Usui Takumi

Agreed. But we weren't there and the friends are going to say what they think makes them look better, as will the gentleman and his family.

Unless this guy has CCTV footage there's no way to know what happened for sure except that 4 people entered private property and one was killed.

If the car is newer it might be able to tell us.

If the car was being driven at him that would change everything.

All firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows, must be made through a licensed dealer under the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) process.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#3

50+ year old long guns being excluded.

They should be more like California. If you show up at a buy back here, and try to buy guns, the police will still check all the serial numbers, and you run the risk that one of the weapons you just bought, will end up putting you in jail, for a variety of reasons. Good example right there why all transfers of firearms should be recorded and background checked, for both the buyer, and the seller.

Can you explain further why the serial will put you in jail from a firearm just purchased assuming it was purchased legally?

The Norwegian Armed Forces announced today that it has selected Nammo as the main supplier of lead-free small arms ammunition, a contract worth half a billion Norwegian Kroner, plus options.

– We are proud to supply world class ammunition that is both environmental friendly and fully satisfies the customer’s demands for operational function, says Edgar Fossheim, President and CEO of Nammo.

In conjunction with the Norwegian Armed Forces and the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, Nammo has developed a new, improved lead-free ammunition that will be used among others, in the Norwegian Armed Forces’ automatic rifle, the HK416. The contract value is almost half a billion NOK for the initial delivery, and includes options for further 700 million NOK. The contract is multi-annual and production will be carried out at Nammo’s production facilities in Karlsborg, Sweden.

For the benefit of the soldier and the environment

The new type of ammunition, NM255, emits lower levels of suspended dust particles and exhausts gases and, most importantly, does not expose the gunner to harmful lead gases. – We have developed new, improved lead-free ammunition of world class quality. For Nammo, it is important to be at the forefront of future environmental requirements and to develop products that are less harmful to the health of the users, and cause less damage to the environment, says Peter Ambjörnsson, President of Nammo Vanäsverken in Karlsborg.

The development of this new ammunition began shortly after the first report on health complaints appeared towards the end of 2008. Usually, development of new defense products can take up to ten years, whereas it has taken one third of this time to produce the new ammunition. – Norwegian politicians and chief of defense have been behind the sensible initiative to replace lead ammunition, to the benefit of the soldiers and the environment. We have been highly motivated by this initiative and it has also meant that we have succeeded in developing the new version of the ammunition in record time, says Ambjörnsson.

Aiming abroad

Increasingly more countries have realized that a transition to lead-free ammunition is necessary and this is reinforced by the fact that more stringent environmental requirements are imminent. – We therefore see a huge potential in our newly developed lead-free ammunition. The new contract with the Norwegian Armed Forces, a respected ally, will strengthen our position and increase our opportunity for sales to other markets, say Edgar Fossheim.

http://www.nammo.com/News/New-major-contract-for-Nammo/

The A-10 used depleted Uranium 'bullets' in its big gun! Not sure that is very 'green'!

I think they are transitioning from depleted uranium to tungsten (my wedding band is tungsten).

No post in this forum stays on topic. Ever.

...yeah I know, its rather frustrating.

I haven't found the report on google yet, but FNC said something about someone suing the EPA to get the lead out of bullets.

I remember an article not too long ago in the BBC where the army was considering going "green" and switching metals. A few European nations have. Of course the cost goes up.

Page 5. Can we get back on topic?

.......flawed title. Its not an abortion pill.

Why would legal, responsible gun owners be against extensive background checks?

There's "undue hardship" on the buyer when trying to purchase Sudafed over the counter at the pharmacy.

These don't say anything about him attempting to get a background check and being denied.

I completely agree that the whole Sudafed debacle does present undue hardship.

There have been multiple times where I went to buy it and the database was down. Without the database, no purchase, without purchase no congestion relief!

Then in some areas you need a prescription.

I've been tempted to do this in california myself. Unfortunately the programs are also during the day while I am work.

Given these guns often get melted down, it almost seems a civic duty to save old Arisakas, Springfields what have you.

The hairy back?

lol no. I'm not personally insulted, it just seems childish to me.

This is a "reply to graphics" thread.

I noticed similarities in the types of graphics posted and I mentioned them.

Sorry that bothers you.

What part was the insulting part? Maybe the "usually overweight" comment. Or that I don't like their facial hair? Surely being white and having a truck isn't an insult.

There were more comments than your own.

I had not realized this was the "lets throw out insulting stereotypes" thread.

The point of Charles' post was to make a "joke" which argues something that nobody actually believes.

The pro-gun crowd can continue the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument all they'd like and pretend that other people actually believe that guns by themselves kill people but it's obvious that isn't the case.

But hey, it's easier to do that than respond to someone providing a counter-argument to their silly pictures, I guess.

I am not referring to his reply to you but the image he initially posted.

Okay. And do you honestly believe that what was meant by that was actually "Guns have, all by themselves, gone on a killing spree and killed more people than anything in the history of this country"?

No. Like I said, I assume people would read that and know that it's meant that guns were used in killing more people than anything in the history of this country.

Do we really need to be so specific so that people understand? Am I giving people the benefit of the doubt when they're really just idiots? Maybe.

But nobody believes guns kill people all by themselves. That's just an argument made by the pro-gun crowd because they honestly believe other people think that way. Or they think it's funny. Either way, they're incorrect, but that's beside the point.

As I said, it is a vehicle of redirection. The point of Charles' post was not what was doing the killing but who. Yet we now have pages on the what and the initial message has been lost.

We should send them with cars, baseball bats and knives. Since those are just as lethal.

I don't think I've ever read someone say "guns killed this person" ... but I'll take your word for it. I was under the impression that it was safe to assume that people know inanimate objects don't go on killing sprees. But perhaps I'm giving too much credit where it isn't due.

In this thread... "Guns have actually killed more people than anything in the history of this country".

Given we were talking about the government, changing the subject of the sentence as above is a tool of redirecting the argument away from the initial message.

Well no sh*t. Who here thinks guns ALL BY THEMSELVES kill people? Nobody. Not a single person. And yet it's still something that the pro-gun crowd says.

Then people should post accordingly. I often read "guns killed X" or "guns did this". Perhaps, it is wiser to frame the argument better and instead say "guns were used in the killing of X".

The force is all around us, but once you learn the true power of the force, you will have no need of firearms.

Yes, it is true. We need an elegant weapon, for a more civilized age.

It's comments like these that make rational discussion impossible. I understand why the picture thread appeals to you - you get to post pictures, regardless of fact or accuracy, and it's against the "rules" to comment on them. But then when someone does, with a logical argument, this is the response.

Congrats on being part of the problem.

It is true that firearms are a force multiplier. But the force comes from somewhere outside the firearm.

I would argue that the administration played their cards well regarding firearms and the election. They could have easily started this after Aurora but were silent. By remaining silent, gun rights became a non issue, after all the only legal movement Obama did in the previous 4 years was allow firearms on Amtrak.

The NRA only has power when gun rights are threatened.

Not really. I know a lot of people that have shot many times and none of them are hooked.

In my experience, when you someone shoots a firearm for the first time it removes the fear they have of the firearm. Afterwards, they are much more likely to take up the sport themselves or at the very least respect it.

My response to Tbone is the notion that if the percentage of the population using firearms drops to a small percentage, then the 2nd amendment might be changed in a future generation. IE 30+ years from now.