Jump to content
IGNORED

guns


taters

Recommended Posts

If you really like guns and wanna play with them. Join the Armed forces and they will let you shoot at the ultimate Game...other people. Just don't complain when the Game shoots back.

Don't get me wrong, I like guns, got a couple and have M14 Ranch Carbine envy. It's just one of those things that is best left in the closet and not discussed in mixed company. eek.gif

Link to comment
If you really like guns and wanna play with them. Join the Armed forces and they will let you shoot at the ultimate Game...other people. Just don't complain when the Game shoots back.

Don't get me wrong, I like guns, got a couple and have M14 Ranch Carbine envy. It's just one of those things that is best left in the closet and not discussed in mixed company. eek.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Me thinks a nerve has been pricked hmmmmmmmmmm

 

lurker.gif

Link to comment
If you really like guns and wanna play with them. Join the Armed forces and they will let you shoot at the ultimate Game...other people. Just don't complain when the Game shoots back.

Don't get me wrong, I like guns, got a couple and have M14 Ranch Carbine envy. It's just one of those things that is best left in the closet and not discussed in mixed company. eek.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Me thinks a nerve has been pricked hmmmmmmmmmm

 

lurker.gif

 

Or visa versa.

Link to comment
i found a great place to buy guns online. great prices. budsgunshop.com

 

Well, my name is Bud but I don't sell guns. lmao.gif

Link to comment

Another good site to browse (besides auctionarms,etc). The prices esp. on imports like Sigs are really going up. My stainless P232 I got some 5 years ago is nearly $200 more now ooo.gif The Euro vs. dollar....

Link to comment
Dick_at_Lake_Tahoe_NV
Thanks Taters.

 

I need a new 45 and thats a great place to start looking.

confused.gif

 

Since you're looking for a .45 check out the ones made by Para-Ordnance, espcially the LTC. Then outfit it with a Crimson Trace Laser sight--awesome combination.

Link to comment

Just need an local FFL to receive it. Most gun shops here won't do it, or charge so much to make it not worth the savings.

 

Oddly enough, Bass Pro will receive for $30. I didn't expect that from a big box shop.

Link to comment

I have a soon-to-be three-year old boy in the house, and I gotta tell you: we are all about guns. We just recently purchased this monster of a weapon online:

 

519PG4HVPJL._SS400_.jpg

 

It's a Nerf gatling gun. Sure, it's not much for stopping power, but rate of fire... hoo boy! I'm surprised it's even legal, really.

Link to comment
I have a soon-to-be three-year old boy in the house, and I gotta tell you: we are all about guns. We just recently purchased this monster of a weapon online:

 

519PG4HVPJL._SS400_.jpg

 

It's a Nerf gatling gun. Sure, it's not much for stopping power, but rate of fire... hoo boy! I'm surprised it's even legal, really.

 

My five year old and I needs to have us some of these! Cool! lmao.gifthumbsup.gifgrin.gif

Link to comment
ShovelStrokeEd

You are supposed to give the flowers to the gun carriers. grin.gif

 

Then you and your friends and all gather round the campfire and sing Kum ba ya.

 

Guns, I like 'em. Shoot 'em sometimes, otherwise maintain them and admire the engineering. Knives are fun too, some for preparing food for cooking, some for other stuff, including one or two just for self defense. A baseball bat is always handy to have around, as are various tools for carpentry, automotive repair and the like. Funny, all of the above are also frequently used as murder weapons. Draw your own conclusions.

Link to comment

I got to confess I like 'em too. For the feel and the precision workmanship. Got a beautyful double barrel 12 gauge shotgun and a .22 rifle. Living out in the sticks here, there is the occasional opportunity/necessaty to shoot at some unwanted critters.

 

But just because I have those weapons, doesn't mean I am up on the latest gun or, for that matter, explosive sales...EXPLOSIVE SALES confused.gif...you kiddin me? y'all work in the mines or something, whew!

 

Quote:

 

Funny, all of the above are also frequently used as murder weapons. Draw your own conclusions.

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

 

Well, there is just a slight little differerence, the way I see it. For he other 'weapons' to be effective, you have to get up close and personal, and that requires just that extra little bit of courage and conviction, 'cause your opponent may decide to defend himself.

 

Jurgen

Link to comment
I have a soon-to-be three-year old boy in the house, and I gotta tell you: we are all about guns. We just recently purchased this monster of a weapon online:

 

519PG4HVPJL._SS400_.jpg

 

It's a Nerf gatling gun. Sure, it's not much for stopping power, but rate of fire... hoo boy! I'm surprised it's even legal, really.

It's not legal, in California. They have been banned as a result of looking too dangerous... grin.gif

Link to comment

Well, there is just a slight little differerence, the way I see it. For he other 'weapons' to be effective, you have to get up close and personal, and that requires just that extra little bit of courage and conviction, 'cause your opponent may decide to defend himself.

 

From a defensive standpoint, don't you want the odds on your side? I'm not a fan of leaving it to be a fight of who's stronger if we're in MY home defending MY family.

 

I understand the same logic builds a stronger attacker.

Link to comment
Range and Rate of Fire?

Range, 15 maybe 20 feet. But rate of fire is incredible. Think Terminator + Chain Gun. It holds 20 rounds, and in full-automatic mode, you'll run out of ammo in about 2.5 seconds (our poor cat...). In semi-auto mode, it fires bursts of two rounds per second.

Link to comment
I have a soon-to-be three-year old boy in the house, and I gotta tell you: we are all about guns. We just recently purchased this monster of a weapon online:

 

519PG4HVPJL._SS400_.jpg

 

It's a Nerf gatling gun. Sure, it's not much for stopping power, but rate of fire... hoo boy! I'm surprised it's even legal, really.

It's not legal, in California. They have been banned as a result of looking too dangerous... grin.gif

 

Sounds like a good opportunity for teaching son that dad knows best (or at least better than the state of California).

Link to comment

leaving it to be a fight of who's stronger if we're in MY home defending MY family.

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

 

For sure, in my home, I want to have the odds in my favour. That's why I have Mr. Double Barrel 12 Gauge handy.

 

But out and about, I just don't see a gun as effective, in fact, I see nothing effective. We get drive by shooting, collateral gun victoms of gang activity and victoms of robbery (and that's in beautiful and innocent Toronto).

None of the victoms would have had an inkling to draw.

 

And in a confrontation you ask? Well, I don't know maybe you'd have a chance, but I haven't practiced a quick draw for some time. Packing a gun may, in that confrontational situation, be seen as further justification for the purpretator.

 

I don't know, I don't have the definitive answer, but at least I got yet another gunthread on the right track. thumbsup.gif

 

It's a slow late winter day here, can't you tell?

 

grin.gifJurgen

Link to comment
Lone_RT_rider
....and in full-automatic mode, you'll run out of ammo in about 2.5 seconds (our poor cat...).....

 

Thanks Sean! I almost skipped this thread. Now I need to find something that cleans coffee off the monitor. grin.giflmao.gif

 

Shawn

Link to comment
AdventurePoser
I have a soon-to-be three-year old boy in the house, and I gotta tell you: we are all about guns. We just recently purchased this monster of a weapon online:

 

519PG4HVPJL._SS400_.jpg

 

It's a Nerf gatling gun. Sure, it's not much for stopping power, but rate of fire... hoo boy! I'm surprised it's even legal, really.

It's not legal, in California. They have been banned as a result of looking too dangerous... grin.gif

 

I wonder if they make a RAM mount for my RT yet?

 

Steve in So Cal

Link to comment
DavidEBSmith

The always-interesting and curmudgeonly Neil Steinberg had an interesting column in the local paper today in which he posits this question:

 

So we live in . . .

 

a) An orderly nation of laws where people generally go about their business unmolested. You can go to bed at night reasonably certain nobody's going to bust into your home, and if they do, help from the police is a phone call away. Should someone try to do something bad to you, the government will punish them, perhaps by putting them in jail.

 

Or,

 

b) a chaotic, lawless land where people generally are assaulted for no reason whatsoever. You can be in bed in your own home and you're still not safe. Assailants can come busting in at any moment and if they do, the police are no help. Should someone try to do something bad to you, it may be necessary to kill them, and that decision is yours to make.

 

This is the gun debate in its essence. Statistics are often thrown around to support either A or B, though it is obvious that which statement you line up behind is due less to a careful factual analysis and more to individual experience, perception and emotion.

 

For instance: a buddy who lives on my block believes "b" and therefore keeps guns in his home, the better to get the drop on the guys coming through the window. I, on the other hand, while appreciating the sport of shooting guns, believe "a," and so don't keep guns around.

 

We live on the same street, in the same leafy suburban paradise of Northbrook. Who's right? Perhaps the question can only be answered in the fullness of time. Maybe somebody will come through my window one night and I'll wish I had a gun. Maybe his kids will get into the gun safe and he'll wish he didn't have any.

 

Obviously neither "a" nor "b" is entirely right, nor entirely wrong. Most people do sleep safely in their beds without a gun under their pillow, and some people get killed in their beds by invading marauders. Knappy feels the need for heavily armed protection and I don't, even though he lives in a nice quiet suburb and I live in the city where there's three times as much crime just on my police beat as in his entire town.

 

Is it just a matter of perception?

 

I've often noticed that people who live in rural areas are much more frightened of crime than people in the city, where the crime actually occurs. Yes, if you live in a rural area, you can't expect the police to show up in any reasonable time to prevent an attack and yes, if I lived in a rural area, I'd have guns around the house for protection. But it goes beyond preparation, there's an expectation of violence among people living in rural areas - there's a real belief that the violent hordes are lurking just around the corner. But the crime doesn't seem to happen to support that belief. (Yes, I know, the universal presence of guns in rural areas deters crime. But if it effectively deters crime, why are you still afraid?). Yes, there's meth problems in the country, but here in the city we've got crack and heroin and gangbangers that shoot each other for no apparent reason. I can tell you that when we go to Maine on vacation, people are worried about crime and there is none, and we we get back to the city, people don't obsess about crime and it's happening every day.

 

It seems to me that both sides of the gun debate have a disconnect from reality. The world isn't as deadly as the pro-gun side thinks it is, and the world isn't as benign as the anti-gun side thinks it is. Neither hunkering down with a gun waiting for death to crash through the door, nor blithely skipping down ghetto streets assuming the government will protect you, is a healthy attitude to have.

 

But I also believe that both sides have too much mentally invested in being correct to be able to admit that they might be wrong.

Link to comment
This is the gun debate in its essence.
Except... his proposition hardly represents the gun debate in its essence, and since it only considers two extremes which rarely exist in reality it isn't even a very good examination of that one facet of the gun debate.

 

Regarding a general disconnect from reality by the extremes on both sides, can't argue there. That seems to be an unfortunate yet common characteristic of the extremes on either side of any controversial issue these days.

Link to comment
But I also believe that both sides have too much mentally invested in being correct to be able to admit that they might be wrong.

 

Sure, but typically only one side of the argument tries to impose its will on the other.

Link to comment

hope you anti-gun people don't go through another katrina. that's where armed groups of thugs broke into homes and robbed and terrorized the occupants. no police there to help them, over 200,000 home invasions last year. odds are very slim it will happen to you. but if it does......

Link to comment

Knappy feels the need for heavily armed protection and I don't, even though he lives in a nice quiet suburb and I live in the city where there's three times as much crime just on my police beat as in his entire town.

 

Knappy's wife locked herself out of the house, w/ the 2yr old inside. Amazing how fast the fire department got in with no signs of entry.

 

The next 'burb over (not far from Knappy's house) is something of an armpit for the burbs. It would be like if EB lived closer to the projects.

 

Knappy's guns are in the basement, well secured away from Mini-Knappy. I've considered keeping something upstairs, but honestly don't like the risk without some good safe...not worth the investment. Should the world end, I'm heading down to the basement anyways.

 

Knappy likes shooting for sport. If it wasn't a hobby first, I doubt I'd own them. If I just wanted to kill the bad guy I wouldn't reload etc...

 

Knappy also owns a generator (which has yet to be used by anyone other than friends), one of those SAME weather radios, a good selection of ham radio gear, a small solar panel, various storage batteries, enough flashlights to light Wrigley, and a good stash of food and firewood. Nevermind the chainsaw and other such tools.

 

Knappy hates the man telling him what to do.

Link to comment

I can tell you that when we go to Maine on vacation, people are worried about crime and there is none, and we we get back to the city, people don't obsess about crime and it's happening every day.

 

Any relation between the worry and the lack of crime?

Link to comment
Sure, but typically only one side of the argument tries to impose its will on the other.

 

That's precisely how those on each side feel.

Link to comment

 

Is it just a matter of perception?

 

I've often noticed that people who live in rural areas are much more frightened of crime than people in the city, where the crime actually occurs.

 

* * * *

 

It seems to me that both sides of the gun debate have a disconnect from reality. The world isn't as deadly as the pro-gun side thinks it is, and the world isn't as benign as the anti-gun side thinks it is.

 

Eebie . . . I think your post is pretty . . . er . . . perceptive. I gravitated toward the wrong side of this argument (the no-guns side, that is) for a while and was ultimately swayed by my experieces in law enforcement, but more so by what I viewed as unrealistic and often intellectually disingenuous statements of those who oppose guns. But, having "seen the light," I'm also sometimes surprised at how much danger the pro-gun types see lurking around every corner. Still, the appeal to their arguments (at least for me) is that, while life and death situations rarely occur for the average citizen, when they do, it may truly be "life or death." Like you note, that's perhaps not entirely rational in the view of many, but at least it strikes me as a reasoned opinion.

Link to comment
Sure, but typically only one side of the argument tries to impose its will on the other.

 

That's precisely how those on each side feel.

The Bill of Rights doesn't force any person to do anything. We don't have to peaceably assemble, we have the freedom to do so if we want. If you decide to peaceably assemble, I do not have to join in.

 

Said another way: Huh?

Link to comment
The Bill of Rights doesn't force any person to do anything. We don't have to peaceably assemble, we have the freedom to do so if we want. If you decide to peaceably assemble, I do not have to join in.

 

Said another way: Huh?

 

Your peaceable assembly might impact on someone else's rights to privacy or property. So, in fact, the Bill of Rights does impose tolerance on the listener.

 

An unrestricted right to bear arms imposes that will against those who would prefer to live in a society where people don't shoot at each other or where people would prefer not to get caught in the crossfire.

Link to comment
An unrestricted right to bear arms imposes that will against those who would prefer to live in a society where people don't shoot at each other or where people would prefer not to get caught in the crossfire.
I'm among those who would prefer not to get caught in any crossfire, I'm just not sure how any anti-gun legislation is going to prevent it.
Link to comment
DavidEBSmith

The next 'burb over (not far from Knappy's house) is something of an armpit for the burbs. It would be like if EB lived closer to the projects.

 

Actually, you're about the same distance from your burban-armpit as I am from this honest-to-g*d housing project. And I live around the corner from a MOSQUE, and you know how dangerous that is. Some people around here would be sitting on the front porch with a shotgun waiting for the attack.

 

Knappy likes shooting for sport. If it wasn't a hobby first, I doubt I'd own them... Knappy also owns a generator (which has yet to be used by anyone other than friends), one of those SAME weather radios, a good selection of ham radio gear, a small solar panel, various storage batteries, enough flashlights to light Wrigley, and a good stash of food and firewood. Nevermind the chainsaw and other such tools.

 

Shooting for sport is fun. Anti-gunners don't realize that you can appreciate the craftsmanship of a fine firearm or the skills of being a good marksman without being a sexually-deviated blood-thirsty maniac, although the vast majority of pro-gun people often seem bound and determined to reinforce that stereotype. EB could get into shooting for sport if (a) it wasn't so much of a hassle in the city and (b) he didn't have the willpower to resist buying expensive toys that Knappy seems to be lacking. grin.gif

Link to comment
I'm among those who would prefer not to get caught in any crossfire, I'm just not sure how any anti-gun legislation is going to prevent it.

 

You don't see how they will prevent such a situation absolutely? Or lessen the degree?

Link to comment
DavidEBSmith

An unrestricted right to bear arms imposes that will against those who would prefer to live in a society where people don't shoot at each other or where people would prefer not to get caught in the crossfire.

 

That is exactly the issue with laws such as the recent proposals to ban gun-free zones around schools in the wake of the VT and NIU shootings. Do the students and faculty have an unfettered right to bear arms? Or do the students and faculty have the right to create a space where they don't have to consider whether the person next to them is armed?

 

To shamelessly steal from Neil Steinberg again because I can't find the column online to quote, do we really expect little Susie to pull a Glock out of her Hello Kitty book bag and plug the next maniac who starts shooting up a school? Or, to put it another way, do we want little Susie's learning experience in college to include being constantly on the alert for a gunman to appear so she can whip that Glock out of her Hello Kitty bag and take someone's life? Some people might want to shield their children from that part of reality for a while, even if it puts them at increased risk of harm. (Just like some parents choose to allow their small children to ride small motorcycles, even if it puts them at increased risk of harm).

Link to comment
You don't see how they will prevent such a situation absolutely? Or lessen the degree?
No, or not in practical terms at least given that gun laws seem to be pretty ineffective in dissuading criminal offenders. I don't mean to be disingenuous, and of course more draconian steps such as an outright ban of firearms along with a confiscation of those already in the field would probably result in some number of decreased incidents of firearms-related crime, but I'm assuming that is off the table as a complete loss of firearm rights is a price that we're simply not willing to pay as a society. Short of such measures firearms restrictions seem to be marginally effective at best and harmful at worst in preventing violent crime.
Link to comment
Or do the students and faculty have the right to create a space where they don't have to consider whether the person next to them is armed?
But how can that be effectively accomplished? Recent incidents suggest that it certainly isn't being done now.

 

Certainly the idea of every student packing a weapon represents a 'not in touch with reality' response, but the idea that additional laws will be of any effect is similarly unrealistic.

Link to comment
Dave McReynolds

I don't think the desire to own a gun for self-protection is driven so much by the desire to prolong the life of the gun owner as by other factors, at least in most cases.

 

The reason I say this is because if you review the leading causes of death, you find that the top ten causes of death are mainly diseases, with accidents (mainly car accidents) in there somewhere, higher or lower on the list depending on the age group. But unless you're an inner-city young black or hispanic man, you've probably got more pressing things to worry about than being shot with a gun.

 

If you really wanted to live out your fully alloted term of years, you would first do whatever you could to avoid heart disease. Meaning keeping your weight down, your diet low in meat and sugar and high in living plants, not smoking and not much drinking, and working out every day and avoiding too much job stress. Next, you would first do whatever you could to avoid cancer. Meaning living in an environment where the air and water is clean, not smoking, avoiding red meat and eating a lot of living plants, and getting regular checkups to catch any cancers while they are small. Then you would do whatever you could to avoid car accidents. Meaning driving a safe car, not talking on the cell phone, giving up motorcycles, not driving drunk, and giving up driving before you get so old that you lose your mental capacity to drive safely.

 

When I go out to the shooting range, I see two types of people: crew cut, trim young people who are probably cops, and a lot of older people with fat guts. I have no idea how they drive their cars, but I do know they could live in a place with better air than Sacramento.

 

So if the average gun owner isn't paying much attention to the main factors that could kill us, then what are our motivations for owning guns? Some no doubt like to have them and shoot them as a hobby at which they can build their skill in marksmanship. For some, the thought of being attacked is more repugnant than the thought of dying of heart disease or in a motorcycle accident. Some may feel that they would failing in their duty to other family members if their home were attacked and they had no way to fight back.

 

What the last two factors have in common, I believe, is a feeling of outrage that is absent from all the more common causes of death. People who own guns for self-protection, I would guess, have a greater sense of outrage at the thought of themselves or a family member being attacked than those who don't, and a greater sense of outrage at that particular type of death or injury than they would feel towards the more common causes.

 

This begs the question of whether the feelings of outrage are justified, or whether we should just calmly accept that there is a remote possibility that we might be the victims of violence, just as there is that we might be hit by lightning, and leave it to the authorities to follow up after the fact and keep society as a whole as peaceful as they can.

 

OTOH, it also begs the question of why a non-gun toting individual would NOT feel equally outraged at the thought of being attacked or having a family member attacked (I can hear the rumbling already: "I don't need to own a gun to feel outraged!!" Well, if you felt outraged enough, you would do something about it). Has evolution gone too far?

 

Well, I've probably gone far enough, and those are all the thoughts I have at the moment.

Link to comment
An unrestricted right to bear arms imposes that will against those who would prefer to live in a society where people don't shoot at each other or where people would prefer not to get caught in the crossfire.

 

It would seem logical that IF people wanted to live in an area where that was less likely to happen, they'd be better off to live in a place where such unrestricted rights don't exist wouldn't it? I mean, instead of trying to force their will on the established law of an area?

 

I'm also sometimes surprised at how much danger the pro-gun types see lurking around every corner. Still, the appeal to their arguments (at least for me) is that, while life and death situations rarely occur for the average citizen, when they do, it may truly be "life or death." Like you note, that's perhaps not entirely rational in the view of many, but at least it strikes me as a reasoned opinion.

 

It's interesting that in a group of folks like motorcyclists who see so much "potential danger" in everything on wheels that is not them, someone would make a statement questioning the "potential danger" of those who happen to favor carrying a gun for self defense. I used to carry (legally even) most everywhere, and now I don't carry nearly as often, in large part because I don't go into areas that I perceive as having quite the same dangers as I used to anticipate. I am still a very large proponent of the right to keep and bear arms, and if someone is not legally prevented from owning a firearm then I am ok with them being able to carry it.

 

I also think that there's little chance of the government actually making large strides to remove that right, despite what the propagandists in the NRA and on the political left say. I think that gun laws, abortion and medicare quite often are made the mess they are in simply to rile the party faithful and that as "settled law" there's not a lot that should be done with them for the next generation or more as we have far bitter fish to fry as a nation.

 

Things like synthetic or dino, Z6s or Pilot Roads... Truly important issues! dopeslap.gif

Link to comment

Actually, you're about the same distance from your burban-armpit as I am from this honest-to-g*d housing project.

 

"strictly for elderly residents" Oooo....

 

EB could get into shooting for sport if (a) it wasn't so much of a hassle in the city and (b) he didn't have the willpower to resist buying expensive toys that Knappy seems to be lacking. grin.gif

 

Knappy is buying a 2nd "guest" shotgun, it's even a semi-auto so it should be nicer on your shoulder and easier for those double shots. You're always welcome to borrow a pistol if you wanted to head to the range too. You wouldn't need to twist my arm too much to get me to buy either that P220 or P226 Sig I've been eyeing (Certified Pre-Owned!), which would even give you your own setup for any of the practical shoots. All for occasional fun, of course. IMHO it's more fun to go shoot with friends than alone.

 

skills of being a good marksman without being a sexually-deviated blood-thirsty maniac, although the vast majority of pro-gun people often seem bound and determined to reinforce that stereotype.

 

Either that or gun-crazy moron. Karen's small group was over at the house last week, one of the people had a neighbor who shot himself in the hand while cleaning the gun. They all thought this was normal gun danger..."he thought he had the safety on". And what? Pulled the trigger with it pointed at his hand? I argued that he must have violated almost every basic rule of gun safety. But was basically told this was normal...

 

Karen wouldn't have been happy, but I was tempted to offer up a visual aid and get my M&P with some snap-caps in it.

Link to comment

We had a gun growing up and I don't have one now. But I'm seriously considering one, not to protect myself, but to shoot the bastard who starts the next gun thread. grin.gif

Link to comment
But I'm seriously considering one, not to protect myself, but to shoot the bastard who starts the next gun thread.
If I believed in the lmao.gif emoticon I'd use it here...

 

OK, I'll be the first to take the pledge to swear off.

Link to comment
It would seem logical that IF people wanted to live in an area where that was less likely to happen, they'd be better off to live in a place where such unrestricted rights don't exist wouldn't it? I mean, instead of trying to force their will on the established law of an area?

 

I don't know which area you're referring to with established laws of unrestricted gun rights.

 

Otherwise, I disagree that logic dictates that one should "love it or leave it." Our democratic processes exist so that people may call upon their representatives to effect change when change is desired. It is the change-resistant side in such situations that succumbs to calling that change a forced will.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...