[Medusa]

http://www.postimees.ee/070606/esileht/siseuudised/204670.php
http://www.postimees.ee/070606/esileht/siseuudised/204591.php
Last one has even a little video.
[one must use some translator]
http://www.postimees.ee/foto/7/4/3884744855d0aee4d7_3.jpg
Anyway, since military is going over to the 9 mm HK USP pistol as a standard, they got rid of old guns. Same story as over there at your place, instead of selling the guns to civilians (when applicable), rather the country wanted to collect points from HK and get their guns cheaper, so they destroyed the guns. Amount was small by US standards, but still, 6000 pistols - 4500 TTs, 1000 Makarovs and 500 Colt .45s. Most of the guns were either brand new (ie unused, NIB state), or in very good order. But no they had to destroy :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: I wouldn't have minded a few Colts. OK, I can understand the TTs and PMs if I try hard (as they were confiscated from criminals), but .45 cal? Isn't the new trend to move back to heavier calibres?

Besides, journalist is a "gem", said the TT, PM and Colt were the technology of "yesterday and day before yesterday". ***? If they work and get the job done then what's the problem, TT and Colt are hard hitting, proved design.

Sorry for rant, hard to see good weapons crushed, especially if I have keeped my eye on Colt .45 but haven't found any.:cuss:

[Vex]

Sorry for rant, hard to see good weapons crushed, especially if I have keeped my eye on Colt .45 but haven't found any.

It is hard to see good weapons.... pieces of art, really... destroyed by those whom don't seem to care. But, let me offer another angle on this, just for sake of conversation... These are military weapons, built for a service in honor and courage, to protect those who protect us. I would rather see them destroyed than in the hands of a criminal... or worse, in the hands of a terrorist, who would seek to use them as tools to bring down the foundation of our country.

I hope you see it the same way... these tools to protect YOUR country... would you want them in the hands of a criminal?

[WeedWhacker]

Meh. The firearms are *tools*, nothing more. Criminals (i.e. felons) are already barred from owning firearms by law, so that's just a straw man. While I won't be shedding a tear for the destroyed firearms, I still consider it a foolish waste of resources, the one thing our federal gov't does quite well at.

[leadcounsel]

I agree and it sickens me that they are destroyed for a variety of reasons. These guns could be a source of revenue for money-strapped governments, like OURS. Sell them to whomever -- gun dealers, private citizens, donate them to schools for training children gun safety, give them to friendly foreign nations that are fighting for independence or developing or whatever, etc. Or heck, just store them in a huge vault someplace for an emergency situation (you never know). But DON'T destroy them!

I remember seeing black and white video footage of boatloads of "illegal" guns being shoveled into the ocean in the 30s and 40s. I also recall seeing pictures of guns turned in to the Australian Gov't in this decade, which were destroyed with steam rollers and heavy machinery.

This waste happens in the military (we destroy tons of military weaponry from the enemy). It also happens in every city police department. After guns are used in a crime they are kept in evidence until the case is closed and then they are destroyed. Cities could generate revenue by selling these to gun stores, but instead they are destroyed. It's just ignorant policy making.

:fire:

[xd9fan]

why am I not suprised....

[evan price]

C'mon guys...no need to get into a fit of orgasmic despair... repeat after me.. a gun is just an object...


Besides, the remaining ones around the world are worth just that much more.

[mnrivrat]

I would rather see them destroyed than in the hands of a criminal... or worse, in the hands of a terrorist, who would seek to use them as tools to bring down the foundation of our country.

No one wants to see weapons in the hands of criminals or terrorists , but I fail to see what that has to do with this issue ? This is the same mentality it seems to me as those who are anti-gun period. They believe if you take away the guns from good citizens and destroy them , then they won't be available for criminals . I don't agree ! :rolleyes:

C'mon guys...no need to get into a fit of orgasmic despair... repeat after me.. a gun is just an object...

While that is true , why do you suppose they destroy them instead of sell them ? It's just an object after all .


:confused:

I think the destruction of weapons has a lot to say about governments and how they view the citizens they are suppose to serve.

[Vex]

No one wants to see weapons in the hands of criminals or terrorists , but I fail to see what that has to do with this issue ? This is the same mentality it seems to me as those who are anti-gun period. They believe if you take away the guns from good citizens and destroy them , then they won't be available for criminals .

It's the sentiment that counts to me, so don't you dare compare me to an anti. There are plenty of guns to go around, and more are being made every day. Why would you want to take something that was meant to protect a country and sell it to criminals? Don't they have enough guns to choose from?

I feel the same way about police weapons that are used and sold. Destroy them so it's impossible for a criminal to use one to kill a cop. It's not the tool. It's not the availability of guns. It's the sentimental value of the object, and I find it rudely irresponsible for you insenuate that everyone feels these are just objects to be bought and sold on a whim.

a gun is just an object...

You'd feel the same way about your grand-dad's shotgun he used every day to hunt squirrel and rabbits to feed his family during the despression? Hogwash.

[Ovid]

These supposedly obsolete guns were presumably paid for with tax dollars, and they could have been auctioned off, or given to a police agency that needed them, but instead they were simply destroyed. Very wasteful :cuss:

[WeedWhacker]

You'd feel the same way about your grand-dad's shotgun he used every day to hunt squirrel and rabbits to feed his family during the despression?

Keep in mind that not everyone shares the same perspective as yourself. I don't have any extra affection for the firearms belonging to my family, and I don't have a particular use for most of them, either, as I've already got my own pistols and long guns.

[LAK]

Better than them falling into the hands of criminals? Terrorists? Like through the CMP? At a gunshow? Give me a break. This kind of thing is just waste.

Anyone with criminal intent, "convicted felon" or not, can get, and will always be able to get, as many guns as they have the money to buy - or want. One way or another.

"Gun control" is a myth.

-----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Medusa]

We have national guard, "Defence Union", who are volunteers (ordinary people, doing this job on weekends and so), paying for their own uniforms (govt issued are only Swedish equipment, made in 60s - uniforms, helmets, AK-4 AR, Gustav SMG, Carl Gustav AT, and the equipment that is written off by military), firearm accessories, sometimes firearms (like me, I bought my HK G36K, FN 57, CZ 75, just to serve&protect, and now am seeking for sniper rifle, as I volunteered for it :cuss: ) etc - people with ethics who pay to protect the freedom, put their free time, guts, wisdom&knowledge into it and mostly getting nothing in return beside personal pride (and sometimes get badmouthed by the "intellectuals" as being apes - people have been named as kids who play war in the sandbox :barf: ).
Why not sell the guns to them, or to civilians who still are into protecting themselves (since the state doesn't do this job at all). For centuries the weapon has been the identification of a free man, it is still thought so by some, though the slavery and communism has done it's job, but happily new generations are grown up with a little patriotism again.

I'm a member of this organization, I would have put up my personal contribution and bought 2 Colts, no problem. Everybody I know weeps over it. At least couple of hundred handguns would have found the new owner in a blink of an eye.

Again, sorry for rant, for me the guns are too just tools, but it is sad and wasteful to destroy tools in excellent working order, when they could have put up good use. It's irrational and ineffective.

As to the criminals, they have guns here whatever the way they got these, I've seen AK-74SUs, TTs, silenced PMs, PPŠs, UZIs, PDs, grenades, explosives and so on in the hands of criminals.

You know, these 4500 TTs were a confiscated arms supply, taken from criminals in a single event some 15 years ago.

Heh, once a drunk guy was arrested for being under influence, next to Govt building's front door, came out the guy had 2 kg of Semtex in plastic bag, and a detonator. Could have blown the gate&some parts of house straight to orbit :what:

All TTs I saw were still factory-greased, same story with PM-s, Colts were almost NIB, seen little use (couple random ones I played a little had very nice barrels).

EDITED: I hope you see it the same way... these tools to protect YOUR country... would you want them in the hands of a criminal?
No I wouldn't, but as a standard procedure, every transaction involving guns and gun parts go through PD, or local Defence Union HQ, as the license must be aquired, all gun buyers are checked over, same story with our Defence Union, everybody applying go through police checkout.

[max popenker]

We have national guard, "Defence Union"
Oh, is it a Kaitsellit, isn't it? A group of fine men who tend to lose their AK-4's in bars?
I hope it get any better than it was back in 1990s - i had some scare tales about kaitsellit from my friend who lives in Estonia...

[Medusa]

Hi Max, wondered when you'll join. Yes, the Kaitseliit. I've read/heard too about the idiots who are a disgrace to the organization and to the country. But it's hardly an AK-4 that gets lost in bars, mostly the idiots bang with AKs. It's an interesting phenomena, usually the AK gets involved whenever there's some crap. But as usual, some occasional idiots ruin the reputaion of whole organization, as they are the ones who stand up and get into public, usual ordinary men do their job without publicity.

Things are getting a lot better, as the "troubled times" are passing and most idiots got either killed or asskicked. And the applying is made a little harder, each candidate must get 3 reccomendations from fellows in the organization, so this avoids the "interesting people" a little.

Where does your friend live?

[sterling180]

These supposedly obsolete guns were presumably paid for with tax dollars, and they could have been auctioned off, or given to a police agency that needed them, but instead they were simply destroyed. Very wasteful

They used to auction-off ex-military and police rifles and pistols-to the target-shooting community,-and those that survived destruction,by the MOD,were destroyed by the similar government organizations-because some rifles and most handguns were stated as illegal.

To make matters worse,most L1A1s from private collections and from the governments armouries-were sold off at knockdown prices,to some African countries.Makes me annoyed that they would do that,rather than let the shooters have their weapons.:cuss: :cuss:.This of course happend after 1988.

[buzz_knox]

It's the sentiment that counts to me, so don't you dare compare me to an anti. There are plenty of guns to go around, and more are being made every day. Why would you want to take something that was meant to protect a country and sell it to criminals?

If you don't want to be considered an anti, then why do you take your logic straight from their play book? It's an unbelievably false and transparent strawman to say that these weapons would be sold to criminals.

As for destruction of weapons, many very valuable and important weapons have been lost that way. The original Colt .38 Supers the FBI issued were destroyed under Clinton using the "logic" you've expressed. There are far fewer 1911s and M1 Garands in the world due to Clinton and the sentiment he shares with you.

[Manedwolf]

I feel the same way about police weapons that are used and sold. Destroy them so it's impossible for a criminal to use one to kill a cop.

Vex, y'know that's almost verbatim from Bradyite rhetoric, right? :scrutiny:

How about if some of those sturdy former police guns are used by a limited-income citizen to successfully defend their family? Why do you assume "criminals" would get them, and assume they'd be used against cops? Why does it matter WHAT gun a criminal uses against a cop? Do you think that if the criminal who shoots the cop couldn't get one of those, they'd not just get something else just as easily?

[Justin]

Some of the guys I shoot with are old enough to remember the days when the CMP sold off surplus 1911's for under $30.

The assumption that such weapons would somehow end up in the hands of criminals is patently ridiculous. It's analagous to saying that CMP M1 Garands are the weapon of choice for gang members.

[Vex]

Vex, y'know that's almost verbatim from Bradyite rhetoric, right?

How about if some of those sturdy former police guns are used by a limited-income citizen to successfully defend their family? Why do you assume "criminals" would get them, and assume they'd be used against cops? Why does it matter WHAT gun a criminal uses against a cop?

I'm not assuming that anything will happen for sure, but if it happened.... man, there's karma in there somewhere, and the sentiment of a cops gun killing a cop is just too much.

Perfect example is the Columbus Police, based in my state's capital. They're switching from the S&W 4506 to the S&W M&P, and when they do, the officers have the option to buy out their guns for $400 each. They also have to sign a contract stating that they will not sell, trade, or give away the gun to help avoid the chance that a crime will be committed with it. Any gun that is not issued or not bought out will be shipped to another country and auctioned off to avoid the gun being used in a crime in Ohio or used to kill an Ohio police officer.

And I love this idea.

Do you think that if the criminal who shoots the cop couldn't get one of those, they'd not just get something else just as easily?


You're absolutely right. In fact, if you go back and read my ENTIRE post, you'll see I already said this. Congratulations on stating the obvious.

I feel the same way about police weapons that are used and sold. Destroy them so it's impossible for a criminal to use one to kill a cop. It's not the tool. It's not the availability of guns. It's the sentimental value of the object, and I find it rudely irresponsible for you insenuate that everyone feels these are just objects to be bought and sold on a whim.


See? I'm not a major gun control advocate. I'm not a Brady-ist. But I'm also not a radical anarchist libertarian like most of the people here. I see the sentimental value in an "object" no matter what it is. If you don't have a sense of sentiment, fine. I respect your opinion, why can't you respect mine?

The assumption that such weapons would somehow end up in the hands of criminals is patently ridiculous. It's analagous to saying that CMP M1 Garands are the weapon of choice for gang members.


Hey, that brings up an interesting point: What would happen if a group of terrorists bought a bunch of Garands from the CMP and used it to go on a shooting spree in a major city?

[Justin]

What if a group of terrorists got ahold of a bunch of anfo and decided to build a bomb?

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=29698&stc=1

[Vex]

:scrutiny: Answering a question with another question is a popular tactic among the left and the anti-gun crowd. :rolleyes:

[Justin]

So is dreaming up preposterously unlikely doomsday scenarios. What's your point?

[buzz_knox]

See? I'm not a major gun control advocate. I'm not a Brady-ist. But I'm also not a radical anarchist libertarian like most of the people here. I see the sentimental value in an "object" no matter what it is. If you don't have a sense of sentiment, fine. I respect your opinion, why can't you respect mine?


"Radical anarchist libertarian"? Misrepresenting the opposition is another tactic of the left and anti-gun crowd. I suppose you agree that gov't vehicles should be destroyed, rather than risk the chance that kidnappers and other criminals might use them in the commission of a crime. You also agree that surplus computers should be destroyed so that molesters can't distribute kiddie porn or stalk children on-line. The logic is identical to yours, so unless you have a particular phobia against firearms, you'll agree with it. No?

As for respecting your opinion, we have an obligation to respect a person's right to have an opinion. We're under no obligation to respect the opinion itself. Personally, I find your opinion (assuming that you are honest about not being a gungrabber) illogic and based solely on emotion, not facts.

"Sentiment" and "sentimental value"? BS and a strawman. How about the semi-auto pre-86 M16s that are being destroyed rather than sold, due to hoplophobic beliefs like yours. No more can be purchased, and their value is upwards of $10K. Whole lot of cash being thrown away for nothing. I was asked to be a witness to such a destruction for my agency, and refused because it, like the opinions that were being offered to justify the destruction, were insane.

[Vex]

So is dreaming up preposterously unlikely doomsday scenarios. What's your point?

The point is anything csn happen with these "tools." But that doesn't mean we had to degrade them for what they're worth to a specific individual. Did anyone ask members of the military of whom destroyed these firearms, or how they feel about them being destroyed? What they would rather have doen with them instead? No, because once again, NONE OF US WERE THERE.

In fact, in my original post, I offered another point of view for conversation purposes, and was subsequently attacked for thinking something might have more value than money.

Dreaming up unlikely doomsday scenarios? Right, and "attack of the zombies" is something that we need threads on, too. :rolleyes:

So here I am, a moderate, a gun enthusiast, and I express an idea that not everyone thinks guns are just "tools." That some of them may have meaning, and sometime in order to protect the meaning of these objects, we have to destroy them so they will never be tarnished with a dishonor.

"Radical anarchist libertarian"? Misrepresenting the opposition is another tactic of the left and anti-gun crowd.

Is it really a misrepresentation? Search for all the threads that have to do with SHTF, zombies attacking, the UN invading... :rolleyes:

I suppose you agree that gov't vehicles should be destroyed, rather than risk the chance that kidnappers and other criminals might use them in the commission of a crime. You also agree that surplus computers should be destroyed so that molesters can't distribute kiddie porn or stalk children on-line. The logic is identical to yours, so unless you have a particular phobia against firearms, you'll agree with it. No?

Phobia of firarms? Hardly... :rolleyes: You're just someone else here to degrade the personal sentimental value I see in a firearm. And no, I don't agree with you. Firearms were built for one purpose: to kill. Can a crime be committed with a car, or a computer? Sure. But by the time the military is done with a 10 year old computer or a car that has 250,000 miles on it, who would want to buy it? They destroy those so nobody will have to deal with them.

Guns are destroyed so they can't be used against the person they were built to protect.

I don't see what all the fuss is. Somewhere around 20 million guns are purchased every year by Americans, and you're crying over the destruction of 6000?

As for respecting your opinion, we have an obligation to respect a person's right to have an opinion.

That's my favorite quote. Too bad it's not true.

"Sentiment" and "sentimental value"? BS and a strawman. How about the semi-auto pre-86 M16s that are being destroyed rather than sold, due to hoplophobic beliefs like yours. No more can be purchased, and their value is upwards of $10K. Whole lot of cash being thrown away for nothing. I was asked to be a witness to such a destruction for my agency, and refused because it, like the opinions that were being offered to justify the destruction, were insane.

:( This is going nowhere. You're not going to change my mind about sentimental value, I'm not going to change your mind about... well... whatever it is you believe. So I'm done.

[Nightfall]

That picture of the mangled 1911 makes me queasy... :barf:

Perhaps we need a law here in the US (first time I've ever said that phrase) to require guns, etc. to be offered for sale to the public that payed for them before being destroyed. Only fair.

[Byron Quick]

But I'm also not a radical anarchist libertarian like most of the people here.

Vex,

I hate to tell you this...but, if you think most of the people here are 'radical anarchist libertarians,' you obviously are ignorant of the definition of both anarchism and libertarianism.

I'm close to being one. As such, I can guarantee you that 'most' here are not. Very few are, in fact.

I, too, don't want to see police officers killed by criminals. The main difference between our stances is while you think we need to destroy inanimate objects to protect police officers...I think we need to destroy criminals.

Consider the alternatives. If you have people wishing to kill police officers who have no tools to do so or if you have many tools to do so but no people who wish to use the tools in such fashion. Which condition will result in few murders of police officers? Man is a tool user and a tool maker.

Firearm technology is not some arcane matter. Except for some materials and manufacturing techniques now used, the technology is largely late 19th century and early twentieth century. Any machinist working with any chemist could reproduce darn near anything that's ever been made-including the ammunition. Ever seen the copies of crew served weapons made by Afghan gunsmiths working with hand tools and using charcoal foundries to harden the steel?

This type of destruction doesn't disarm criminals. It disarms the law abiding citizen. Since it doesn't disarm the criminal and does disarm the law abiding...what are the motives of the people who indulge in such? They are either well meaning fools or are people who wish to disarm law abiding citizens. I don't think they are fools.

[Justin]

Vex, you're obviously emotionally wrapped up in the issue.

What's got you so choked up about it?

[buzz_knox]

He's choked up, Justin, because he's just now coming out of the gungrabber closet and probably filled with self-hate over owning items designed "to kill."

It's amazing that someone who's been on this board for more than a week would continue spouting every line from the Brady Bunch's playbook almost word for word.

[Byron Quick]

Vex,

You might want to check out military surplus sales of computers and vehicles. Contrary to your assumption, they aren't destroyed to prevent your having to deal with them. Poor fellow, the government isn't protecting him from high mileage surplus...boo, hoo, hoo.

[Matt King]

Since when did the military switch to the HK USP? I thought that the standered issue was a Beretta 92.

[buzz_knox]

My agency sells its surplus computers and cars and has no shortage of buyers. It scares me that we don't run background checks on this dangerous equipment. I mean, a person could get out of prison for being a kidnapper and buy a car that day! The horror! The horror!

[Yakko]

I have a close relative who works in the court system. As such she has many dealings with BATFE agents. She asked one of them, upon my request, why they destroy everything they get their hands on.

The answer he gave was very simple. Any firearm destroyed cannot kill. The agent told her that when he first went through training the same question was asked and the answer from the instructor was in the form of a question; "What if a weapon we had in our posession and subsequently put back into circulation was used to kill the President?" This thinking is probably imbedded in every part of our current bureaurocracy.

I also seem to remember something about a President's issuing an executive order that stopped all military surplus weapons/ammunition from being obtainable by private citizens. I haven't been able to verify that so it could be a myth.

[Eleven Mike]

Perhaps we need a law here in the US (first time I've ever said that phrase) to require guns, etc. to be offered for sale to the public that payed for them before being destroyed.That makes far too much sense to ever get through Congress. Destroying guns only amounts to a waste of resources. Government could sell the guns to consumers and make them pay the cost of storage, shipping, background check, etc. Instead, they choose to charge the taxpayer for the labor involved in destroying perfectly good equipment.

the remaining ones around the world are worth just that much moreI guess that's a good thing for some people, but the rest of us would rather see the price of guns go down.

[Vex]

Byron,

I'm not stating that this is necessary for disarming criminals, nor do I believe th4e destruction of gun accomplishes that feat. I have a couple points that probably haven't bee weel weceived because a few irresponsible people are painting any advocacy for the destruction of guns as the tactic and wet dreams of anti-gun people... and therefore, I must be right. Right....

Anyway, my first point is pretty simple: If criminals already have access to cheap guns, why do they need access to these guns as well? Everyone has access to them, especially here is the US. Why do we need 6000 guns from Europe to bolster our already overwhelming lead? It's a moot point, I know, but it adds strength to my second point.

And that is that some guns have sentimental value. I'm not advocating the destruction of all guns. But some people would rather see this object, this faithful object that was on their hip everyday, that was built and designed to protect them from the evil-doers, that was their companion on many adventures... some people would rather see them destroyed than leave them on the open market for anyone to get. When I retire, my Sig won't be sold or traded, for the simple fact that I do now and will in the future rely on it to protect me. If I were to be a knight, it would be my sword, in essence, and the last thing I'd want is to give anyone the chance to use it for evil. It's not that it has magical powers or other hogwash... I just feel very strongly about the meaning of my personal firearm, what it stands for, what it's job is, and what I don't want to happen to it.

Justin, it's not an emotional choking up that's got me so ticked about this. I was perfectly fine having a conversation about this. What did it was when someone irresponsibly compared me to an anti. This, I won't stand for. That's the anger you're seeing, and it's happening still... like this:

He's choked up, Justin, because he's just now coming out of the gungrabber closet and probably filled with self-hate over owning items designed "to kill."


Oh yeah, that's an intelligent response. :banghead:

[buzz_knox]

What did it was when someone irresponsibly compared me to an anti.

If you don't want to be compared to an anti, then don't talk like one. If you'll note, plenty of people are telling your precisely that. You might want to start wondering why you're getting it from multiple sources if you really don't think that way. Either your failing to express yourself, or you really don't understand what you're saying. And appeals to "karma" and "sentiment" aren't exactly conducive to a debate.

As for my statement, I stand by it. You talk like an anti, you use the buzz words, and you don't demonstrate a healthy respect for firearms, but an almost animist fear of them. So, I think you have far more anti tendencies than you realize.

[Eleven Mike]

Answering a question with another question is a popular tactic among the left and the anti-gun crowd.And a favorite tactic of Jesus Christ, but he told his followers to buy swords and that the unbelievers were going to hell. No gun-grabbing lefty, he.

[Vex]

As for my statement, I stand by it. You talk like an anti, you use the buzz words, and you don't demonstrate a healthy respect for firearms, but an almost animist fear of them. So, I think you have far more anti tendencies than you realize.

:fire:

You don't even know me. You don't know who I am, what I do, where I am, or what I'm like... and you're judging me based on my opinion on one issue? Irresponsibly rude. You can't explain any of this fear you think you see in my statements. Try it, you'll lose. And now you're judging me!?

Either your failing to express yourself, or you really don't understand what you're saying. And appeals to "karma" and "sentiment" aren't exactly conducive to a debate.


I guess my ideals and opinion are too complex for someone with a 4th grade education to understand.

I'm done talking to you.

[Justin]

Justin, it's not an emotional choking up that's got me so ticked about this. I was perfectly fine having a conversation about this.

I'm sorry, but it obviously is. The fact that you have continually, and falsly conflated the selling of surplus arms to citizens with the selling of surplus arms to criminals proves this.

You also seem to think that *your* emotional ties to a weapon are the only valid ones, a stance that I find to be truly curious.

Then there's your obvious disdain for the CMP, an illustrious organization that has helped to get tens of thousands of people interested in shooting, collecting, competing, and history.

[buzz_knox]

I'm sorry, Vex. Why can't you respect my opinion rather than getting angry and running off?

As for knowing you, excellent point. All I know is your statements. If my opinion of you as an anti whose opinion is based on emotion rather than logic (and you can't claim logical discourse when citing to karma or sentiment in the face of facts to the clear opposite), then that opinion has been derived from your statements. Given that others have made similar comments, does the fault lie with us or with you? I'd submit that at least one person who has found fault with you has some what greater than a 4th grade education.

[HKUSP45C]

But some people would rather see this object, this faithful object that was on their hip everyday, that was built and designed to protect them from the evil-doers, that was their companion on many adventures... some people would rather see them destroyed than leave them on the open market for anyone to get. When I retire, my Sig won't be sold or traded, for the simple fact that I do now and will in the future rely on it to protect me. If I were to be a knight, it would be my sword, in essence, and the last thing I'd want is to give anyone the chance to use it for evil.

This mentality just seems ... odd. Not wrong per se .... but strange. To me, at least.

I think destruction of any working tool is silly. Especially if there is a ready made, lucrative market for it. Call me a pragmatist. Besides, don't cops/soldiers get shot with their own guns as it is? Not often, but it does happen. What happens to those weapons? I'm genuinely curious.

[Vex]

OMG, I have no disdain for the CMP. I'm not an anti, nor am I a gun grabber, nor am I coming out of any freakin' closet of gun grabbers.

To you all, I seem like an anti because I think there are other forces at work and other motivations for destroying un-needed guns. To me, you all seem like whiney babies crying because someone took away your toy and put it in a shredder.

I tell ya, the blind hate exhibited in this thread is exactly why the RKBA has such a hard time fighting... because we have people inside our cause that exhibit poor judgment and an adolescent mentality. I used to think the anti's were our biggest enemy, but now I see where we get a bad reputation as being "maniacle gun-toting extremists."

The fact that you have continually, and falsly conflated the selling of surplus arms to citizens with the selling of surplus arms to criminals proves this.


I'm not falsely doing anything. I'm saying.... if a cops gun is sold to a dealer, and the dealer sells it to a criminal, and a criminal kills another cop with it, it would be a tragedy. But apparently to you, if I play devil's advocate for the purpose of conversation, then suddenly i'm a gun grabbing anti coming out of some closet somewhere doing something... I'm not even sure anymore what all this means. I think it's a way to combat logic with insults.

This mentality just seems ... odd. Not wrong per se .... but strange. To me, at least.

I think destruction of any working tool is silly. Especially if there is a ready made, lucrative market for it. Call me a pragmatist. Besides, don't cops/soldiers get shot with their own guns as it is? Not often, but it does happen. What happens to those weapons? I'm genuinely curious.


What alot of people don't understand is I think it's a waste to destroy these guns, too... but I also think it might have some sensible motivation. Apparently being open minded about people's reasoning for their actions means i'm an anti.

What happens to those weapons? The same thing that happens to other weapons. If the shooting results in the death of the officer, then the coroner takes posession of it, turns it over the the crime lab for ballistic and fingerprinting, then the gun is used in court as evidence, and eventually destroyed.

[WeedWhacker]

What alot of people don't understand is I think it's a waste to destroy these guns, too... but I also think it might have some sensible motivation.
Here's the heart of the problem. What sensible motivation is there for destroying serviceable equipment?

-edit note
I see there's a lot of heavy editing going back and forth between at least these last two posts. At any rate, for the sake of clarity, I've reduced this post to the single item above, which I believe is the central question Vex needs to ask himself/herself.

[Justin]

OMG, I have no disdain for the CMP. I'm not an anti, nor am I a gun grabber, nor am I coming out of any freakin' closet of gun grabbers.

I never accused you of being a gun grabber.

However, you posted this:

Hey, that brings up an interesting point: What would happen if a group of terrorists bought a bunch of Garands from the CMP and used it to go on a shooting spree in a major city?

And every other post you've made has been nothing more than a reactionary screed to the entire concept of governments selling off surplus arms to their citizens. Nowhere did I see you make an exception for the CMP.

To you all, I seem like an anti because I think there are other forces at work and other motivations for destroying un-needed guns.

If the guns were truly unneeded, then they would have a market value of exactly zero.

I'm not falsely doing anything. I'm saying.... if a cops gun is sold to a dealer, and the dealer sells it to a criminal, and a criminal kills another cop with it, it would be a tragedy.

Agreed. Getting shot with a brand new gun right off of the assembly line isn't tragic in the least.

To me, you all seem like whiney babies crying because someone took away your toy and put it in a shredder.

:confused:

How does "Hey, the .gov could make back some of the revenue spent on those weapons by selling them to the taxpayers who paid for them in the first place" make me a crying baby?

I'll just note that slinging ad-hominem attacks isn't allowed by THR's code of conduct.

[HKUSP45C]

What alot of people don't understand is I think it's a waste to destroy these guns, too... but I also think it might have some sensible motivation.

Eat your cake AND have it too. Brilliant.

Either it's the best thing for all involved or it's silly. You might have said "I think gun control is wrong... But I also think it might have some sensible motivation."

There exists in precious few peoples mind the emotional connection that you seem to feel for your side arm. If someone were to kill me with my own piece or one they purchased direct from the manufacturer that never touched another hand, I'm no more or less dead. It's no more or less tragic. The guns should not have been destroyed. They are not symbols of anything more than one persons mechanical knowledge being worth cash to someone else.

I think you arew being attacked not for your views as much as how you are going about making them known.

For the record, calling people names in the same post as berating their maturity is somewhat hypocritical. Playing the martyr in a debate you have claimed to have started doubly so.

[Vex]

And every other post you've made has been nothing more than a reactionary screed to the entire concept of governments selling off surplus arms to their citizens. Nowhere did I see you make an exception for the CMP.

You never even answered my question. That line of thought ended there when you decided it would be better for the conversation to confuse issues by answering a question with another question.

I'll just note that slinging ad-hominem attacks isn't allowed by THR's code of conduct.

I was wondering when you were going to flaunt your admin powers to gain an edge in the conversation.... Is this it, or am I waiting for you to ban me for being an anti? :rolleyes:

Oh, and let me point out that me saying I'm an anti is sarcasm. You haven't been able to tell the different thus far, so I'll be sure to point it out to you. See, I'm insulted when you call me an anti, because I know I'm not. In essence, you're breaking your own rules.

Either it's the best thing for all involved or it's silly. You might have said "I think gun control is wrong... But I also think it might have some sensible motivation."


I don't think gun control is wrong. I've stated several times in other threads that I support instant checks and age limits. This is ALL i support, but the problem is when I'm compared to some of the extremists on this forum, I'm considered an anti.

Therein lies the problem with RKBA. We are made up of all different opinions, walks of life, and backgrounds... but the anti's are made up of one kind of person: those who don't want guns. It's unfortunate that unless you're an extremist libertarian, then you're considered the enemy.

For the record, calling people names in the same post as berating their maturity is somewhat hypocritical. Playing the martyr in a debate you have claimed to have started doubly so.'

There's one person here who deserves to be insulted, but I'm not responding to him anymore. Everyone else has been civil.

Anyway, I still haven't changed my mind. I still think that in specific instances, it's okay for tools to be destroyed. And since this conversation has centered on who-said-what, then I think I'm done unless someone has anything else they want to say to try to make me feel bad every time a gun is destroyed. After all, it IS just a tool, right? :rolleyes:

[mnrivrat]

Justin, it's not an emotional choking up that's got me so ticked about this. I was perfectly fine having a conversation about this. What did it was when someone irresponsibly compared me to an anti. This, I won't stand for. That's the anger you're seeing, and it's happening still... like this:

Deep breaths Vex , Since I was the first poster to use the word "anti" , and you took great offense to it, let me do two things :

First : let me apoligize to you for perhaps not wording my statement as well as it could have been. It was not meant to offend - just to disagree.

Second: Let me explain that what was meant here is that you were expressing (in my opinion) an opinion based on sentiment (emotion) , rather than reason . This is the type of arguement I do witness from anti-gun factions and what is used to justify anti-firearm actions. (such as destroying servicable and valuable tax payer funded equipment).

While many will say that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - it is probably a duck ! I will give you the benifit of your feelings on the subject without calling you an anti . Too be fair to what I said however, I did not call you anti-gun , I did imply and said that your statements showed the same negative sentiment towards firearms that is a dominant argument for the anti-gun crowd. ( based on emotion rather than reason ).

I do not however share your sentiment in that fashion towards firearms.
The sentiments I have toward firearms are ones of added value for their history and service, not negative value for their potential to be used in a criminal manner.

Sorry to get you so worked up - it was not my intention to do so - I however take full ownership of my opinions and they are different than yours on this subject .

[WeedWhacker]

I think I'm done unless someone has anything else they want to say to try to make me feel bad every time a gun is destroyed. After all, it IS just a tool, right?
At the risk of repeating myself: I pay taxes, and the gov't makes/buys (among other things) decent firearms with my tax money. Taking my money, in the form of firearms, which are worth good money, and throwing it into a shredder/furnace is somewhat maddening. There is no good, logical reason to do that, and as such it is by definition senseless waste. No good reason.


On a side note:
I guess my ideals and opinion are too complex for someone with a 4th grade education to understand.To me, you all seem like whiney babies crying because someone took away your toy and put it in a shredder.[...] is exactly why the RKBA has such a hard time fighting... because we have people inside our cause that exhibit poor judgment and an adolescent mentality.I'll just note that slinging ad-hominem attacks isn't allowed by THR's code of conduct.I was wondering when you were going to flaunt your admin powers to gain an edge in the conversation...

O.o

Aaand the icing on the cake...
[...] suddenly i'm a gun grabbing anti coming out of some closet [...] I think it's a way to combat logic with insults.

[buzz_knox]

Sorry to get you so worked up - it was not my intention to do so - I however take full ownership of my opinions and they are different than yours on this subject .


Don't worry. You didn't get him worked up. That was apparently me, stating that notwithstanding his protestations of not being an anti, he talked just like them. When I suggested he was a closet anti is when he went off the deep end. Ah, well. Of course, I'm the only one who's worthy of insulting (according to him) yet he started throwing around the insults on the first page of this thread. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean "radical anarchist libertarian" in a nice, uplifiting way. But don't point out his hypocrisy or he might not talk to you anymore.

[Justin]

You never even answered my question.

Why should I? It was an utterly silly hypothetical, blatantly designed to lead the reader to a pre-conceived conclusion.

Basing public policy around highly unlikely, emotion-charged "what-if" scenarios is absurd.

I was wondering when you were going to flaunt your admin powers to gain an edge in the conversation.... Is this it, or am I waiting for you to ban me for being an anti?

You were getting out of hand, tossing around accusations of immaturity and painting the board with a broad brushed accusation of everyone being "radical anarchist libertarians" (as if there could be such a thing.) Would you have preferred it had I just canked your account altogether?

Also, I will note that we've had more than one anti-gun person show up and register on this forum and espouse their views without getting banned. They're the ones that don't resort to casting aspersions, bagging on the membership at large, and calling names.

Trust me, in this debate, I don't need to kick you off the board to win.

With regard to being called an anti, the only person who's directly called you a name was buzz. None of the posts on the first page called you an anti. They pointed out that your thought process was mighty similar.

[Byron Quick]

Vex,

Please point to any gun destruction scheme or gun buy-back scheme or gun control law that can be proven to have prevented any criminal in the US from obtaining a firearm.

Granted, NICS has prevented some felons from purchasing firearms. However, please show where it has also prevented that criminal from illegally obtaining a firearm.

It's the same with the one firearm a month or the waiting period. Neither prevents crime in any meaningful fashion. They simply prevent law abiding citizens who would never purchase a stolen gun from legal purchases. These laws don't prevent crime by anyone...even the former law abiding owner. If I decided that I must engage in a life of armed crime, I wouldn't need to buy one a month or undergo a waiting period. I'd simply walk to my safe, open it, and go. So what's the motivation behind laws that don't do what the proponents say they will do and policies that don't do what the proponents say they will do? I don't think the unintended consequence are actually unintended. These laws and policies affect no one but law abiding gun owners. And that is their sole intention.

If you really wish to protect police officers, you will look for ways to control criminals, not guns.

The outrage comes not from the fact that 6000 guns were destroyed out of the millions that are available to us. Some of those guns were rare. But that's not it totally either. My outrage comes from the fact that that government is not trusting its citizens to own weapons. There is a history of governments that distrust their citizens to own firearms. It's not a pretty history. The governments usually have good reasons to distrust their citizens. The governments know they have good reason to distrust their citizens for they've mistreated those citizens so badly.

Oh, yes, almost forgot. The logic combated by insults thingie. I haven't seen any logic displayed by you that requires combat by counter logic or by insults. Clue: the policies you are trying to defend by 'logic' do not work for their proclaimed purpose, have never worked for their proclaimed purpose, and are incapable of working for their proclaimed purpose. Prohibiting firearms in general will have an effect on killings by firearms in general. That simply lets the stronger beat the weaker to death with a piece of hardwood. The 'cure' is worse than the disease in my view.

[buzz_knox]

With regard to being called an anti, the only person who's directly called you a name was buzz. None of the posts on the first page called you an anti. They pointed out that your thought process was mighty similar.


Actually, I didn't start out saying he was an anti. I was among those pointing out that his arguments were straight from the Brady Bunch playbook. As he kept on with those comments (and used additional arguments from the playbook), I made a sarcastic note about his coming out of the anti closet. Following that, it became a case of "thou dost protest too much" about not being an anti when one walks, and talks like one.

[Vex]

Trust me, in this debate, I don't need to kick you off the board to win.


You won't win, because I won't change my opinion. I'm merely trying to get you to respect my thoughts on this matter without insult, and ultimately to dismiss the idea that someone who sees a possible motivation for destruction of firearms isn't an anti, no matter how you twist their words.

With regard to being called an anti, the only person who's directly called you a name was buzz. None of the posts on the first page called you an anti. They pointed out that your thought process was mighty similar.

My thoguht process is that of someone who thinks openly about both sides of a debate. This is why I'm being branded as an anti? Because I stated another side to a conversation, attmepting to stimulate debate, and ended up getting every radical extremists on my butt accusing me of being the enemy?

Hogwash.

Weedwacker,

Some of those were directed at people who insulted me first by insenuating that I'm a gun grabbing anti. Those were counter-attacks to get a point through. Some of those aren't insults... they're facts, notably: [...] is exactly why the RKBA has such a hard time fighting... because we have people inside our cause that exhibit poor judgment and an adolescent mentality.

And it's true! This has been pointed out multiple times by people on both sides of the RKBA debate.

Furthermore, you didn't post the sections which were really important. I call shenanigans. You're practicing the time honored tradition of "Selective Reading," and I think it's BS to use it against me.

Deep breaths Vex , Since I was the first poster to use the word "anti" , and you took great offense to it, let me do two things :

First : let me apoligize to you for perhaps not wording my statement as well as it could have been. It was not meant to offend - just to disagree.


I want to accept your apology, but at the same time I don't think you need to apologize. Really, it wasn't you that insulted me. There are other people in this debate that used your wording to attack me. Although I did take offense to your wording, I still don't think you should apologize, and instead I offer my apology for being a little thin skinned on the whole "anti" insult... still, this doesn't excuse the others for using this obviously flawed nomenclature to refer to me, considering none of them know me.

Byron,

Please point to any gun destruction scheme or gun buy-back scheme or gun control law that can be proven to have prevented any criminal in the US from obtaining a firearm.


You're misconstrueing my words here, yet again. I'm not trying to say that the gun destruction keeps guns out of criminal hands. I'm not saying it's a valid form of gun control. I'm saying that sometimes there are particular guns that people don't want to fall into criminal hands for SENTIMENTAL reasons. It's not gun control to destory police weapons. If anything, it's irony control, and even liability control.

[Justin]

You won't win, because I won't change my opinion. I'm merely trying to get you to respect my thoughts on this matter without insult, and ultimately to dismiss the idea that someone who sees a possible motivation for destruction of firearms isn't an anti, no matter how you twist their words.

Nobody, anywhere on the internet has ever changed their opinion based on a discussion on a forum. This is an unmutable law of TEH INTERNETS. But trust me on this one, you're going to come out looking very silly.

My thoguht process is that of someone who thinks openly about both sides of a debate. This is why I'm being branded as an anti?

Right. Which is why you've been so open-minded about the valid criticisms of your position that have been brought up.

Because I stated another side to a conversation, attmepting to stimulate debate, and ended up getting every radical extremists on my butt accusing me of being the enemy?

So, which is it? Are you playing Devil's Advocate, or do you honestly believe what you're posting?

Also, I'll note that you continue to paint anyone who opposes your stated position as a "radical extremist." I'll bet we all hate puppies and kitties, too.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=29698&stc=1

[buzz_knox]

You know, Justin. I think I prefer sitting back and watching you work to actually trying to deal with people like this. It's like watching a good lawyer eat a witness alive.

[Vex]

So, which is it? Are you playing Devil's Advocate, or do you honestly believe what you're posting?


It's a little of both. See, you're falling under the same misconception that I think gun destruction is a valid form of gun control. That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that there are specific guns that I think should be destroyed to avoid any possible liability, mental, financial, or emotional. Not all guns.

The example I've used (and which has been twisted and used against me) is the one of the police department turning in their old guns, and one I've specifically pointed to is the Columbus Police upgrade going on right now. I have multiple friends in that force, and they have all said they're buying their gun back from the department, even though most of them don't want it, just so the gun they carried for years (some of them for 25 years) won't be used in the commission of a crime. It's safeguarding the existence of police weapons. They all feel this way, and I feel the same way.

On the other hand, people who disagree with me don't see the difference. To them, these tools are just pieces of metal with no sentimental value whatsoever... and I think it's irresponsible to reject another's feelings on this matter and write it off as being anti-gun.

You know, Justin. I think I prefer sitting back and watching you work to actually trying to deal with people like this. It's like watching a good lawyer eat a witness alive.

:rolleyes:

[buzz_knox]

I may disagree with Vex on many points, but I don't believe he's a troll.

[sterling180]

a gun is just an object...

Very,true that a gun is an object,but Evan you must realise that there are many people,around the world,who buy guns that are either very rare,limited-edition models,antique-types,firearms that are no longer manufactured,etc,etc-so it's easy to see why some folks get emotional about their guns.In the UK and in Australia,the goverments of both nations didn't give a damn about what guns went to the smelters-whether they were a WW2 M1-Carbine,A WW2 Luger P.08 9mm ,a Winchester M1897 12 guage shotgun or even an Ithica M37 shotgun.

For Lugers,M1-Carbines,Ak47s and other classics,they were sold to museams-but the newer ones were destroyed.

Guns that lasted for decades in private ownership,suddenly and abruptly-were made illegal,during the aftermarth of gun massacres.So if you lived in the UK and you owned a Luger or a 1911A1(made in 1925),you would get emotional-if you had to hand them over for destruction or deactivation-following the Dunblane massacre.

[buzz_knox]

Whether a weapon has sentimental value or not is irrelevant to the point at hand: gov'ts destroying valuable property for no other reason than an invalid, unsubstantiated fear that they might, just might, end up in the hands of criminals.

Like most everyone, I have weapons that have extreme sentimental value, consisting of weapons given to me by my parents. They would never be sold and never turned over. They will either be inherited by my children, or they will go out with me. Turned over to a smelter because some politico thought they might end up being used by a criminal? No chance.

[Daniel T]

They all feel this way, and I feel the same way.

Feelings, nothing more than feelings...

Maybe you should write a song about it.

Understand that the reason your anti tendancies are being pointed out is because you are basing your argument on your feelings and not on logic or reality.

The reality is that guns are worth money. The reality is that the public paid for the guns that are given to police officers. The reality is that people would buy these guns from dealers if given a chance, which would give money to the department selling them (which ought to lessen the burden on the people footing the bill, but that part is a pipe-dream).

[buzz_knox]

The reality is that guns are worth money. The reality is that the public paid for the guns that are given to police officers. The reality is that people would buy these guns from dealers if given a chance, which would give money to the department selling them (which ought to lessen the burden on the people footing the bill, but that part is a pipe-dream).

My agency's police force tried that very thing. Instead, tens of thousands of dollars worth of firearms (all agency owned or donated) was scrapped because a higher up decided the political fallout of "selling guns" was too great. Too bad our guys now no longer have either those weapons, or the cash to replace them.

[Yakko]

Why do you destroy something?

I can only think of three reasons:

1.The item is no longer useful and is to be recycled - Our government, recycle? :scrutiny:

2. It is dangerous. They don't usually do it to mass murderers. Guns could be called dangerous, even though they are just objects and have no will of their own. Cars are dangerous, yet they are auctioned off to private citizens?

3. Deny the enemy the use of. This makes the most sense. Deny the enemy of the USA the use of dangerous weapons. Criminals can't legally buy firearms. So who are they denying access to? US citizens.

[jethro75]

Quote:
My thought process is that of someone who thinks openly about both sides of a debate. This is why I'm being branded as an anti?

Let’s stick with the sentimental values you speak of for a moment. If you think about both sides then way haven’t you mentioned anything about the law abiding citizen or the servicemen that would love to have one of these pistols as a piece of American history. To have as a memento, a conversation piece, to tell their grandkids 60 years from now that this was used during the gulf crises, ECT.

As far as the idea that it is good that it would be a tragedy if a cop was killed by one of these guns is the craziest bull crap defense I ever heard. It is a tragedy when any cop is killed, it doesn’t matter if it’s by a prior service gun, a car or even a potato gun. A tragedy is a tragedy. My only thought is what does one with the line of thinking you have say if lets say a cop is shot by a service gun? Maybe something like this? It would have been a whole lot nicer if he wouldn’t have been killed by a service gun that the government sold to someone.

[Vex]

Let’s stick with the sentimental values you speak of for a moment. If you think about both sides then way haven’t you mentioned anything about the law abiding citizen or the servicemen that would love to have one of these pistols as a piece of American history. To have as a memento, a conversation piece, to tell their grandkids 60 years from now that this was used during the gulf crises, ECT.


You're absolutely right. Often, here in the USA, these tools are sold to the people who used them. A friend of mine in the Coast Guard was able to purchase the M9 he carried every day for $10 when they upgraded to the M11. This should always be the case... but the bureaucracy we live in doesn't always allow it.

Understand that the reason your anti tendancies are being pointed out is because you are basing your argument on your feelings and not on logic or reality.


I don't mean to point out just your response specifically, but this is something I'm seeing a pattern of. People stating that human feelings and emotions have to place in a debate. Unfortunately, that just isn't so.

Because I've been accused of being an anti based on the words I use... feelings, emotions, sentiment.... as if the RKBA cause doesn't care about feelings. Our cause is so righteous, after all, that logic and facts will prevail over emotions? I doubt this.

Take, for example, the account of Mr. Charlton Heston with his rifle, holding it in the air triumphantly, speaking in a grizzled, crackling voice, "From my cold, dead hands." To say that this is filled with emotion is an understatement. As gun owners and advocates of gun posession and the RKBA, we have been fortunate enough to rely on the facts, logic, and research to support our cause. But do we feel what we're after?

Or how about the account of the Spartans at Thermopylae. The response Leonidas gave to Xerxes was yet another based off the emotion and feeling of his men: Molon Labe. To degrade these words as the facts of logic and research demeans it's meaning. It was emotion, not factual information, that caused these men to stand their ground.

So to accuse me of being an anti because I speak of gun ownership with passtion, with emotional thought, and with feelings about the fate of specific items in our history... firearms which serve our country and our people with courage... those of soldiers, of police, of any person who risks his life in the pursuit of meaning... to refer to these tools they rely on as mere objects which can be sold or traded on a whim, is irresponsible. These people are connected to these objects by destiny. Sometimes, we have to destroy the things we love to protect it from evil, no matter what value it has in the eyes of the non-believer.

http://angela.byersworks.com/column/heston.jpg

[cambeul41]

I don’t know what to think, but my mother did not say, “If you can’t think well of someone, don’t think.” Perhaps he was simply thinking, "Gee, I guess there might be a rationale, even if there are objections to it."

Yet others see a law enforcement professional objecting to good weapons going to the civilian population because “What if . . . ?” What am I, what are we, to think?

I know! Let’s none of us ever sell a gun because the same “what if” applies to such a sale as well. I will explain to my wife that we should not sell and replace guns. For the public good, we should simply buy more. (There is no way she would approve of destroying anything worth money. I am not for a second going to try to go there!)

[Dr.Rob]

True CMP used to sell to NRA and the public surplus arms... they don't do that with handguns anymore. They used to sell off surplus to friendly Governments, but a mix of pistols? Probably cheaper to destroy them than to export them.

Your tax dollars at work.

Crying shame about the veteran Colts.

[992]

I don't think that they should sell worn out cop cars,either.Can you imagine the shame and guilt by LEO who manage to get run over or outrun by an ex police car?Very similar to being shot by an expolice weapon,I would think!!
What differance does it make where the firearm or car came from???
I don't think it would hurt any more if it was new from the factory.:)

992

[Quaamik]

I'm saying.... if a cops gun is sold to a dealer, and the dealer sells it to a criminal, and a criminal kills another cop with it, it would be a tragedy.

So I assume that to you, it would somehow be a lesser tragedy if a gun that was used to kill a cop was one that had not been issued to the police?

I don't understand your logic. If this situation happened, said fictional officer would be highly unlikely to ever know that the gun that killed him was once a police issued gun. The only reason his familiy might ever find out would be if the investigation revealed it, it was released to the press and published or it was discovered during a trial.

In any case, the only additional "tragedy" I can see arrising is the slain officers family suing the department.

Which actually makes sense. Cities that have or may be considering attempting to sue the gun industry for selling a legal, highly regulated product, would look pretty bad if it could be shown even ONE gun that was in thier possession managed to find it's way into a criminals hands. The HORROR of it. How could they defend a lawsuit claiming {insert gun manufacturer here} was responsible for thier guns falling into crimminal hands, when that gun manufacturer could point at one of thier guns having been sold to the goverment, then subsequently finding it's way to criminals hands?

But that can't be the reason. It MUST be sentiment. It couldn't possibly be a cold, calculating, self-serving political adgenda.

[Vex]

So I assume that to you, it would somehow be a lesser tragedy if a gun that was used to kill a cop was one that had not been issued to the police?

I don't understand your logic. If this situation happened, said fictional officer would be highly unlikely to ever know that the gun that killed him was once a police issued gun. The only reason his familiy might ever find out would be if the investigation revealed it, it was released to the press and published or it was discovered during a trial.

In any case, the only additional "tragedy" I can see arrising is the slain officers family suing the department.

Which actually makes sense. Cities that have or may be considering attempting to sue the gun industry for selling a legal, highly regulated product, would look pretty bad if it could be shown even ONE gun that was in thier possession managed to find it's way into a criminals hands. The HORROR of it. How could they defend a lawsuit claiming {insert gun manufacturer here} was responsible for thier guns falling into crimminal hands, when that gun manufacturer could point at one of thier guns having been sold to the goverment, then subsequently finding it's way to criminals hands?

But that can't be the reason. It MUST be sentiment. It couldn't possibly be a cold, calculating, self-serving political adgenda.

I've pointed to financial liability several times, but nobody wants to argue that point with me. Instead they pick on the possible reason I've stated linking the ownership of the weapon and sentiment.

Never once have all of my points been dealt with in the same section of this debate. It's like a pack of hungry, wild, rabid wolves finding the weakest link and attacking it without thinking of the argument from all angles. It's rather quite entertaining...

[Cosmoline]

That's nothing. The US Military has systematically destroyed thousands of AK-47's, SVD's, RPG's and ammo dumps then TURNED AROUND and bought brand new AK-47's, SVD's and assorted munitions at top dollar from East European factories to equip the Iraqi military it had just disarmed.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so deeply, deeply stupid.

Meet the new rifles:

http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/06/01/imageee82a88b-90c4-400e-a4bb-a54add55c7cc.jpg

Same as the old rifles:

http://www.squidly.com/images/iraq/capturedweapons.jpg

[Vex]

That's nothing. The US Military has systematically destroyed thousands of AK-47's, SVD's, RPG's and ammo dumps then TURNED AROUND and bought brand new AK-47's, SVD's and assorted munitions at top dollar from East European factories to equip the Iraqi military it had just disarmed.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so deeply, deeply stupid.

I agree with you there. Absolutely stupid.

[lamazza]

Why sweat it, its only tax money looted from hard working americans.:mad:

[Eleven Mike]

Vex, do you agree with the destruction of these particular weapons or not?

[Otherguy Overby]

Some points to ponder:

If the guns are sold instead of being destroyed, they would go to legal buyers not criminals.

Destroyed guns are often sold for salvage at very low prices, say scrap metal prices. If someone sorts through the parts, the good stuff can be set aside and the rest resold as "clean" scrap (sorted by material). The set aside parts can be combined with parts sourced elsewhere and now someone has a whole bunch of off books guns.

So, just for Vex to think about: Destroyed guns are often not really destroyed. They are much more likely to end up as black market guns and then sold to criminals.

Vex, your calls for destroying guns so they can't be sold legally may well be arming the criminals you wish to keep them from...

[Vex]

Vex, your calls for destroying guns so they can't be sold legally may well be arming the criminals you wish to keep them from...

I never said this. I said some people would rather have their guns destroyed to prevent their use in a crime. I never advocated it as a form of gun control. Read ALL my posts, you should be able to figure this out.

The problem is some people took what I read as me advocating destroying all guns as soon as possible, and this is flat wrong.

If the guns are sold instead of being destroyed, they would go to legal buyers not criminals.

Can you guarantee this? No.

So, just for Vex to think about: Destroyed guns are often not really destroyed. They are much more likely to end up as black market guns and then sold to criminals.


Oh, so you're advocating a better way of destroying guns? So what should we do to make sure nobody ever gets them? Wow, you really flip-flopped in the span of one post. Maybe you're the anti...

Vex, do you agree with the destruction of these particular weapons or not?

Of the particular guns in the original post? No, I don't think it's necessary. But then again, I wasn't there, so what do I know? I merely stated, for the purposes of conversation, that some people would rather have certain guns destroyed instead of reselling to the highest bidder. This does not mean I think all guns should be destroyed. It means there could be a reason not realted to gun control.

[Larry Ashcraft]

Vex,

Drop it. You're just digging the hole deeper.

Move on.

[evan price]

Hah. Going back to my last post on here, "A GUN IS JUST AN OBJECT" stop crying about some gun somewhere that got destroyed, that you never held, never owned, and never had a possibility of owning or holding, which its owners disposed of as they saw fit.
Like it or not: When you give these people your taxes you give them the money to spend ON YOUR behalf on things you told them to spend it on. Show me where it is REQUIRED that surplus items be sold off in functioning forms to people who believe they deserve to have them. The government in question DID recoup the value of the weapons, just as scrap metal. In terms of modern liability, what happens if a surplus weapon is used in a crime and some dammed trial lawyer goes for deep pockets and sues your gov't for the fact the gun came from them? Sure that's a pisspoor thing to say but with todays' attitudes towards liability esp. VS gov'ts this is a very real issue. Not sayin' it's right but geez there are a lot of armchair quarterbacks here, and it's really none of OUR business what a foreign gov't (Estonia) chooses to do with their surplus guns.

What would the post be like on THR:

Title: Guns sold by Gov't went thru a dealer & wound up used in crime!!

Reply: Gosh, those idiots should enforce the laws already on the books about this!
Reply #2: This is why these guns should have been honorably destroyed instead of sold to TERRORISTS...!
Reply #3: Kill the lawyers!
Reply #4: Don't shoot till you see the blue helmets!
Reply #5: You are a troll!
Rely #6: No, YOU are a troll!
Reply #7-100 ARE VARIOUS FORMS OF THE ABOVE
Reply #101: Gee guys, sorry, maybe we should all recognize our differences...

Adnaseum...



Honestly I get the same whiny BS from people who watch "Monster Garage" and then go crazy because Jesse James "ruined" a beautiful rare classic vehicle. Jeebus, folks, when you own something outright it is yours to do with as you please, be it lovingly caress it in a soft cloth or bury it in a gravel pit. They're not your guns. They're not Uncle Sam's guns. Maybe they were once but not anymore. Get over it.


As far as "My grandfather's shotgun" goes, both my Gpa's owned no guns, and had none to get rid of. One served in the USMC in WWII South Pacific and I recall my uncle saying he once said he wouldn't shoot a gun again in his life. Once I am dead and gone I really hope my weapons go to my children but if not, I'm dead, so it's not like I will be complaining what happens to them. After all, a gun is nothing more than a lump of iron, plastic, and other alloys. It's not like they are magical or alive.



Hey Vex, do you name your cars? Or your guns? Have a cute one for the lawn mower like "Mister Clipsalot"?? It's an object created by men in factories. It came from dirt and fire and will return there someday.

[WeedWhacker]

Justin,
I have, indeed, had my opinion changed by reading and participating in discussions on Internet forums. The first time it happened was a bit of a shock (oh my gosh! I'm wrong!), but a methodical, logical argument backed with facts is often very convincing to me.

Vex,
If you consider being called an "anti-gun" or a "gun grabber" an insult worthy of getting upset about, God forbid you ever set foot outside your door. People call eachother all sorts of things, like Mister, Grandpaw, Ma'am (okay, so that one was over the telephone), Democrat, Republican, etc. There is indeed such a thing as having too thin a skin. Especially when the kettle is black.

Anyway, my stated reason for being irked about the firearms being destroyed is valid (to me), but not as important as the reason Justin stated - wasting money us bad, but not as bad as a gov't working to subvert the people it derives its power from.

Evan,
The only new point you've brought up is that this is not the US gov't which destroyed the firearms. Fair enough. That said, the US does the same thing, which is why I care.

Moving on...
I've pointed to financial liability several times, but nobody wants to argue that point with me. Instead they pick on the possible reason I've stated linking the ownership of the weapon and sentiment.
I'm more than happy to explore the validity of financial liability in a crime. Here's my opinion: sole responsibility rests with the criminal who committed the crime. To that end, any gains from the crime (or, I suppose, tools used during the commission of) would be sold at auction and the proceeds given in whole to the victim or the victim's estate until the victim's financial burden due to the crime has been relieved. (Kill a child, pay for the funeral, councelling, etc. Kill the father/provider, well, you'll be working for a while.)
The criminal is financially liable for a crime. No one else.

[Vex]

The criminal is financially liable for a crime. No one else.

It would be nice if it were like this. Unfortunately, it's not.

God forbid you ever set foot outside your door


I'm gonna have to group you into the column of people who think they know me and have a right to judge me, but in essence really do not.

Hey Vex, do you name your cars? Or your guns? Have a cute one for the lawn mower like "Mister Clipsalot"?? It's an object created by men in factories. It came from dirt and fire and will return there someday.

No, I don't name objects, and I don't see what the heck this has to do with any of my points. Why, do you name yours?

As far as "My grandfather's shotgun" goes, both my Gpa's owned no guns, and had none to get rid of. One served in the USMC in WWII South Pacific and I recall my uncle saying he once said he wouldn't shoot a gun again in his life. Once I am dead and gone I really hope my weapons go to my children but if not, I'm dead, so it's not like I will be complaining what happens to them. After all, a gun is nothing more than a lump of iron, plastic, and other alloys. It's not like they are magical or alive.

I never implied they were alive. Jeez, go back and read more than the first 5 responses. Think about this, for example.... retired police officer decides to give his old gun to his nephew. Nephew takes the gun home and shows it off to his friends. Word gets out, and someone breaks into his house, steals the gun, takes it to a gas station, shoots the employee, robs the place, and takes off. Gun is found in the dumpster two counties away, and is linked to the crime. Police trace the gun back to the original owner, the retired police officer, and inform him that the gun was used to kill someone during the commission of a crime while investigating how the gun got into the hands of the criminal.

What went wrong? Nothing. The criminal stole the gun, the criminal killed the clerk, the criminal robbed the place... it's all the criminal, right? It had nothing to do with the gun, right? I agree. But the retired police officer feels like crap because he wishes he had never given the gun away. He somehow feels a little responsible.

Now, I'm not saying this IS going to happen, or that it's likely. There are a hundred reasons why a person would not want their personal firearms in a place where it's even remotely possible that the criminal could get it. I'm not advocating gun control. I'm a big supporter of RKBA and right to self defense. I'm even going as far as to ge the NRA instructor training so I can offer free CCW training here in Ohio. I'm just saying that not everyone feels the same way you do.

[Justin]

I have, indeed, had my opinion changed by reading and participating in discussions on Internet forums. The first time it happened was a bit of a shock (oh my gosh! I'm wrong!), but a methodical, logical argument backed with facts is often very convincing to me.

I was actually being somewhat facetious. I've had the same thing happen, as well. And have seen it happen to others. In my experience, not nearly enough people are intellectually honest enough with themselves to admit when they are wrong.

Vex's problem is that his arguments, with the possible exception of the financial liability one, are based purely on an emotional reaction to a hypothetical "what-if" scenario.

"What if a criminal got a surplused weapon and used it in a crime?"

Such arguments are not valid. Nor are they rational.

"What if a single mother who lived in a bad neighborhood bought a surplused weapon and defended the life if herself and her child with it?"

"What if an aspiring competitive shooter purchased a surplus weapon and was then able to win 1st place?"

For every negative hypothetical that Vex airs, there are corresponding positive hypotheticals.

Now, if Vex could point to some statistics that showed that surplused weapons had a higher possibility of being used in a crime, then he might have a leg to stand on. But he has neither offered up such statistics, nor offered any compelling evidence that surplused firearms are any more likely to end up in the hands of criminals than regular firearms.

In the end, I have yet to see him present an argument that isn't predicated on an inherent distrust of the private citizenry.

[Medusa]

Indeed, it was not US goverment that destroyed the guns (Texas, HK USP is new issued weapon in Estonian Defence Forces, not US Army), as I said, we do have a shortage in handguns in my parent org. We could have put a good use to most of these guns. These ones I played with were in truly good conditions, either factory-greased NIB, or very good. As said, I would have put up my contribution and bought 2 Colts right on spot (the nice ones), I made my offer, even, but chief made a very sorry face as he'd liked some guns too and off they went to the shredder.

the 20 million guns in US leaves me much cold, as I can't have these (though I'm a lot jealous), my worry is that from these 6000 guns I (and our whole KL) could have gotten some.

Vex, true that some guns have sentimental value, like heritaged guns, personalized gifts etc. And I would rather see one of such of mine destroyed, than put to use somewhere, but these were not rare examples, but rather useful tools in good working order, with need for them. But hardly destroying a gun prevents criminals from getting guns, as I stated in my post, criminals have all kinds of weapons here, so this is hardly an argument that makes any impact.
What went wrong? Nothing. The criminal stole the gun, the criminal killed the clerk, the criminal robbed the place... it's all the criminal, right? It had nothing to do with the gun, right? I agree. But the retired police officer feels like crap because he wishes he had never given the gun away. He somehow feels a little responsible.
IF not this gun, then another illegal gun or surplus Ka-Bar. Absence of one tool doesn't make the actions not being made, just another tool is aquired for it.

[Vex]

Justin and everyone else,

I've re-read all the responses to my original theory that sometimes weapons need to be destroyed. I think I was wrong.

I concede that it's completely illogical to destroy weapons for a needless purpose when these weapons could easily be used somewhere else, such as third world countries where terrorists with AK47's run amuck, raping and pillaging wherever they go, keeping fascist rule over an unarmed populace. But please don't take this as a win. I'm not conceding my opinion.

I still feel that sometimes a specific individual would rather not feel obligated to be emotionally responsible for how a weapon got into the wrong hands, however unlikely. I should have come to the conclusion before, but I had to stand by my argument because everyone is different, and everyone has their own personal views. My personal views haven't changed.

The conslusion is this: I offer my apology for generalizing that all weapons should be destroyed after the original owner gives them up. This was not my intent, and however I mis-worded my opinion to give you all this idea was my fault, and mine alone.

Consider this, though: A member on this forum, while locked in debate with me regarding unlawful police detainment, once said to me that they would rather let dozens of wanted felons roam free as long as a single law abiding citizen is not inconvenienced by the police during their hunt. So, I offer this statement: I would rather see a hundred innocent guns be destroyed by their owners than see one police gun used to commit a crime. This is my opinion, and once again, I want to point out that I'm not generalizing, and if anyone misconstrues this as such, I apologize in advance.

[WeedWhacker]

The criminal is financially liable for a crime. No one else.It would be nice if it were like this. Unfortunately, it's not.

That's it? That's the argument? So we should hold prior owners of guns (tools, remember) criminals use in crimes liable for the actions of a third party?? So, Johnny B. Bad decides to rob over a conveniance store and gets away in a car. Who is liable if all tool makers "have some responsibility" for the crime committed?

Sears (http://www.sears.com/sr/javasr/product.do?cat=Hand+Tools%2C+Carpentry&pid=00937246000&vertical=TOOL&subcat=Pry+%26+Wrecking+Bars&BV_UseBVCookie=Yes), Ford, Hanes (http://www.hanes.com), General Mills (http://www.generalmills.com)... and perhaps even YOU if you buy anything from any of these companies! After all, you gave the companies money so they could have funds to make more goods to be purchased by the criminal to be used in the commission of his crime!

Holding manufacturers liable for the use of their products is utter nonsense to me. However, I'm willing to listen to reason - what rational argument could me made to the contrary?


Now, if you're referring to scummy lawyers, a small bit of reform in the justice system where suits labelled frivilous end up coughing up the dough for the defendant's fees... and perhaps even disbarment of lawyers involved in too many such cases... should nip that in the bud. Can't shut the little guy out of the courts, though. Well, not any more than they already are, I mean.

I would rather see a hundred innocent guns be destroyed by their owners than see one police gun used to commit a crime.
Here, we're in agreement, more or less. Of course, I don't see a "police gun" or military arm as any different from any other firearm. That said, the owners should be free to do whatever they want with their own property: keep it, sell it, destroy it - all fine by me!
I just don't want my gov't to do it. After all, they're not the owner, merely the custodian of my tax dollars.

[Vex]

WeedWhacker,

We all know about the frivilous lawsuits that come from stupid people doing stupid things, right? Like the stories of the guy breaking into a house, but impaling his genetals on the glass on his way in. He sues the home owner for not having safety glass that wouldn't stick up like a spear, and he wins. Or the guy that's on the roof of a house he wants to burglarize. He ends up falling through the root due to shoddy upkeep by the owner. He sues the owner because the owner didn't have a sturdy roof, and wins. These might just be rumors, but I believe this could actually happen under our current legal system.

So the financial liability... okay, police department sells the guns at public auction. A person buys a gun, takes it home, and shoots himself with it. Family decides to sue the department because they shouldn't have supplied the crazy person with a gun, despite the fact that they did everything they were required to... background checks, waiting period, etc. They end up settling out of court for a couple million dollars. Were they liable? Probably not. It's the out of court settlements that destroy the foundation of civil trials.

[BHPshooter]

I guess it's time for this "extremist libertarian" :scrutiny: to jump in here... I can't resist anymore.

Firearms were built for one purpose: to kill.

That's funny, I must not be using my guns correctly; I haven't killed a single person.
Guns ARE designed for one purpose -- to propel a projectile a great distance. That's it. Killing is an action that requires cognitive processes to achieve. You're anthropomorphizing guns when the only entity responsible for the actions and emotions in the group is the person, not the firearm.

I'm not saying it's a valid form of gun control. I'm saying that sometimes there are particular guns that people don't want to fall into criminal hands for SENTIMENTAL reasons. It's not gun control to destory police weapons. If anything, it's irony control, and even liability control.

Think about this, for example.... retired police officer decides to give his old gun to his nephew. Nephew takes the gun home and shows it off to his friends. Word gets out, and someone breaks into his house, steals the gun, takes it to a gas station, shoots the employee, robs the place, and takes off. Gun is found in the dumpster two counties away, and is linked to the crime. Police trace the gun back to the original owner, the retired police officer, and inform him that the gun was used to kill someone during the commission of a crime while investigating how the gun got into the hands of the criminal.

What went wrong? Nothing. The criminal stole the gun, the criminal killed the clerk, the criminal robbed the place... it's all the criminal, right? It had nothing to do with the gun, right? I agree. But the retired police officer feels like crap because he wishes he had never given the gun away. He somehow feels a little responsible.

For sentimental reasons? Boo-hoo. Once a person sells an item (ANY item) they are no longer morally responsible for that item. Guns are INANIMATE OBJECTS that have no will of their own, and the end user alone is responsible for their use.

The poor, sad police officer needs to turn off Oprah and live in the real world. If he feels compelled to blame himself for the actions of others, then that is his problem. Perhaps he should go see the precinct psychologist.

What I'm saying is that there are specific guns that I think should be destroyed to avoid any possible liability, mental, financial, or emotional. Not all guns.

Oh? And which guns are those, benevolent master? Fully automatic weapons? Guns that look like full-autos? Maybe guns that hold more than 10 rounds? Guns that are too inexpensive? Guns that might penetrate a kevlar vest? Or maybe just all handguns?
That's okay though -- I'm sure you'd never advocate taking our deer rifles... :scrutiny:

I said some people would rather have their guns destroyed to prevent their use in a crime. I never advocated it as a form of gun control. Read ALL my posts, you should be able to figure this out.

Do you know what doublethink is?
Advocating destroying guns on the ever-so-slim chance that they would be used in a crime, while at the same time saying that you don't advocate it as a form of gun control is simply hilarious.

Destroying guns under the pretense of crime-control IS gun control. You've got two contradictory thoughts in your head, but you don't seem to notice the contradiction.

So to accuse me of being an anti because I speak of gun ownership with passtion, with emotional thought, and with feelings about the fate of specific items in our history... firearms which serve our country and our people with courage... those of soldiers, of police, of any person who risks his life in the pursuit of meaning... to refer to these tools they rely on as mere objects which can be sold or traded on a whim, is irresponsible. These people are connected to these objects by destiny. Sometimes, we have to destroy the things we love to protect it from evil, no matter what value it has in the eyes of the non-believer.

Are you trying to sound like a hippy, or does it just come naturally? :banghead:
Again -- say it with me now -- guns are inanimate objects! They are pieces of property, and it is every American's God-given right to sell or trade ANY of his/her property on any whim they choose. This is neither irresponsible or immoral. It's called liberty.
And again, you're anthropomorphisizing. Guns have no "destiny," nor do they have a "fate." They are inanimate pieces of metal, wood, and plastic, and they do not have a soul or a personality.
Apologies if I come off sounding like a "non-believer." :rolleyes:

*sigh*
Wes

[Vex]

Sorry, Wes, but you're too late for the party. Everything you've said has been said before. Maybe next time, alright?

[evan price]

Wes: Butt in any old time. It's nice to know somebody understands what I'm saying.

[WeedWhacker]

Family decides to sue the department because they shouldn't have supplied the crazy person with a gun [...] These might just be rumors, but I believe this could actually happen under our current legal system.
Could, can, and does. Hence:
Now, if you're referring to scummy lawyers, a small bit of reform in the justice system where suits labelled frivilous end up coughing up the dough for the defendant's fees... and perhaps even disbarment of lawyers involved in too many such cases... should nip that in the bud.
The United States of America is the best and greatest country on this planet, bar none. There is no other place on Earth I would rather live, and I feel darned lucky to be in the USA. That said, the USA has plenty of problems, most of which are all intertwined, so that properly fixing one issue will cause big problems with another bad situation.

In order to save the patient, the cancer must be removed. There's going to be some pain.

[Eleven Mike]

Dumbest thread ever. :(

[Daniel T]

Dumbest thread ever.

Well, now it is. Thanks for your contribution. :rolleyes:

[Eleven Mike]

Well, Daniel, I could hardly compete with the vapid comments of Vex or the people calling him an anti. Your reply was very valuable in some way, though, I'm sure. :confused:

[DrDremel]

"I'm saying.... if a cops gun is sold to a dealer, and the dealer sells it to a criminal, and a criminal kills another cop with it, it would be a tragedy."

This statement shows the flaw in your entire logic. Dealers do not sell to criminals. That is illegal in itself. That is why we have backgroud checks. If a person is a criminal, they will get their guns in an illegal manner. Criminals do not buy guns legally. How about this then. If a cops gun is grabbed by a criminal and used to kill the cop, that would be a tragedy. So in order to prevent this, we should keep the guns away from cops. That is using the very same logic pattern that you have provided. Your logic could also be used to prevent drunk driving deaths. If we were to stop the sale of vehicles because if a car is sold to a dealer, and the dealer sells it to a criminal, and the criminal kills another driver that would be a tragedy. The flaw in your entire logic is that the only way to stop the criminal is to remove items that they may use. Would you like to stop the sale of drugs used in the medical industry for the reduction of pain? If these drugs were never manufactured, they would cease to fall into the hands of those that use them for illegal uses. Under your logic pattern, any item could and should be banned.

A fiream is not designed to kill. It is designed to throw a projectile. In fact firearms are designed to be efficient in the hopes that it's presence will prevent killing through the threat of retaliation or protection. This is the case with all firearms in Military and Police use.

[buzz_knox]

Well, Daniel, I could hardly compete with the vapid comments of Vex or the people calling him an anti. Your reply was very valuable in some way, though, I'm sure.

Well, care to expand upon that and contribute? If you think the comments or comparisons are invalid, feel free to disbute them. For my part, I started off by stating that his logic was identical to that of antis, and his comments were the same as those offered by the Brady Bunch. It was only after he continued making those comments and refuted factual disagreements with discussions about "feelings" and "respect my opinion" and insults (we were "radical anarchist libertarians" before he was an anti), and pulled out more statements from the Brady Bunch handbook, that I began to suspect his interest in RKBA in general was less than his interest in the guns he personally owned.

[BHPshooter]

This statement shows the flaw in your entire logic. Dealers do not sell to criminals. That is illegal in itself. That is why we have backgroud checks. If a person is a criminal, they will get their guns in an illegal manner. Criminals do not buy guns legally.

You're right -- criminals will get guns regardless of the law. So then, tell me what a background check does for us, other than creating more flaming hoops for the law-abiding to jump through? Does a BG go through a background check when he buys guns from the trunk of a car?
These statements (the blue and the red) are contradictory. Either background checks prevent criminals from getting guns, or criminals will just get their guns elsewhere, illegally. We all know which is true.

Sorry, Wes, but you're too late for the party. Everything you've said has been said before. Maybe next time, alright?

My, my... what a rebuttal. :rolleyes:

Wes: Butt in any old time. It's nice to know somebody understands what I'm saying.

Thanks, Evan. Not only do I understand what you're saying, I share your anger. These guns could have been sold to families who need protection and can't afford anything decent.

I guess the big difference between my line of thought and Vex's is that I think these guns shouldn't have been destroyed because of the good they could have done. Vex things that they should have been destroyed because of the slim chance that they could have been used criminally.
We know what the stats are re: lawful vs. criminal gun use, so I can't see any logical reason why Vex would be batting with the antis' lineup.

Can you give us a logical reason, Vex? I'm not goading you, I'm genuinely interested to know.

Wes

[BOBE]

I've been reading this thread for a while now, and I just want to know since when can a criminal walk into gun store and walk out after buying a gun? we must go through background checks here where I live. I thought it was like that everywhere. Just wondering:confused:

[Vex]

Wes, I'm going to quote my exact statement that I posted an hour before you decided to jump in:

Justin and everyone else,

I've re-read all the responses to my original theory that sometimes weapons need to be destroyed. I think I was wrong.

I concede that it's completely illogical to destroy weapons for a needless purpose when these weapons could easily be used somewhere else, such as third world countries where terrorists with AK47's run amuck, raping and pillaging wherever they go, keeping fascist rule over an unarmed populace. But please don't take this as a win. I'm not conceding my opinion.

I still feel that sometimes a specific individual would rather not feel obligated to be emotionally responsible for how a weapon got into the wrong hands, however unlikely. I should have come to the conclusion before, but I had to stand by my argument because everyone is different, and everyone has their own personal views. My personal views haven't changed.

The conslusion is this: I offer my apology for generalizing that all weapons should be destroyed after the original owner gives them up. This was not my intent, and however I mis-worded my opinion to give you all this idea was my fault, and mine alone.

Consider this, though: A member on this forum, while locked in debate with me regarding unlawful police detainment, once said to me that they would rather let dozens of wanted felons roam free as long as a single law abiding citizen is not inconvenienced by the police during their hunt. So, I offer this statement: I would rather see a hundred innocent guns be destroyed by their owners than see one police gun used to commit a crime. This is my opinion, and once again, I want to point out that I'm not generalizing, and if anyone misconstrues this as such, I apologize in advance.


See? The party is over. I was wrong for generalizing, and I admitted so. All of your arguments assume I was generalizing that all guns should be destroyed, which is invalid.

I guess the big difference between my line of thought and Vex's is that I think these guns shouldn't have been destroyed because of the good they could have done.

You're right. I never disputed this. I merely said not everyone in the world thinks the same way.

Vex things that they should have been destroyed because of the slim chance that they could have been used criminally.


I think it's up to the owner to decide what to do with them. The only tragedy here with these guns being destroyed is it was done by the government, wasting tax money. If the owner's decided they wanted to destroy the guns so they wouldn't fall into the hands of the criminal, it's up to them. Who are we to override ownership?

We know what the stats are re: lawful vs. criminal gun use, so I can't see any logical reason why Vex would be batting with the antis' lineup.

Can you give us a logical reason, Vex? I'm not goading you, I'm genuinely interested to know.


Aside from destruction or potentially dangers materials to avoid financial liability by frivilous lawsuits? No, I can't. Want to know why? Because human beings are not logical creatures. We're not Vulcans, Robots, Cyborgs, or whatever. Sometimes we do things that don't make sense for reasons beyond us: religion, emotions, feelings, random acts of genuine kindness.... And we can't always explain why.

Furthermore, I'm not battling with the anti's lineup. This isn't the same, because I'm advocating gun ownership while still allowing for the possibility that the owner doesn't want the gun to fall into the wrong hands. This is about the owner's thoughts, not ours. Why can't you see that? It's obviously clear.

This party is over. All of your arguments are invalid because they simply don't apply. I never said I was glad these guns were destroyed... in fact, I said several times that it was a true tragedy, even in my original post. I never said i was glad ANY gun was destroyed. I merely stated that sometime's it's what the owners want, and we have no place to challenge that, no matter how illogical.

Are you trying to sound like a hippy, or does it just come naturally?

So, are you trying to sound heartless, or does it just come naturally? :rolleyes:

[cracked butt]

I have to agree with Vex. Government owned libraries should burn all of the old books and replace them with new carefully tested and qualified books. Wouldn't want to sell them off to the public where there might be a big demand for books because these old books full of worn out ideas might give individuals dangerous or even criminal ideas. :rolleyes:

[BHPshooter]

So, are you trying to sound heartless, or does it just come naturally?

The term "Heartless Libertarian" didn't just emerge from the ether, you know. ;)

See? The party is over. I was wrong for generalizing, and I admitted so. All of your arguments assume I was generalizing that all guns should be destroyed, which is invalid.

There isn't a person here who read your "admission" and believed it. If you expect it to be taken seriously, you might consider being about 99% less facetious.

Because human beings are not logical creatures. We're not Vulcans, Robots, Cyborgs, or whatever. Sometimes we do things that don't make sense for reasons beyond us: religion, emotions, feelings, random acts of genuine kindness.... And we can't always explain why.

Nobody here is saying that emotions aren't allowed -- what I AM saying is that emotion has no place in deciding public policy, including destroying surplus firearms, regardless of what kind of imaginery emotional responsibility a person thinks they have. If a person feels that way, sorry, but they need to suck it up and GET OVER IT.

to refer to these tools... as mere objects which can be sold or traded on a whim, is irresponsible.
I think it's up to the owner to decide what to do with them... If the owner's decided they wanted to destroy the guns so they wouldn't fall into the hands of the criminal, it's up to them. Who are we to override ownership?

:rolleyes: I can dig up plenty of other contradictions, but it's not worth my time. You change tune more than a cheap guitar, and I'm done debating with someone whose conversational tactics mimic those of John Kerry.

Wes

[Vex]

There isn't a person here who read your "admission" and believed it. If you expect it to be taken seriously, you might consider being about 99% less facetious.


Sorry, Wes, but this comment really turned me off to any further debate with you, civil or not. Why would I waste my time with someone who won't even believe me when I realize I'm genuinely wrong about something?

See ya around.

[carebear]

A member on this forum, while locked in debate with me regarding unlawful police detainment, once said to me that they would rather let dozens of wanted felons roam free as long as a single law abiding citizen is not inconvenienced by the police during their hunt.

Was that me? Cause that sure sounds like me. :evil:

As far as the owner wanting the gun to be destroyed so it wouldn't fall into the hands of a criminal.

I'm all for owner's property rights.

But the pistol issued to cops in my town isn't owned by the cop, neither are the weapons seized by police in the course of investigations owned by the department.

If retiring officers want to reimburse the department the purchase cost of a replacement service piece and take a blowtorch to it themselves to prevent some vague, statistically improbable mishap, fine, I guess, if the department is buying new ones with my money anyway. Otherwise, that gun is mine (some small share anyway) and decisions about its fate should be in the hands of my elected representatives. LEO chiefs are put in the job to manage their workforce and resources, not decide the permanant disposition of public property. Officer Worry-wart can go wring his hands and mew piteously on his own dime.

We have a state law in place up here mandating seized weapons be sold (except for a few homicide weapons to appease the superstitious) to licensed dealers at auction if their true owners cannot be found. Money for the agencies, guns for the people, all good. It had been that way, in practice, for years.

We didn't get the actual law though until the Legislature was forced to act by the top LEO's and governor a few years back changing the then existing sensible sale-at-auction policy to a "destroy all the bad things" policy in a paroxysm of infantile stupidity.

Too bad more people here, or in Estonia, don't seem to care.

[Chrontius]

Besides, the remaining ones around the world are worth just that much more.

Which raises the probability that I'll never be able to afford one.

Have you looked at the prices on a new 1911 lately? Do you know how many months pay that is for me? (Poor college student)

[Eleven Mike]

No new posts in about ten and a half hours. Just thought I'd poke this thread with a stick and see if it's still spitefully alive, beastly thing.

[1911Tuner]

Laying aside the fact that cutting up all those collectible 1911 pistols and Garand rifles gives me a case of the vapors, ignore the emotional and look at the more practical side of it. There are thousands of collectors and clubs who would love to have those weapons, and would be more than happy to buy them through perfectly legal means. This would generate revenue for the US Government...Monies that could be used to pay some of the national debt, or funneled back into funding better equipment for our troops in the field. Remember when they needed armor for the Humvees and the excuse was partly because of the financial burden? Heeeeere's yer sign, guys! Money is where you find it. If you're gonna destroy OUR property, the least you can do is to first offer us the option of buying it...again.

:cuss: :fire:

[Otherguy Overby]

What gun control people conveniently overlook is remanufacturing "destroyed" weapons is now a thriving business they unwittingly created.

If they just could consider a few facts they'd see their prohibitions only generate work arounds. Ban AKs and people get rich bringing in kits and manufacturing new receivers. Ban assault weapons and people build them without evil features.

Of course they still aren't listening...

[White Horseradish]

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but there are a couple of things i'd like to point out.

First, the line of reasoning about emotional desire of a cop to see his old gun destroyed is totally irrelevant here. The guns in question were new in factory wrap and never issued.

Second, while not particulalry rare in the ex-combloc, these TT pistols are fairly hard to find in US. Estonia has no non-importation treaty with US, unlike Russia, and could have sold those to an importer easily.

Third, I have seen mention of the destruction of these guns being a condition of the HK contract. If that is indeed so, I woud try to avoid buying HK products in the future. I'd rather not do business with someone who insists on destroying collectible firearms.

There is another possibility for why this was done, though. Perhaps the intense dislike of everything Soviet in modern day Estonia played a part? It would still be silly emotionalism, but it would be a lot more believable than the cop thing.

[iShootStraight]

It is senseless. Seems they are a bit over-confident in their new H&K's also. I'd take a 1911 over an H&K.

[g3shooter]

Disgusting :barf:

[Justin]

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=70670&d=1199811473