guns

[brewmaster]

I know at least a few of us are gun lovers.

I currently have:

A 9mm Browning 13 round capable clip. Gotta love preban

An 870 wingmaster shotgun.

An AK-47, unfortunately from that weird period in time where only 10 round clips were allowed in the U.S..

A Remington 30-30, my Grandfathers favorite hunting gun. Something I am really lucky to have, for reasons I will not get into.

I want: a 25-06 bull barrel, or possibly a 22-250 bull barrel.

What do younz have, what do you want?

[banzai]

I carry a Sig Sauer 226R. Nothing beats letting off a bit of steam at the firing range after a long day. ;)

Also have a Browning hi-power standard but I don't have a holster for that, use it occasionally at the range.

[Charlie Mc.]

I have a kimber 1911, a Mossberg 500, an AYA SxS in 12ga, a remington 22 from before serial numbers were required on guns, and a 7mm rem mag that is a rebarreled and sportorized P14 enfield from the first world war.

[brewmaster]

Oh man, the 7mm. That is the only gun that ever surprised me. I didn't give it the respect it deserved and figured it was just a beefed up 30-06. I shot it and the scope nailed me in the forehead causing me to bleed. Quite embarassing.

[Charlie Mc.]

LOL it is a thumper no doubt. 1 box is all I ever want to put through it at a time.

[prometheus]

I carry a brace of Glocks (22,27) but own and love 'em all from .17 to .510.





prometheus added to this post, 4 minutes and 7 seconds later...

I know at least a few of us are gun lovers.

Gotta love preban


An AK-47, unfortunately from that weird period in time where only 10 round clips were allowed in the U.S..



You must be in Cali. Here in MT, that piece of shit is as dead as the members of every ethnic group that allowed themselves to be disarmed by their government.

[brewmaster]

No that happened countrywide about 12 years ago, before they changed the rules to the 50% US parts deal. I stupidly convinced my Pop to buy two of them with the full belief we would soon not be able to get any.

When I get some cash I will buy a new one with a 100 round clip. I don't really consider mine a POS, it is still my favorite gun I own, and I am damn accurate with it. When I get the new one, I'll keep this one and give it to my probable future progeny.

[logos]

ruger sp101 .357 magnum

beretta m9 9mm


on order for january when my local gunshops get it:

two-tone sig sauer p250 .40 S&W

[Astra]

This is the scariest thread I've ever seen. You Yanks are sooooo weird.

Tell me you don't actually USE these things, please :scared:

[LSB]

This is the scariest thread I've ever seen. You Yanks are sooooo weird.

Tell me you don't actually USE these things, please :scared:

Uh, are you serious? They're just tools. In the developed world, drivers kill more people than gun owners. Especially if you leave out the criminals - responsible gun owners only kill by negligence, and that happens less often than people getting killed by lightning.

I'm not an American, but I am able to view guns rationally rather than letting completely irrational feelings dominate my views. What happened to the T, did it get replaced by an F?

[brewmaster]

This is the scariest thread I've ever seen. You Yanks are sooooo weird.

Tell me you don't actually USE these things, please :scared:

Ah, come on. I use mine as much as I can. Nothing makes me happier when experiments at work aren't working than to go out and cut down a tree with my AK ;)

When I used to live in St. Paul, MN, in a pretty bad neighborhood, I hid in the shadows of my house in the middle of the night handgun in hand on multiple occasions. You don't know what it's like until you have been in that situation.

[Astra]

What happened to the T, did it get replaced by an F?

ooh, you bitch!

Thing is, I own a car but not so's I can run people over or make them think I'll drive into them before they drive into me. It's more a getting-from-A-to-B kind of thing. A bit different from owning a "brace of glocks" IMHO.

[stasis]

piece of shit is as dead as the members of every ethnic group that allowed themselves to be disarmed by their government.
I'm not sure how effective these kinds of armaments would be against the government if it wanted to persecute. Unless you've got a few attack helicopters in your garage, or something, it seems to me that you would be thoroughly fucked no matter how many assault rifles you (and all your friends, and their mothers) owned.

[brewmaster]

I have thought at length about that Stasis. The first thing is look at Iraq. They pretty much just have a bunch of IEDs and some AKs, and are doing a fine job evading the U.S. military. If they get a group of people pinned down in a specific location then you are right, it's over. But as long as you can stay mobile, remote, and hidden, they don't stand a chance (possibly in the long run).

I also have thought about a plan that would involve as little as 1000 people that could achieve the believed to be impossible. But I certainly am not going to talk about that on the internet.

[prometheus]

ooh, you bitch!

Thing is, I own a car but not so's I can run people over or make them think I'll drive into them before they drive into me. It's more a getting-from-A-to-B kind of thing. A bit different from owning a "brace of glocks" IMHO.


A brace of Glocks scare you, eh? :thinking:

I best not let you know I own one of these.......... To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

or show you what it can do, caution very graphic. :stunned:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not being an American you might need to have a little history lesson on the founding father's thoughts on the importance of private firearm ownership.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).

;D

[stasis]

I have thought at length about that Stasis. The first thing is look at Iraq. They pretty much just have a bunch of IEDs and some AKs, and are doing a fine job evading the U.S. military. If they get a group of people pinned down in a specific location then you are right, it's over. But as long as you can stay mobile, remote, and hidden, they don't stand a chance (possibly in the long run).
I have a question about the Iraq example. With regard to staying mobile and hidden over the course of guerrilla or attrition warfare, the coalition forces operating in Iraq have the primary obstacle of being complete sociocultural outsiders in the region. While it is true that Iraqi troops have come into circulation, the bulk of the deployed force has been decidedly non-local. It seems to me that such a scenario would make for significant intelligence obstacles in failing to understand the nuance of the culture, being distrusted or reviled by locals, not speaking the language, remaining unable to seed and integrate in large numbers, and et cetera.

A counterinsurgency within this country would on the other hand suffer no such impediment; not only would the military be intimately familiar with the local culture, able to move in and amongst it seamlessly if required, but the military is fully a product of that culture. If the location were developed (ie, not wilderness), the government could deploy local people, for example, and subsequently be able to draw upon pre-existing loyalties and relationships. It would be easier for the persecuting government to infiltrate and sway, making it more difficult for insurgents to evade and remain obscure (and thus remain alive). Wouldn't this make the government more effective by some order of magnitude at breaking domestic insurgencies within its own borders than in a completely foreign country like Iraq? And if so, what can we really draw from the comparison?

[prometheus]

I also have thought about a plan that would involve as little as 1000 people that could achieve the believed to be impossible. But I certainly am not going to talk about that on the internet.

IIRC Jesse Ventura said he could do it with a dozen.

[brewmaster]

Good points, the comparison was quite loose and undeveloped.

I was thinking more along the lines of a wilderness setting with quick actions within populated areas. It would certainly be difficult to discern who your friends were within your own country, depending on the circumstances of the actions that led to that insurgency.





brewmaster added to this post, 1 minutes and 15 seconds later...

IIRC Jesse Ventura said he could do it with a dozen.

I want to hear his plan, I don't think it can be done with that few.

[prometheus]

I want to hear his plan, I don't think it can be done with that few.

I was searching for it, he said it a few years ago and the media went into fits of loose bowels.





prometheus added to this post, 149 minutes and 57 seconds later...

I'm not sure how effective these kinds of armaments would be against the government if it wanted to persecute. Unless you've got a few attack helicopters in your garage, or something, it seems to me that you would be thoroughly fucked no matter how many assault rifles you (and all your friends, and their mothers) owned.


All of history has shown that a small native resistance movements almost alway win, no matter how long the odds.


The only losers I can recall are the jews of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. They were damn close, but just too outnumbered. A handful of jews with captured arms, held off divisions of Germany's best and only eventually lost because they were gassed and burned out.

The Warsaw Ghetto event is a perfect example of why victim disarmament laws are wrong. Before Hitler rounded them up, one of his first laws was to take their guns.

[danalaina]

i've got a .380 semiauto plinker that i don't like very much and a Remington youth model 20ga that i got after the lovely Mossberg turkey 12ga i was given proved to be too long for me to handle comfortably. >.<

it's effective enough against those evil clays, though.

[Nomad]

Good points, the comparison was quite loose and undeveloped.

I was thinking more along the lines of a wilderness setting with quick actions within populated areas. It would certainly be difficult to discern who your friends were within your own country, depending on the circumstances of the actions that led to that insurgency.





brewmaster added to this post, 1 minutes and 15 seconds later...



I want to hear his plan, I don't think it can be done with that few.

I can turn this country into a ongoing, cannibalistic riot with 2 dozen people. And no, I can't tell you my plan, because after I turned it in for an assignment in counterterrorism at Infantry School, I spent three days being questioned on where I got my information. It was in the library in Columbus, Georgia.We are shockingly, remarkably vulnerable in this country.

There has never been a successful counterinsurgency war that lasted less than twenty years. It does not matter if your troops are indigenous or foreign, they face many of the same obstacles. Iraq is complicated by another order of magnitude. Most of the enemy are foreign fighters, so aid from local populations is very sketchy. One of the larger problems we see in Iraq, and the Middle East in general, is that we think of them as nations, and we are not fighting nations, we are fighting tribes, with loyalties and alliances and feuds that date back a thousand years in some cases. You choose an ally, or someone helps you, you have twenty enemies by default, and not necessarily any friends.

If someone is interested in this, read Guerrilla War, by Mao Tse Tung. Counterinsurgency is one of the most complicated, riskiest types of conflicts to prosecute. Stasis, had some good points, but insurgencies exist because the population is unhappy with the government. True insurgencies are nearly impossible to infiltrate, whereas criminal enterprises are almost ridiculously easy to penetrate and gain valuable intelligence, the IRA and Shining Path being the two most obvious example. Within the organizations concerned with such things, that is pretty much the working definition of an insurgency, that you can't infiltrate it.

There are no reasonable threats to the US military, except guerrilla fighters.

-Nomad

[lowtech redneck]

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).

Don't forget the modern fact that guns are used for defensive purposes (usually without being fired) up to 2.5 million times each year, between 3 to five times the number of violent crimes committed with guns (and the majority of criminals would have no greater difficulty obtaining guns illegally as buying crack or heroin illegally).

That said, I'm not all that into guns myself (despite having the same internet handle as some guy who sells hunting equipment), and the only guns I have are two hunting rifles I inherited from my grandmother (which ironically sounds like a "you might be a redneck if..." joke).

[prometheus]

If someone is interested in this, read Guerrilla War, by Mao Tse Tung. Counterinsurgency is one of the most complicated, riskiest types of conflicts to prosecute. Stasis, had some good points, but insurgencies exist because the population is unhappy with the government. True insurgencies are nearly impossible to infiltrate, whereas criminal enterprises are almost ridiculously easy to penetrate and gain valuable intelligence, the IRA and Shining Path being the two most obvious example. Within the organizations concerned with such things, that is pretty much the working definition of an insurgency, that you can't infiltrate it.

There are no reasonable threats to the US military, except guerrilla fighters.

"AP" isn't a new idea and yes it would be most effective. God willing we haven't lost hope to this point.

[Danisty]

I like guns but I don't own any right now. I'd like to get a single-action revolver.

[LSB]

I'm not sure how effective these kinds of armaments would be against the government if it wanted to persecute. Unless you've got a few attack helicopters in your garage, or something, it seems to me that you would be thoroughly fucked no matter how many assault rifles you (and all your friends, and their mothers) owned.

Worked for the Finns against the Russians.. Works for the Iraqis right now.

[axiomtangent]

Currently I have a 9mm Barretta (with me at least) but I have been known to travel with an M-4 Carbine, but I still miss my old M-16, call me nostalgic.

Anyway, on the other points brought up...

Defeating an insurgency is not really that difficult, but doing it ethically (I heard some of you chuckle) can complicate things quite a bit.

Doing it ethically, while the world watches and gets a play by play; often extremely skewed (both ways I admit) is nearly impossible.

Doing it ethically, while the world watches and gets a play by play; often skewed, while possibly being held accountable for a decision you made in less than a second during a firefight by people who get to pick the event apart over several months while sipping tea at a mohogany desk... well, that's what we're doing in Iraq now.

crap, I ranted... I promised myself I wouldn't rant....

As for the troops coming to kick in your door and take away your Nintendo, it should be noted that those troops are not alien to the society they live in, unless a society is foolish enough to shun the individuals who have all the really cool guns (sorry to the NRA folks), and would be reluctent to the point of defiance to take up arms against the very people they believe themselves to be fighting for.

Damn, ranted again... Don't judge me too harshly, my rational mind gets a little gooey about this subject.

[prometheus]

As for the troops coming to kick in your door and take away your Nintendo, it should be noted that those troops are not alien to the society they live in, unless a society is foolish enough to shun the individuals who have all the really cool guns (sorry to the NRA folks), and would be reluctent to the point of defiance to take up arms against the very people they believe themselves to be fighting for.

Damn, ranted again... Don't judge me too harshly, my rational mind gets a little gooey about this subject.


Have you heard of this:

According to the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, on July 7, 1994, Larry Pratt, Director of Gun Owners of America, sent the following memo to Don McAlvany: "An actual copy of the questionnaire being administered on a Marine Base in 29 Palms, Ca. has come into our possession. It asks soldiers if they would obey U.N. officers and if they would confiscate firearms from American citizens and shoot those who resist. The latter point is corroborated by several Navy Seals who have personally reported that they have been asked the same questions. Congressman Bob Dornan has been asked to, and is considering launching a full scale investigation into the government using American (or U.N.) troops to disarm civilians."

Under the heading, "Combat Arms Survey," the questionnaire stated: "This questionnaire is to gather data concerning the attitudes of combat trained personnel with regards to non-traditional missions." Two of the questions asked are:

(1) I would swear to the following code: 'I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation's way of life, I am prepared to give my life in their defense.'

(2) The United States government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement:

`I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.'


Gota wonder why they would ask, eh?

[axiomtangent]

I cannot speak to the validity of the questionaire, but I am very skeptical.

Speaking as a service member I would consider an order to engage U.S. citizens to be unlawful and would be forced to act accordingly, and a majority of my fellow service members would undoubtably do the same.

An executive order (I believe that is the only way such a short sighted thing could happen) to disarm the populace would prompt an immediate outcry in the U.S. and civil disobedience would be a likely response.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we're people too, and most of us (military) own guns. Guns we'd not easily give up either, and we'd be standing right along side you in the protest line... just not in uniform.

As an aside; this is the oath all U.S. sevice members swear:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

[prometheus]

I cannot speak to the validity of the questionaire, but I am very skeptical.

Speaking as a service member I would consider an order to engage U.S. citizens to be unlawful and would be forced to act accordingly, and a majority of my fellow service members would undoubtably do the same.

An executive order (I believe that is the only way such a short sighted thing could happen) to disarm the populace would prompt an immediate outcry in the U.S. and civil disobedience would be a likely response.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we're people too, and most of us (military) own guns. Guns we'd not easily give up either, and we'd be standing right along side you in the protest line... just not in uniform.

As an aside; this is the oath all U.S. sevice members swear:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

A lot of the guys a shoot with are X-military, and they feel the same as you. I just like to ask other guys who aren't the "right-wing-gun-nut-montana-crazies" *

* Not my wording but, coastal liberals like Lights.

[danalaina]

[...]and the only guns I have are two hunting rifles I inherited from my grandmother (which ironically sounds like a "you might be a redneck if..." joke).
yeah...

that Mossberg that was too big for me...it was a Valentine's Day gift from my husband. i'm right there with ya.

apparently nothin' says lovin' like buckshot.

[logos]

new gun to add to my list..

sig p250

i love this gun :P

[Mechanical Messiah]

Let's see...

I have a S&W .357 magnum revolver (if that wasn't obvious).
.22 Taurus semiauto pistol
.22 Marlin rifle
.308 bolt action- old military junk
pre 1994 Chinese SKS (ancestor of the AK-47, for those not familiar) with the 30-round clip
Remington 30-06, short barrel w/ 4x scope
Mossberg 500 12-gauge pump


Then there's the wife's collection:

Remington 870 12-gauge pump- short barrel
two S&W .38's
.22 Taurus semiauto pistol (just like mine)

[ghmn]

I have to agree with you. Being military myself, I couldn't see following an order to engage our citizens to deprive them of a guaranteed basic right.

I've also been in law enforcement and on a special weapons team. I've had to relieve ppl of their guns b4, but usually bc they were pointing them at me. This still does not make me think that ppl should be denied the right to own them. And of course their are those who say "If cops didn't have guns, then criminals wouldn't carry guns", yeaahhhh, ok

[xhaan]

As an aside; this is the oath all U.S. sevice members swear:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Yes, shooting at civilians is wrong (U.S. civilians, or other civilians)... unless they are armed civilians shooting at you first, then they become combatants. I think if some militant group descended on the White House with guns and artillery, there might be a bit of shooting going on there. Not likely to happen I think, but still, never say never.

And the things with guns is, there will always be guns around. People can make them in their homes, for pete's sake. I saw a YT video of a guy that made a full auto 'pipe' gun, fully home made. Illegal of course, but still, it fired lethal bullets down range... that's a gun.

[AgentofGaming]

You guys are (from my perspective) armed to the teeth...
I have never seen a gun in real life except on police officers.
It's kind of uncivil to need weapons in a first world country, also wouldn't the availability increase the chance of high school massacres?

[xhaan]

You guys are (from my perspective) armed to the teeth...
I have never seen a gun in real life except on police officers.
It's kind of uncivil to need weapons in a first world country, also wouldn't the availability increase the chance of high school massacres?

It may sound absurd, but we need weapons because there are weapons, and some people DO need weapons for the sake of having them, in rural areas. Ever hear of something called proliferation? It's usually applied as a buzzword for things like nukes, but it works for guns too. People have guns, because there are guns, and there will always be more guns. We can't disarm the military, or the police, so therefore there will be guns, whether they are legal on paper or not. Criminals don't follow laws, you know.

And, we aren't 'armed to the teeth'. Most people in my particular area don't see guns that often, unless they own one, or are involved with people that do. Even in Detroit, where a lot of shootings happen (every day), you don't typically see people in trench coats walking around with two assault rifles and three pistols and a bag full of ammo.

Edit:
And if it were as uncivilized as you seem to be trying to claim, there would be a lot more school massacres than there have been. Ever since Columbine, people have been all "OMG GUNS R BAD". IF they were that bad, it would happen every freaking day, not in one instance out of years.

We aren't the only ones either.

Centennial Secondary School shooting
Brampton, Ontario Canada
May 28, 1975
The Brampton Centennial Secondary School massacre was a school shooting, which occurred at Brampton Centennial Secondary School in Brampton, Ontario, Canada. It was the first school shooting in Canada.


St Pius X High School School
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
October 27, 1975
The St. Pius X High School shooting was a school shooting that occurred on October 27, 1975, at St. Pius X High School in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Robert Poulin, an 18-year-old St. Pius student, opened fire on his classmates with a shotgun killing one and wounding five before turning the gun on himself and committing suicide. Poulin had raped and stabbed his 17-year-old friend Kim Rabot to death prior to the incident. A book entitled Rape of a Normal Mind was written about the incident.

École Polytechnique Massacre
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
December 6, 1989
The École Polytechnique Massacre, also known as the Montreal Massacre, occurred on December 6, 1989 at the École Polytechnique in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Twenty-five year-old Marc Lépine, armed with a legally obtained semi-automatic rifle and a hunting knife, shot twenty-eight people, killing fourteen (all of them women) and injuring the other fourteen before killing himself.

Concordia University massacre
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
August 24, 1992
The Concordia University massacre was a school shooting on August 24, 1992 that resulted in the deaths of four people at Concordia University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The shooter was Dr. Valery Fabrikant, a former Associate Professor of mechanical engineering at Concordia and a colleague of the slain men.

W. R. Myers High School shooting
Taber, Alberta, Canada
April 28, 1999
The W.R. Myers High School shooting occurred on April 28, 1999, at W. R. Myers High School in Taber, Alberta, Canada when a 14-year-old walked into his school and randomly shot at three students, killing Jason Lang and injuring another.[9] This shooting took place only eight days after the Columbine High School Massacre, and is widely believed to have been a copycat crime.

Dawson College shooting
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
September 13, 2006
The Dawson College shooting occurred on September 13, 2006 at Dawson College, a CEGEP in Westmount near downtown Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The perpetrator, Kimveer Gill, began shooting outside the de Maisonneuve Boulevard entrance to the school, and moved towards the atrium by the cafeteria on the main floor.[10][11] One victim died at the scene, while another 19 were injured, eight of whom were listed in critical condition with six requiring surgery. The shooter later committed suicide by shooting himself in the head, after being shot in the arm by police.

C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
May 23, 2007
Two 17-year-old Canadian citizens, whom the media can not identify under the provisions of Canada's Youth Criminal Justice Act, were arrested on May 27, 2007 and charged with first-degree murder. Prior to one of the arrests, police had taken the unusual step of obtaining a judicial order to publish one suspect's name and photograph as he was considered armed and dangerous. Media reported his identity and photo, then had to take the stories off their websites after he was arrested hours later.

[Sylvanus]

You guys are (from my perspective) armed to the teeth...
I have never seen a gun in real life except on police officers.
It's kind of uncivil to need weapons in a first world country, also wouldn't the availability increase the chance of high school massacres?

There is nothing uncivil about owning a gun. People that own guns don't just go out shooting stuff up just because they can. Guns don't turn people into criminals. Guns are useful for a: hunting and b: protecting yourself from criminals. There are millions of people in the US that would be better off owning and knowing how to use a handgun because it can prevent them and their families from being potential victims. I personally don't own a gun, I live in a safe neighborhood, I have small children and I don't have time to hunt. There is greater potential (however small) of my kids getting into my guns than of a criminal breaking and entering. But if I ever thought I might need one, I'd have no problem buying one and if I ever had to use it, I wouldn't feel at all guilty if I shot a criminal.
The cause of high school massacres is bad parenting, not the availability of guns.

[xhaan]

There is nothing uncivil about owning a gun. People that own guns don't just go out shooting stuff up just because they can. Guns don't turn people into criminals. Guns are useful for a: hunting and b: protecting yourself from criminals. There are millions of people in the US that would be better off owning and knowing how to use a handgun because it can prevent them and their families from being potential victims. I personally don't own a gun, I live in a safe neighborhood, I have small children and I don't have time to hunt. There is greater potential (however small) of my kids getting into my guns than of a criminal breaking and entering. But if I ever thought I might need one, I'd have no problem buying one and if I ever had to use it, I wouldn't feel at all guilty if I shot a criminal.
The cause of high school massacres is bad parenting, not the availability of guns.

Indeed. Sure, typically if someone wants to murder, they use a gun most of the time (out of the times reported, in the US, I think it's about 70%)

But like you said, that doesn't mean people tote guns around and shoot people at random. Most people don't WANT to shoot somebody. And I, and most of the people I know, and most of the people those people know, haven't shot at someone or seen someone get shot, unless they were police or military. It happens, it's unfortunate that it happens, I don't want to disrespect those who lose their lives... but it isn't the epidemic that people make it out to be. Even in gun heavy areas with a lot of crime, and a lot of shooting, it is done by a minority (not ethnic, just simply by numbers) criminal element, most people are good people who don't want to kill somebody.

[Zilal]

I suppose this thread could be sort of illuminating if you're reading it from another country... guns are viewed as an inalienable right in some pockets, and gun lovers have arguments to combat every suggestion they give the things up. If you're interested in learning more on the subject, it'd be most edifying to read up on the NRA (national rifle association) and its tactics in whipping up fear among gun owners.

But of course, while large portions of the U.S. are letting their decisions be ruled by fear right now (of terrorist attacks, of crime, of immigrants, of other religions, of their own government), not everyone here is like that.

I do think the U.S. needs to disarm a bit on all sides... in a well-considered, thoughtful, rational way. And I think most gun lovers would agree that too many guns get into the wrong hands here. But thoughtful alterations to the law aren't likely to happen if gun lovers keep letting the NRA whip them into an "us vs. them" frenzy of fear over the idea of change. Nor, to be fair, if liberals let themselves get caught up in black-and-white kneejerk reactions to the very idea of guns.

Now, to keep from being a total party pooper... or totally off-topic... you all can increase my education. Many of you have stated your favorite gun that you own. But why? Do you like the look, the history, the action? Something else?

[thod]

I find it totaly psycho to own a gun. I have never seen a gun on anyone except airport security. Here in the UK the cops dont even carry guns. I dont have to worry about a criminal having a gun because only the most hardcore mafia types would be able to obtain one from abroad. These are dealt with by special armed police units.

The best way is simply to close all the makers and importers. The guns will rust in time and you can run hand in programs etc. The numbers of guns will decrease. The mugger or burgler certainly wont be able to afford one.

Its an odd paranoid american thing. They seem to think everyone is going to shoot them given the chance. I hardly ever encounter people wishing to do me harm. If they did I would rather they punch me than shoot me. Then we can arrest them. I would rather take a punch than engage in a gun fight. One way I get a bruise, the other is 50/50 chance of death.

[Danisty]

Guns are useful for a: hunting and b: protecting yourself from criminals.c: enjoyment.

Its an odd paranoid american thing. They seem to think everyone is going to shoot them given the chance. I hardly ever encounter people wishing to do me harm. If they did I would rather they punch me than shoot me. Then we can arrest them. I would rather take a punch than engage in a gun fight. One way I get a bruise, the other is 50/50 chance of death.You seem to have left out a lot of possibilities here. What about bladed weapons, for example?

[xhaan]

I find it totaly psycho [...]

Its an odd paranoid american thing. They seem to think everyone is going to shoot them given the chance. I hardly ever encounter people wishing to do me harm. If they did I would rather they punch me than shoot me. Then we can arrest them. I would rather take a punch than engage in a gun fight. One way I get a bruise, the other is 50/50 chance of death.

Edit:
I made some mean generalizations here, which were wrong. It's not an 'American thing'. Nobody likes phrases like this, and I'm sure you don't like it when others do it about you.

Edit:
And BTW, the people you see here sounding off about their guns, are a vocal minority. I don't know of many people that do this, even among gun owners. And some people may be paranoid, but that doesn't make all Americans paranoid, or all gun owners paranoid.

[thod]

And sorry to be mean, but shit! Don't like guns? then don't have one! There's no law here that says you need to have one (in most places anyway). Try gaining citizenship here before you make broad assumptions.


Its not my decision. Its the other guy owning a gun that worrys me. Its the other guy that will shoot me. Its him I dont want owning a gun.

I make a deal. If he cant own a gun, I will give up my right to own a gun. Everyones safer. However you look at it zero guns = zero shootings. You may get stabbed but that less deadly and much more messy for the attacker.

You cant realy argue that you need guns for protection since so many other countries do without them and there are no problems and much less crime.

[xhaan]

Its not my decision. Its the other guy owning a gun that worrys me. Its the other guy that will shoot me. Its him I dont want owning a gun.

I make a deal. If he cant own a gun, I will give up my right to own a gun. Everyones safer. However you look at it zero guns = zero shootings. You may get stabbed but that less deadly and much more messy for the attacker.

You cant realy argue that you need guns for protection since so many other countries do without them and there are no problems and much less crime.

Sorry, but I don't think you are getting it. Quit stylizing. Other countries don't 'need guns for protection' because there simply aren't as many guns. This doesn't mean there is no gun violence there. However, here, there are guns everywhere, and unless the government goes house by house collecting all guns by force, which violates people's civil rights, there will BE guns. It doesn't matter if they have a piece of paper which makes the gun legal or not.

And also, the knife analogy doesn't work, you are limiting the scope. Yes, guns have range, and speed, lethality, and convenience, yet most murders are still premeditated, and guns aren't that easy to legally obtain, while a melee weapon is. If I, personally, really wanted to murder, a gun would be my last choice. I'd rather use an axe, as it is more common, quiet, and blends well when you dispose of it, it doesn't 'stick out' like a gun does.

Also, it is not just the guns or gun laws. Take a look at Switzerland. They have lots of guns, and their gun control is not much different than ours, but apparently more people are killed NOT using a gun than there are using a gun.

[Danisty]

Its not my decision. Its the other guy owning a gun that worrys me. Its the other guy that will shoot me. Its him I dont want owning a gun.

I make a deal. If he cant own a gun, I will give up my right to own a gun. Everyones safer. However you look at it zero guns = zero shootings. You may get stabbed but that less deadly and much more messy for the attacker.

You cant realy argue that you need guns for protection since so many other countries do without them and there are no problems and much less crime.Whether guns are legal or not, criminals will own them because they don't care about legality. Will most people actually need to use a gun to protect themselves? Probably not, but most people probably won't need to use a fire extinguisher either. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea to keep one around.

[xhaan]

Whether guns are legal or not, criminals will own them because they don't care about legality. Will most people actually need to use a gun to protect themselves? Probably not, but most people probably won't need to use a fire extinguisher either. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea to keep one around.

Exactly, that's what I've been trying to say, and I don't even own a gun anymore. I don't want to have to shoot anybody, and frankly, I'm not confident that I could, even under duress.

The majority of people here, even legal gun owners, are not crazy, or stupid. Many legal owners are VERY responsible and operate under strict firearm rules, which are generally self enforced. Shoot to incapacitate, stop the threat. Not wound, and not kill, just stop the threat, usually the body, but overkill is not desired. You stop shooting when the target goes down and isn't a threat, then you call for help and give the person first aid if possible, you don't want them to necessarily die. You also verify your target, and what is BEHIND and downrange of your target, you calculate the risks of shooting, and you never aim at a live person unless you are willing to shoot that person. A gun is not a toy.





xhaan added to this post, 46 minutes and 13 seconds later...

Read this:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[prometheus]

I find it totaly psycho to own a gun. I have never seen a gun on anyone except airport security. Here in the UK the cops dont even carry guns. I dont have to worry about a criminal having a gun because only the most hardcore mafia types would be able to obtain one from abroad. These are dealt with by special armed police units.

The best way is simply to close all the makers and importers. The guns will rust in time and you can run hand in programs etc. The numbers of guns will decrease. The mugger or burgler certainly wont be able to afford one.

Its an odd paranoid american thing. They seem to think everyone is going to shoot them given the chance. I hardly ever encounter people wishing to do me harm. If they did I would rather they punch me than shoot me. Then we can arrest them. I would rather take a punch than engage in a gun fight. One way I get a bruise, the other is 50/50 chance of death.


Once again I'm underwhelmed by your false statements, and wrong conclusions.

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"
Sigmund Freud,
General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

Here are the facts about the UK's gun ban.


Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America’s has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was “in startling free-fall.” We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.”

Connect the dots. The US has seen crime dramatically decrease while the UK has seen it dramatically increase. More specific in regards to the UK violent crime rate,Bloomberg reports in 2005:

“Violent crime in the U.K. rose 6 percent in the three months through September, led by an increase in alcohol-fueled offenses and gun crime, police figures show. Violence against the person, excluding sexual offences, rose 7 percent from the year-earlier period, U.K. Home Secretary Charles Clarke said, citing police statistics, while firearms offences increased 5 percent in the year through September, to 10,670 incidents. Total crime across the U.K. fell 6 percent from the year-earlier period, the figures show. “Violent crime remains our biggest challenge,” said Clarke at a London press conference, his first on crime figures since he took over from David Blunkett in December. “It’s a difficult task, but we are going in the right direction. It will be my number one priority to drive down violent crime.”’

It makes sense. Criminals are encouraged to increase their violence when the risk of doing so has been drastically lowered. They have the guns. The good guys don’t. Do the math.

Violent crime rate wasn’t the only type of crime that skyrocketed. As a matter of fact, gun crimes period increased. Read that again: handgun crime increased. Gun control utterly failed. AsBBC reports in 2001, “[a] new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.” The crime rates didn’t stop there. AsBBC reports in 2003, “Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show. There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year.”

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My favorite guns are MBRs (main battle rifles). AKA, the evil assault rifles that like to sneak out alone at night and commit crimes while their unwitting owners sleep.

[Wapiti]

You guys are (from my perspective) armed to the teeth...
I have never seen a gun in real life except on police officers.
It's kind of uncivil to need weapons in a first world country, also wouldn't the availability increase the chance of high school massacres?

Police officers have guns where you live because the criminals where you live have guns. It is extremely civil to own guns. And given equal distribution of guns, an armed society is a polite society.

[Hoorurly]

Did you know that in Kennesaw, GA, there is an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My son lives in Kennesaw.

[Danisty]

Did you know that in Kennesaw, GA, there is an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My son lives in Kennesaw.I did know that, but I live in Georgia. ;D There are certainly a few people in this thread that would benefit from reading that article.

[prometheus]

I did know that, but I live in Georgia. ;D There are certainly a few people in this thread that would benefit from reading that article.


Here is a whole book documenting the direction correlation of, more guns less crime. Hence, the books title.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


In retrospect, it perhaps should not have been surprising that increasing the number of civilians with guns would reduce crime rates. The possibility of armed victims reduces the expected benefits and increases the expected costs of criminal activity. And, at the margin at least, people respond to changes in costs, even for crime, as Nobel-Prize winning economist [TAG]Gary Becker showed long ago. Allusions to the preferences of criminals for unarmed victims have seeped into popular culture; Ringo, a British thug in Pulp Fiction, noted off-handedly why he avoided certain targets: "Bars, liquor stores, gas stations, you get your head blown off stickin' up one of them."

But Lott's actual quantification of this, in the largest and most comprehensive study of the effects of gun control to date, a study well-detailed in the book, provoked a number of attacks, ranging from the amateurish to the subtly misleading, desperate to discredit him. Lott takes the time to refute each argument; it's almost touching the way he footnotes each time he telephones an attacker who eventually hangs up on him without substantiating any of their claims.

This last paragraph reminds me of what has been going on here lately.

[Blacklustre King]

Who needs guns when you’re a splinter cell? With my connections I could easily work my way to the president within a decade or so with deceit and carefully planned assassinations. Make it look like I’ am the only friend they can trust and be the enemy they are looking for at the same time.

I have masterminded the downfall of several recreational government constructs without anyone ever knowing I was responsible.

I guess in the off chance I just happen to be discovered it would be handy to have a “healthy” stock of guns in my yet to be constructed facility. Hell I could deliberately make it look like I was responsible just to plant evidence to the contrary and exonerate myself early in the conspiracy…

But guns would still be a good idea to have on hand assuming I need to call on my raw man power. More of a cloak and dagger man myself. ;D

[Gonzo]

Here is a whole book documenting the direction correlation of, more guns less crime.

That is hands down the silliest thing I have ever heard. More guns only lead to more deaths.

Anyways I have a Sig Sauer 239, 9mm. You never know when you need to blow someones brains out . But seriously I only use it at the shooting range ;)

[prometheus]

That is hands down the silliest thing I have ever heard. More guns only lead to more deaths.

Anyways I have a Sig Sauer 239, 9mm. You never know when you need to blow someones brains out . But seriously I only use it at the shooting range ;)

Yea......................Ummmmm................... .your pistol's only purpose is to get you back to your rifle......BANG..............oops too late.

Here is your consolation prize. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
This is the way I want to enter the afterlife.