zone (well, not in the military sense anyway.)

Well I can understand the police/military wanting to be armed anywhere in the US and while I would be very sad if the British police ever wanted to routinely armed (through probably much as they would be) they would have my support

Agreed. There's a rule in warship design, "be armored against the guns you carry." If you have 16" guns, be armored to resist 16" shells from the enemy. It's the same way in the US. If you were armed with a muzzle-loader and the bad guys have Mac-10s, it's game over for you.

[MrJonno]

I thought most modern warships while extermely powerful are glass cannons incredibly vulnerable if they do get hit. We lost ships in the Falklands from weapons that didnt even explode and I doubt if US ships are that different.

Sorry I prefer the scenario of don't let the bad guys get hold of weapons in the first place or if they are nation state make sure they never get in range of you to use them

[Wumbologist]

Sorry I prefer the scenario of don't let the bad guys get hold of weapons in the first place or if they are nation state make sure they never get in range of you to use them

Nobody wants the bad guys to get hold of weapons, but banning lawful civilian ownership of guns isn't a fix for that. It may work to some extent in a nation like the UK, with a relatively low number of civilian guns in circulation to begin with, denser population, less open space, and smaller, more easily controlled borders. On the other hand, a nation like the US has a high number of civilian guns already in circulation. There are large areas of rural land where clandestine machine shops could be hidden, to produce simple, yet still effective firearms. We have massive land borders with two nations, one of which we can't control the flow of drugs and immigration from to begin with, and two large sea borders. Outlawing guns in the US would remove guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens willing to turn theirs in, but those who refused would simply be adding to the already existing cache of illegal weapons. If the numbers of those were to start to diminish, the criminals in the US who want guns wouldn't have much trouble setting up small clandestine workshops to build their own. Historically there have been more than a few weapons designed specifically to be built in these conditions and still perform effectively, such as the British Sten gun, which was specifically designed so that it could be made in many small workshops scattered across the country to diminish the chances of the Luftwaffe cutting off their supplies. And, of course, with an increase in demand for illegal guns we could expect to see large-scale smuggling operations starting up. Long story short, the law-abiding citizen gun owner who is perfectly safe with a gun will be the only one who won't be able to get one, and the criminals will still have the same access to guns as they did before. If you want an example of how well prohibition works in the US, just look at the time we tried it with booze.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I thought most modern warships while extermely powerful are glass cannons incredibly vulnerable if they do get hit. We lost ships in the Falklands from weapons that didnt even explode and I doubt if US ships are that different.

I didn't say that was a modern rule, its from the Gun Navy Era. Defense will almost always be playing catch up to offense.

Sorry I prefer the scenario of don't let the bad guys get hold of weapons in the first place or if they are nation state make sure they never get in range of you to use them

Really? And what world would you be talking about where the bad guys play by the rules?

[MrJonno]

Sorry I prefer the scenario of don't let the bad guys get hold of weapons in the first place or if they are nation state make sure they never get in range of you to use them

Nobody wants the bad guys to get hold of weapons, but banning lawful civilian ownership of guns isn't a fix for that. It may work to some extent in a nation like the UK, with a relatively low number of civilian guns in circulation to begin with, denser population, less open space, and smaller, more easily controlled borders. On the other hand, a nation like the US has a high number of civilian guns already in circulation. There are large areas of rural land where clandestine machine shops could be hidden, to produce simple, yet still effective firearms. We have massive land borders with two nations, one of which we can't control the flow of drugs and immigration from to begin with, and two large sea borders. Outlawing guns in the US would remove guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens willing to turn theirs in, but those who refused would simply be adding to the already existing cache of illegal weapons. If the numbers of those were to start to diminish, the criminals in the US who want guns wouldn't have much trouble setting up small clandestine workshops to build their own. Historically there have been more than a few weapons designed specifically to be built in these conditions and still perform effectively, such as the British Sten gun, which was specifically designed so that it could be made in many small workshops scattered across the country to diminish the chances of the Luftwaffe cutting off their supplies. And, of course, with an increase in demand for illegal guns we could expect to see large-scale smuggling operations starting up. Long story short, the law-abiding citizen gun owner who is perfectly safe with a gun will be the only one who won't be able to get one, and the criminals will still have the same access to guns as they did before. If you want an example of how well prohibition works in the US, just look at the time we tried it with booze.

Not sure I've ever said guns should being outlawed in the US would work now, just think its a tragic that anyone ever got into situation where guns were common place. It's certainly not an inalienable right.

Sten gun was designed because it was cheap but I don't think they were ever produced outside proper factories