-
Welcome to the Vanguard Community
These forums date back to the game's origins as the Crysis mod Traction Wars. Over the years the game and internet habits have evolved and discord.gg/vanguardww2 is now the principle home of the community.
The team continue to read and reply to posts here, but we can be contacted more quickly on Discord.
Militaria
- Thread starter VonMudra
- Start date
- Status
Colonel__Klink
Member
The sad thing is that they COULD repair those Enfields but I don't think people will pay what the labor is worth. I'm betting most of the time its failures such as excessive head space. So pulling off the barrel, shaving off 1/4 the breach end(actually you'd need to do some math so you make sure that the barrel will again screw on so the front sight is perfectly center), trimming back the shoulder at the end of the threading the same amount, and then re cutting the chamber would fix the thing if the rifling were good. The gun would be 1/4 inch shorter but the head space would be fixed.
Course you could be referring to some excessive standard of "safety" under the law, which you can't really get around. There is also my understanding that Lee-Enfields weren't the best constructed firearms out there..... Lol reminds me of a guy who actually paid me to refinish a Mosin Nagant. Now that was work! Especially because I don't have ein sandblaster and therefore I only do high quality finishes.
I wanted to address this to the side. The sad thing is that the permitting process in Britain appears to be the same scheme with the automatic weapon tax in the United States. In the 1930's they tacked on a $200 dollar tax and requirement to register to any fully automatic weapon in the United States. The ultimate goal was to make said firearms so expensive that they would eventually phase out of existence. Which is exactly what happened. In 1968 the most sweeping firearms bill in american history was passed. In the 1980's the firearms advocates in the United States managed to get some of the more extreme measures of that law repealed by allowing the ban of newly manufactured "machienguns" which no longer had a voter base to defend it.
Basically so long as there is a significant portion of the population that can afford something, and they enjoy that something then there will be a voter base to defend it. If you make it too costly then that voter base disappears....
Got some food for thought for you. Each year in the United States there are 8,000 homicides with firearms. There are 175k assaults with firearms, and 145k cases of robbery using firearms. There are an estimated 310,000,000 Firearms in the United States. If each firearm related crime involved a completely different firearm that would mean that 0.001% of all the firearms in the United States would be involved in one of those incidents. More than that if a new firearm were used for each murder(which is the worst case scenario to make firearms look bad) then that would mean only 0.00002% of all firearms were involved in one of those reported murders.
What this means is that OVER 99% of all firearms have been used justly by law abiding citizens.
Course you could be referring to some excessive standard of "safety" under the law, which you can't really get around. There is also my understanding that Lee-Enfields weren't the best constructed firearms out there..... Lol reminds me of a guy who actually paid me to refinish a Mosin Nagant. Now that was work! Especially because I don't have ein sandblaster and therefore I only do high quality finishes.
I wanted to address this to the side. The sad thing is that the permitting process in Britain appears to be the same scheme with the automatic weapon tax in the United States. In the 1930's they tacked on a $200 dollar tax and requirement to register to any fully automatic weapon in the United States. The ultimate goal was to make said firearms so expensive that they would eventually phase out of existence. Which is exactly what happened. In 1968 the most sweeping firearms bill in american history was passed. In the 1980's the firearms advocates in the United States managed to get some of the more extreme measures of that law repealed by allowing the ban of newly manufactured "machienguns" which no longer had a voter base to defend it.
Basically so long as there is a significant portion of the population that can afford something, and they enjoy that something then there will be a voter base to defend it. If you make it too costly then that voter base disappears....
Got some food for thought for you. Each year in the United States there are 8,000 homicides with firearms. There are 175k assaults with firearms, and 145k cases of robbery using firearms. There are an estimated 310,000,000 Firearms in the United States. If each firearm related crime involved a completely different firearm that would mean that 0.001% of all the firearms in the United States would be involved in one of those incidents. More than that if a new firearm were used for each murder(which is the worst case scenario to make firearms look bad) then that would mean only 0.00002% of all firearms were involved in one of those reported murders.
What this means is that OVER 99% of all firearms have been used justly by law abiding citizens.
volcol
Well-known member
I think the main issue surrounding any 'vote' on firearms is the UK, is that simply, not a lot of people actively hold an interest in them. It's not seen as a birth right - to coin a phrase - to own weapons. Most people aren't confident around them, a large proportion of people are scared of them, all be that through personal experience or more likely the general portrayal of 'guns' in British media.
I guess in summary, yeah we have strict (ish) laws on guns, but it's by no means as strict as what people outside of the UK (or inside the UK lol) As said - it's an expensive hobby, if I had a spare £2k I'd take it up - but alas I don't.
Colonel__Klink
Member
The confusion and fear surrounding firearms is generally what I try to dispel in order to fight the anti firearm forces in the United States. I find once a few misconceptions are dispelled and people are a bit more comfortable with them the fire in their anti gun stance is taken out.
But yeah, even if there weren't laws in Britain heavily restricting firearms it still would be a rich man's sport there. The reason mostly due to the high percent of land usage meaning ranges are more expensive to set up, and there are few hunting opportunities. Thus shooting being sort of a "rich man's game" in England because they can afford to fly out of the country to hunt game.
Aniallator
Member
I shouldn't need to. Why wouldn't I be disturbed that a lot of people own guns? With some exceptions, of course, I dislike seeing normal people with guns. That is, people who have guns just because they can, or for "defense". IRL guns are guns, they can kill you. I once passed someone on the street, and I happened to catch the outline of a handgun in their pocket, and let me tell you, that scared the living sh*t out of me. Personally, I don't want to own something designed to kill people. I'll stick to video games for that.
Is it that hard to headspace a Lee enfield? If the space is to big, then you take out the bolt, unscrew the end, look for the number on the end piece, look for a new one with a higher number (you have 0, 1 ,2 and 3) screw one on with a higher number. Shoot some more.
once your 3 is no longer good then you probably shot over 20k bullets and probably could do with a new barrel also.
So, you don't like things that where made to kill people... I heard that knives where kind of made to kill with the exception of blunt butter knives. the fact that you can buy 'home' knives does not change that they where made to slit troths, you better get them out of every household and only give them to professional butchers that need them for a living, not your normal civilian. It scares the living **** out of me when i see somebody with a sharp knife acting like they do nothing wrong.
I have them because i have a more then average interest in ww1 and 2 infantry weapons, am i a bad person now?
I do agree though, they do not belong in the street, people should not be allowed to cary them outside of there home and shooting clubs. Or for licensed hunting.
once your 3 is no longer good then you probably shot over 20k bullets and probably could do with a new barrel also.
So, you don't like things that where made to kill people... I heard that knives where kind of made to kill with the exception of blunt butter knives. the fact that you can buy 'home' knives does not change that they where made to slit troths, you better get them out of every household and only give them to professional butchers that need them for a living, not your normal civilian. It scares the living **** out of me when i see somebody with a sharp knife acting like they do nothing wrong.
I have them because i have a more then average interest in ww1 and 2 infantry weapons, am i a bad person now?
I do agree though, they do not belong in the street, people should not be allowed to cary them outside of there home and shooting clubs. Or for licensed hunting.
Last edited:
VonMudra
Well-known member
That's all well and good that you don't want to own a gun, but that doesn't mean you should say you're disturbed by others owning guns. That is effectively like saying "I don't want to own a car, and people that do disturb me". Especially valid considering how many tens of thousands of people cars kill in the USA than guns. Indeed, more people are stabbed to death in the USA than killed with rifles. Also more people are beaten to death than killed with rifles. And also murders, over all, have been dropping in number by 1000 or so a year for the past 10, 20 years, despite more people owning guns than ever. Not to say that's a correlation of 'more guns= less violence', but it does show that more guns =/= more violence.
calgoblin
Pathfinder Games
End of the day if maniac X wants to get hold of a gun for whatever illegal reason then maniac X will manage it no matter what laws stand in the way. Guns are a beautiful pinnacle of human engineering and workmanship, but they ARE scary when they are in the hands of the wrong people. However so are cars, so basically humans just shouldn't make stuff.
Colonel__Klink
Member
Technically speaking, not all firearms are designed to kill people and not all firearms are even designed to kill at all! A race gun for example is not designed to kill anything at all just punch holes in paper.
A weapon technically is a tool with which to more efficiently apply violence. Violence is the action of using physical or psychological force to coerce another party into a set of behavior. When a policeman tackles a criminal that is violence. Therefore we know that an expression of violence can be a force of good or ill in the world. A weapon such as a firearm merely is a tool with which violence is performed like knives and bats much in the same way my chisels, gouges and files are used for carpentry. With this tool, a weapon a person can express violence for good in the world. My fiance for example (a very short cute man, the klink is gay) survived a potentially lethal mugging in bridgeport because he saw them coming at him and scared him off with a pistol. He therefore used the threat of physical injury (aka psychology) to coerce actions out of other people. He committed an act of violence by the definition lain out above, but it prevented injustice.
In my previous post responding to you I posted that less than 0.002% of all firearms in the United States are involved in some sort of a crime. More than that I've found an interesting psychological change in myself since I got my permit and started carrying a pistol. I'm calmer, and MUCH more concerned with calming situations down before they get out of hand. Every day I have a big lump of metal pressed firmly against me reminding me of how bad a situation can get if it leaps out of control. Those situations could get dire enough to result in someone's death even without the firearm. The first aid kit I also carry just reinforces that feeling.
Yeah each new bolt face w/ locking lug adds just a couple thousandths to the length of the bolt face. The only concern I have with that method is that if the headspace is out of wack its probably due to one of a few reasons. 1: the neck in the chamber is out of wack. With fresh modern brass you probably will be ok safety wise but it can still happen that the neck that the cartridge head spaces on is not quite right and the cartridge stretches too far thereby splitting and sending hot gas back through the action.
2: You could be having bolt set back. You might actually just need a replacement bolt face not necessarily one that is a few thousandths thicker. I've never heard of it happening but I'd also want to check that the receiver itself didn't stretch which is a nightmare can of worms. Who knows maybe someone loaded a WAY too hot loaded cartridge in there? Sometimes the **** you never heard of happening is what will catch you.
Course committing to any action you want to actually test the weapon for all the possible scenarios. Getting a pretty good idea of the chamber without the ability to fire the thing(dangerous headspace being the problem) is really done best by getting a good ol chamber casting just to see if the neck down looks good.
Last edited:
VonMudra
Well-known member
Always glad to meet another of the HOMOSEX who is pro-gun! xD And congrats on the engagement!
Colonel__Klink
Member
Technically I got a passion for engineering, which combined with my love of military history and arts. I wound up deciding that I wanted to design guns, GREAT guns. So I joined the Corps as an armorer to learn how they were used, and gain the best possible first hand experience with them. Afterwords I went to a civilian school that educated me further. With my training I now have the ability to with effort construct any machine or object I dream of be it made out of plastic, wood, steel or what have you.
But yeah, me and the fiance have frequently expressed that there would have been a lot less fag drags in american history had the victim been armed with a pistol.... Unfortunately the gay community which is a minority and a frequent target of violence for some reason is hell bent on preventing people from having the means to self defense. Foolishly they for some reason seem to be in the mind that by passing a few laws the people whom attack them thereby breaking the law won't because there are now a few more laws that those villains would be breaking....
The problem really boils down to that many people such as our fellow gays or the poster here aniallator believe that the world should be a certain way. Peaceful and free of violence, which I think everyone would like. Yet they refuse to accept that the world is not that way, and will never be that way. For to achieve those ends you would need complete and total domination over the minds and hearts of men, which is a fate far worse than living in a world filled with violence.
Last edited:
Feldmeijer
Member
Oh god they're everywhere ()
Heheh.
Aniallator
Member
I don't mean any offense or anything, but that statement sounds exactly like something a big wig Republican would say to justify our current gun laws
The fact that people feel obligated to carry their gun with them wherever they go disturbs me most. All things aside, though, I have my opinion and you have yours, so we'll keep it that way. And . . . congratulations on your engagement? I just hope I haven't joined a completely homosexual community xD And please don't make assumptions, I never said a thing about what I think the world should be like.
Last edited:
calgoblin
Pathfinder Games
If I was in the US, or if that was the case here, then that would disturb me as well. I don't trust people very easily, let alone strangers with weapons in their pockets who may shoot me (giggity).
Yep, opinions are your opinions, we accept each others. And we certainly don't shoot other people over them...
(I fear this thread should be renamed Guns n' Gays.)
Colonel__Klink
Member
I don't mean any offense or anything, but that statement sounds exactly like something a big wig Republican would say to justify our current gun laws
I didn't take any offense, nor was any intended to be given. We were having a civil discussion. My assumption was a fair and reasonable one however, for anyone whom is reasonably well adjusted would want people to get along peacefully without worrying about violence on a daily basis correct? This is a common thread that ties the both of us, as well as 90% of the entirety of the world together.
In understanding another's viewpoint inferences from their statements are an absolutely critical action. In order to discuss and formulate counter arguments one absolutely must understand the other's viewpoint. In a lifetime of debate I've finally gotten to the point that in order to understand the other's viewpoint I ask what is the emotional component behind my opponents target goal. No moral statement is entirely composed of empirically measurable statements, in other words all moral statements ultimately have a basis in human emotional decision making. This is because emotions are critical to higher thinking and reasoning, therefore if I can better understand the feelings behind my opponents arguments by drawing inferences I can potentially either be better persuaded to their side, or better counter argue.
This is approach is important. If you think about it carefully arguing that your opponent is merely dillusional and is operating on a groundless argument is a bit foolish. Its easy to paint your foes as fools, its difficult to accept that there is a reason why your opponent feels the way that he does and there are aspects behind his logic that are actually valid. For example its actually reasonable to argue that people whom are paranoid with firearms are probably a bad idea. Its also reasonable to state that people should have means to self defense tools in the absence of an authority figure. Ultimately because of sound points on both sides the contention comes down to what is reasonable preparation for bad events. For example, is a pistol reasonable means to self defense, or is pepper spray reasonable? Understand that there are people from experience and circumstance have reason to understand the need for personal defense. This all of course is why I don't try to outright convert people to being "pro gun" but instead help them overcome any fear they have concerning firearms.
Its also worth noting that there are reasons for having a population familiar with firearms other than individual personal protection. But that's whole other argument right there! Suffice to say that without John Hall and Samuel Colt there would not have been a Henry Ford.
The fun thing about logic is how it can be used in multiple ways. For example the logic of not trusting people easily can be the foundation argument for securing your personal right to carry a firearm instead of trying to deny everyone the ability.
For example: if you don't trust people easily it means that you believe that there are a significant number of people whom can potentially seek to do you harm in the future. You recognize the fact that police cannot teleport in like star trek and therefore you wish to own a firearm to protect yourself.
there is also the argument that if you don't trust people easily then how can entrust all the power in a few select people (the government). While we may wish it, there likely is nothing to guarantee that figures of authority are any more trustworthy then the rest of the population. Because of this if you have stripped everyone of rights and privileges thereby empowering the authorities more you are in fact operating on the basis of trust.
Btw did you look at my math on the matter of trustworthiness with firearms in the previous page?
Last edited:
volcol
Well-known member
Don't tempt Mudra!
- Status