I hate guns, especially semi-automatics Options

[trackbird]

[Curiously, the next line was actually a separate post. I'm not sure how they became combined.]

Off topic:

If you are the last post, and you post again within 10 minutes (I think that's where the timer is set), it merges the posts. It's a function that was added with one of the recent upgrades (a few months back).

By the way, Happy Birthday Bill (RPOZ-29). (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

[Shortcutsleeping]

I tried, in vain apparently.

Costas, you going to the Big Show?

Hahahaha...yeah...you could see where this was going from the first few posts. [sigh]

ANYway, I am not going to make Nats this year. Simply too much going on in my private life and way too much in my work life for me to make it. I have new tires and a prepped car, but no time. I will plan better for next year and hopefully make it.

And in the spearit of the thread, [I crack myself up], did the guys who hunted with spears only carry three?

Costas
cars and such...

it is a JOKE! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) big hugs everybody!

[trackbird]

And I don't put much weight into the whole "right to bear arms" crap.

Err....can we just stop this thread before it turns into a huge GUNS KILL PEOPLE vs PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE debate which has no bearing on our little car forum?

I'd like to respond to the above comment, but really, I'm not going to change Mark's view and he isn't going to change mine....and I'd imagine that everyone here is kinda set in their ways. Maybe we all could go back to discussing cars.

Costas
cars and such...

and the 'such' includes projective weapons

I tried, in vain apparently.

And, I appreciate both of your efforts. Thanks guys!

[2000Z-71]

A firearm is an inanimate object, a tool, nothing more and nothing less. To blame them as the cause or murder and violence is the simple solution that ignores the real problem and does nothing to change the situation.

Gun control is the belief that a 115lb. woman can defend herself against a 215lb. attacker intent on causing her harm. A firearm in that situation is an equalizer.

To claim that banning certain types of firearms would make for a safer society is a huge misconception. To use that same logic if we all drove 3 cylinder 45 horsepower hatchbacks, there would be no traffic fatalities, accidents, DUI's etc.

I have a real problem with somebody telling me that I should devalue my personal safety and that of my family because firearms make them nervous.

[marka]

Howdy,

A firearm is an inanimate object, a tool, nothing more and nothing less. To blame them as the cause or murder and violence is the simple solution that ignores the real problem and does nothing to change the situation.

Nobody is blaming anyone other than the person pulling the trigger. The disagreement here comes with where you draw the line on things that make it easy to kill people.

Bombs and their important parts are illegal for regular folks to buy. Presumably you don't have a problem with that.

Military weapons (in general) are illegal for regular folks to buy. Presumably you don't have a problem with that either.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing it also be illegal for regular folks to own handguns or shotguns/rifles with more than a three shot capacity. Its quite clear you _do_ have a problem with that.

Its all where you decide you want to draw the line. We differ on that, nothing more.

Gun control is the belief that a 115lb. woman can defend herself against a 215lb. attacker intent on causing her harm. A firearm in that situation is an equalizer.

You'll note throughout this discussion that folks haven't tried to restate the argument of the pro-gun folks into something it isn't. Perhaps you could offer the same curtesy.

I have a real problem with somebody telling me that I should devalue my personal safety and that of my family because firearms make them nervous.

And I have a real problem with someone that requires a gun to feel safe in normal society.

Mark

[trackbird]

Well, so much for my hopes that this would sink into oblivion......

To lock, or not to lock, that is the question.....

[marka]

Howdy,

I've met you in person and think you're a bright, level headed guy and I feel that we get along great (and I'm sure that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one). So, with that said, I'll mention that I was trying to seriously answer your question. I'm not sure what your reply has to do with that answer, maybe I just missed it. I think you meant "Many people hunted with a spear", it's not too common these days.

We're going to have to agree to disagree for sure. :-)

When I said that people hunt with a spear too, what I was implying was that I've never met someone who hunted with a pistol, despite growing up in rural Maine being very interested in guns, hunting, etc. etc. In my opinion, someone who chooses to hunt with a pistol isn't someone who's serious about hunting, its someone who likes to show off. That opinion was shared by the other hunters I knew back in the day.

I don't have a problem with not allowing hunting with a pistol.

And, in terms of self defense against animals, you'd be a _lot_ better off with a 12 gauge pump with three rounds of buckshot than you would be with a pistol with 10 bullets. And, in the extremely rare case where you'd want more stopping power, you'd be better off with a rifle (with which you could actually hit something) than you would be with a pistol.

Mark

Howdy,

Well, so much for my hopes that this would sink into oblivion......

To lock, or not to lock, that is the question.....

Hey man, I'd stopped reading the thread, then it popped up again on latest posts... :-)

I'd say locking it would be fine if you wanted to though. Or you could just delete my recent posts if you want.

Whatever.

Mark

This post has been edited by marka: Oct 1 2006, 02:18 AM

[sgarnett]

And I have a real problem with someone that requires a gun to feel safe in normal society.

Define this "normal society", and where might I find it? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[marka]

Howdy,

And I have a real problem with someone that requires a gun to feel safe in normal society.

Define this "normal society", and where might I find it? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Here on the commune, of course!

:-)

Mark

[trackbird]

Mark, I wasn't just picking on your post. It was "in general" with the question of locking it.

And, actually you can't use a rifle in Ohio to hunt, but you can use a handgun. So, it's not too uncommon here to find guys who prefer a .357 or .44 magnum for that duty. You can use a 12 gauge for deer here as well. I know guys who use either, or get two tags and use both (one, then the other).

As for defense against animals, it depends on the animal. As I stated, a 44 magnum makes for decent bear "repellant" and is less cumbersome to carry than a 12 gauge pump or a rifle. If you're going hiking and not hunting (in bear country), it makes sense to me to carry a reasonably powerful revolver. But, that's just my opinion, we may not agree.

And I very well know that I can hit things with a revolver. I've got about 10-15,000 rounds of .357 mag "under my belt" in the last couple years. However, it only holds 6 and not 10. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[sgarnett]

And, in the extremely rare case where you'd want more stopping power, you'd be better off with a rifle (with which you could actually hit something) than you would be with a pistol.

Any animal I'd be shooting at for self defense would certainly be large enough and close enough to hit with a pistol, and in fact that would be my weapon of choice for speed. Any self defense shot that requires a rifle to hit the target would be really tough to justify as self-defense.

I'm not worried about being attacked by the coyotes. I very rarely see them. However, I did at one time carry a 45 because of a roaming, vicious pair of feral rottweilers.

A case can be made for the shotgun, even though the handgun is much easier to keep, um , at hand, but I'd certainly feel no more comfortable about a whacko carrying a 3 shot pump 12 instead of a 7 shot 45.

[2000Z-71]

Bombs and their important parts are illegal for regular folks to buy. Presumably you don't have a problem with that.

Not really, you can make a crude form of plastic explosive in your kitchen using Karo syrup and a few other common household chemicals. Tim McVeigh used fertilizer and diesel to make the Oklahome City bomb. All very common easily available items.

Military weapons (in general) are illegal for regular folks to buy. Presumably you don't have a problem with that either.

Not to split hairs but it depends what you define as a military weapon. The AR15 is the semi-automatic only version of the military's M-16 and is very common, There are also semi-automatic versions of the AK series and SKS that are legal for us regular folk to buy. There are some place like California where "asault rifles" are illegal.

The problem is the definition. California tried banning them several years ago. They found themselves in a corner by naming weapons on a list that were illegal to own. Quite simply all the manufacturer had to do was change a minor detail of the firearm and give it a new name and it was again legal. They have contiunually been adding to that list since its creation to try and keep up.

I do have one AR-15. It's a fun plinker and does make for a SHTF option.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing it also be illegal for regular folks to own handguns or shotguns/rifles with more than a three shot capacity. Its quite clear you _do_ have a problem with that.

That would make most everything in my toy box illegal. Even the most basic .30-06 sporter rifle typically has a 5 round magazine with room for an extra one in the chamber. I fail to see the logic of a 3 round maximum capacity.

Its all where you decide you want to draw the line. We differ on that, nothing more.

My point is it's a line that can not be drawn. When bad people want to do harm they will find a way be it with a firearm, knife, bomb, sligshot, rock, etc. Banning firearms only serves to disarm the law abiding and deprive them of a means of a defense.

Gun control is the belief that a 115lb. woman can defend herself against a 215lb. attacker intent on causing her harm. A firearm in that situation is an equalizer.

You'll note throughout this discussion that folks haven't tried to restate the argument of the pro-gun folks into something it isn't. Perhaps you could offer the same curtesy.

Where was I discourteous? It is a discussion and I was trying to make a point.

I have a real problem with somebody telling me that I should devalue my personal safety and that of my family because firearms make them nervous.

And I have a real problem with someone that requires a gun to feel safe in normal society.

Again define normal? I live and work in Phoenix which has a very high incidence rate of car jackings. I also have an 18 month old daughter who when in my car is strapped in the backseat in her car seat. In a car jacking situation, giving up the car with her still strapped in is not an option. Having a firearm and a concealed carry permit does offer me an option if escape is not possible. Having someone tell me that I don't have that option because it makes them nervous is not something that I am willing to accept.

edit: edited quote syntax for easy reading.

This post has been edited by Eugenio_SS: Oct 1 2006, 03:44 PM

[trackbird]

And, again I'll state that it doesn't appear that anyone in this discussion is going to "swap sides". So, we can probably discuss it until we all turn purple and people start getting mad on both sides and still accomplish very little.

So, if you're going to play, please play nice (everyone, not for any post in particular).

[Crazy Canuck]

when the thread was started... i was just pissed @ the local events... especially the idiot that had a machine gun to shoot @ random ppl.
guns per say are innofensive if left alone... I guess i wanted to share the frustration.
As for gun control, there will always be 2 sides of the story, and it's not what was intended.
As for what types of guns should be legislated/controlled, indirectly was taken in the thread... can't really say one has a bazooka or automatic gun like the one used for self defense or hunting.
Personally, i'm not too confortable w/ ppl carying guns, but that's my opinion.
We can discuss this forever... and disagree in many tangents.

bottom line, there was a f***ed guy that decided to go to a college and shoot @ random ppl. Cops were pretty fast to control the situation and although 1 person died and several injured, it could've been much worse... and the bastard is dead.
If anything, he should've killed himself 1st before doing any dammage to others.

my only question is: for what purpose does one buy a gun like the one used in this situation, unless he wants to really shoot lots of targets close by at short time-period, such as an ambush.
Do people use these on herds of pray when there are plenty of pray ?

[Shortcutsleeping]

my only question is: for what purpose does one buy a gun like the one used in this situation, unless he wants to really shoot lots of targets close by at short time-period, such as an ambush.
Do people use these on herds of pray when there are plenty of pray ?

Personally, I enjoy rapid fire. Burst shootin a handgun (anything from triple-taps to 20-rd-empty-the-mag) is enjoyable as a controlled use of power. I'd LOVE to do the ispca fast shoot competitions but I already have expensive hobbies and don't need to add anymore.

An ambush works two ways. The bad guys will want to shoot a lot to take down the good guys, and the good guys will need to shoot a lot to defeat the ambush. Regardless of what law is passed (from limiting guns to completely eliminating them) the bad guys WILL have guns.

Speaking of use of power, for what purpose does one build a 400rwhp car? The speed limit (even in Texas) is only 70mph. Unless one wants to really get to the 70 limit in a short time-period....?? (rhetorical) I think a part of why we do these things is because we can.

pray = I pray to never get shot.
prey = somebody tries to prey on me, they might get shot.
(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

Costas
cars and such...

[Crazy Canuck]

EugeniOwned by english language.
worse, I know pray = begging/talking to God; prey = poor little to-be-dead creature. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rotf.gif)

good analogy on the hp, though... yet ppl don't necessarily do it for pure speed, per say.

guns is one of those things that if limited/outlawed, will only impact the good guys, since the bad guys will always find their way, putting the good guys in a tougher situation when faced w/ the bad ones.

can i get a portable bazooka for self-defense ? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[trackbird]

when the thread was started... i was just pissed @ the local events... especially the idiot that had a machine gun to shoot @ random ppl.

Eugenio, the Beretta Storm isn't really a "machine gun", it's actually just a semi automatic rifle that uses pistol ammo. Honestly, pistol ammo is typically less "effective" than rifle ammo, so if he'd had a higher powered weapon, he might have killed a few more of his victims. Pistols are not good weapons for killing people. I'm not saying that they are not capable, but you will see cases of people shot 4, 5, 6, 7 times or more with a handgun who live. Very few people shot with a rifle caliber more than once will live(without getting into a discussion of where they are shot, I'm speaking of being shot in the torso). You have a much higher chance of causing death with a rifle cartridge in a rifle. Also, the Storm is considerable more expensive (and less readily available) than a standard issue AK-47. Those are 1/2 the price of the beretta, ammo is very inexpensive and they are more powerful with more capacity. I'm surprised he didn't have an AK instead. The Storm seems to be an odd choice (due to cost of the weapon, cost of ammo, and the aren't "everywhere" in circulation like the AK's).

I had actually considered purchasing a Beretta Storm at one point. One of our local ranges was having "Carbine Silhouette" matches, where you have to quickly knock down steel targets (plates) and it required the use of a pistol caliber carbine (carbine=small rifle). And, I thought the Beretta would be a unique item for the job (it's a rifle sized pistol, or, a pistol powered rifle). I believe the Storm is limited (by available magazines) to 15 rounds. Not that 15 rounds isn't "a bunch", but he's have done much more damage with an AR-15 and a 30 or 40 round magazine. It's a higher powered weapon and holds far more ammo. Which brings me to the issue of capacity. Given a 3 round weapon, he'll just have to reload more. It was the same thing during "the ban" here in the states. You were limited to 10 rounds in the magazine (instead of 15+ in some cases), it just meant that every 10 rounds you would toss in a fresh mag instead of every 15. Not much of a hinderance really. It's back to bad people will use guns to do bad things. There isn't much anyone can do to prevent all cases of it. He could have just as easily driven a van or pick up truck across campus and ran down dozens of people. He'd have likely killed more of his victims that way.

A psychopath will be a psychopath, no matter what we try to do to limit their ability to do damage.

I'm glad Tamara was safe.

can i get a portable bazooka for self-defense ? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

You wouldn't want it. It's far to slow and cumbersome to reload..... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

[bsim]

My $0.02 - I'll *think* about banning guns AFTER the bad guys are gone. I don't care how. If all the sociopaths are locked up, stupid people can't breed, and we legislate moralistically, maybe. Until then...

(IMG:http://www.bsimconsulting.com/stuff/gun.gif)


(IMG:http://www.bsimconsulting.com/stuff/gun_show.jpg)

This post has been edited by bsim: Oct 5 2006, 02:33 AM

[Mericet]

can i get a portable bazooka for self-defense ? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

You wouldn't want it. It's far to slow and cumbersome to reload..... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

I should tell you about the time I visited Mozambique and saw a soldier patrolling the main road to Maputo (the capital). His firearm of choice: a RPG-7, (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

[v7guy]

this whole thread has been interesting, been reading it since the begining. I love guns and get a huge kick out of the sport aspect (shooting targets). I usually shoot until I can't anymore (black and blue shoulder). I'm typically a pacifist though, to the point I don't eat any form of meat or use any products with animals in it if I can avoid it. I'll spend more money and time to get something that doesn't use animal products if it's available. With that said........I'm not so naive to think that a gun isn't valuable, if someone was trying to rob me I would have no problem shooting them, if an animal was coming after me I would have no problem shooting it. There is a practical application and I'm very aware that I may have to use my weapons someday. I have no problem with that, it's an unfortunate fact of life (if I want to live). Typically the only people we see that has problems with the gun laws are the ones that are trying to obey them. I have to be honest and say that I would have alot easier time defending myself with a handgun than I would my rifle or shotgun, just from a maneuverability standpoint.
Personally, I don't have a problem with something like a 3 round capacity, my 870 supermag I've limited to three rounds even though it will accept 7. But as mentioned, you just reload more, it doesn't take much of any time.

I guess I'm just missing the point of why someone would have a problem with guns. It's been shown over and over that the only people that are impacted by gun laws are the honest guys, the other guys are still going to get them, even if they come from overseas. Whenever I hear about someone wishing guns were illegal I remember a case a few years back when an old lady took a hatchet and killed her son, daughter in law, and grandkids. They asked why she took a hatchet and hacked them up and she said because she didn't have a gun. It's a pretty nasty reminder, but it really does show things for the way they are in the society we live in.

I wish we could keep people like this from ever getting ahold of anything that could hurt others. But making guns illegal would be about like making vehicles illegal, the few people that screw up shouldn't deny everyone else the privledge.

Now that I've typed all this I'm not sure why I bothered, cause as others have already said, everyone here has pretty much made up thier mind a long time ago. But it is nice to see a group that can agree to disagree, it doesn't happen very often.