guns, Guns, GUNS!

[Belac Enrobso]

I swing a gun every day, never got the chance to use it though.

[Nine]

I always find the pro and anti gun arguments hilarious. Everyone is so busy calling each other assholes that they don't realise they're all assholes. At least we can all be assholes together I guess.

Unless you get shot then you're a dead asshole. Or perhaps you're the asshole who shot the first asshole because that asshole tried to shoot you in you're asshole, lucky those other assholes didn't take away you're gun, otherwise you would be the dead asshole. On the other hand you're fortunate those assholes helped pass that law that prevented that asshole getting a bigger gun otherwise you would have 5 more assholes and be the dead asshole.

Problem is that crazy 3rd asshole who's a bit unhinged and wants to be the ultimate asshole and kill some other assholes. I mean guns are pretty good at killing people, but poor old farmer McAsshole needs his gun for to scare off that thing that ate half his sheep! And what about Dr A. S. Hole, he's got his grandassholes collection of antique weapons! Little Johnny Asshole only wants to go target shooting with his asshole dad but asshole #3 might be naughty so fuck you little Johnny Asshole don't you know asshole #3 is going kill little Tommy Assholington because you went shooting targets?! Should have just bought an air rifle kid..

Asshole #3 is always going to want to be the ultimate asshole. Guns are a great choice if you want to be that guy. If you want to take that option away you're being an asshole who might save some people from asshole #3 but unfortunately lose a few asshole #2's that can't protect themselves from asshole #1. But you also screwed a ton of harmless assholes who enjoy using, collecting or just feel safer because of their guns. (feel doesn't mean it's true but which asshole are you to fuck with that assholes peace of mind?) Then again what kind of asshole thinks having guns around is okay when asshole #3 seems to reliably turn up with one of those guns and shoots a bunch of innocent assholes.

So now we're at the crossroads between North, East, South and West Assholia. No matter where you go you're being a total Assholian. Want to take away people's freedom and sense of security? You're an asshole. Want to keep the freedom and sense of security in spite of the costs? You're an asshole. It's just down to what kind of asshole you are.

Anyway, I'm the worst asshole that isn't too fussed either way. This was only going to be a 1 line post but clearly I got carried away (it's now 4:45am). This is mostly for the lols so don't be the asshole who takes this seriously. Just recognise we're all assholes and that being an asshole is okay so long as you admit it.

[Drich]

do you have pics? How heavy were the bolts/projectiles?

lo, no pics. That was 20+ years ago. The bolts weren't especially heavy - a pound or so, I think.

Boru

---

'Not having a gun is an invitation to govermental oppression'

-The bill of Rights

'If you and the rest of your gun-toting mates ever have to go up against with the US government, with their tanks, attack helicopters, flamethrowers and so forth, your pretty well fucked from go.' - Brian Sodding Boru4.

(and your Bill of Rights says nothing like what you quoted. Not even remotely)

Boru

The Taliban made a pretty serious go of it, they even put the Russians out of business.

That said the bill of rights more over the second amendment was directed at our government specifically, it was directed at yours

---

A STuG would be awesome.(technically its artillery)

Or a K5e

Btw google the guy who built a 1/6 Shwere Gustav, holy Crap!

I could not find the 1/6 gustav but the 'rail gun' would be pretty awesome to see.

---

When I was in elementary school I had a teacher who had a muzzle loading cannon. Every 4th of July he fired it.

Some years later it blew up in his face.

He survived with serious injuries.

Lol, didn't most people back then have to use those cannons in actual battle?

---

Guns in the home are far more likely to kill/injure a family member or neighbor than any intruder. The kind of stuff that the NRA does not want you to know.

You were an old acid dropping dirt foot hippy weren't you?

That is like saying People with knives are more likely to be cut by one of their own knives than being stabbed by a stranger. It's circumstance that get people injured or killed by family members not the tools used.

---

I have no desire to shoot anything that lives. If I have to channel my animal bloodlust, I have video games in which I can fire fake bullets out of fake guns and nobody is harmed.

Have you ever shot a real gun before?

What is your favorite video game gun?

If you had a chance to shoot or even own that gun (with no pressure to kill anything except paper targets would you have it?)

---

Yet another gun thread ... predictable as they come:

Started with harmless question.
Followed up with anti-gun insult.
Response includes reference to Bill of Rights
Insert NRA defense and propaganda
Followed by endless barrage of statistics backing both sides
Random insults having little to do with guns
/end thread.



I think I'll skip this one. I've already seen the end.

I did a search and did not see any gun threads.

---

I'm in the military, but I don't believe in owning a gun. Shooting at an intruder in the home or at a mugger on the street gives them unwritten permission to brandish their own firearm, whatever that may be.

Since I'm in the military, I have a very fair grasp as to what guns are for. I believe in keeping a gun on me while down range. I also agree that guns are for hunting. There are specific guns/artillery for wartime, and they should be used as such. There are specific guns for hunting, and the same applies.

Are you at war in our own homes? Are you hunting things on the street? If you answer "no" to both of these questions, then why are you buying a gun?

Zombies.

---

When gun nuts understand nobody wants to take your goddamn guns! All we're saying is you don't need 10, what is so hard to understand about that? Do I think there should be a limit on how many guns you should have yes do I think there should be a limit a separately on antique guns yes since I don't think anyone is going to be hunting with or shooting anyone with an antique gun.

---

And I don't see why most don't want to submit to psychological testing I think the only reason that they don't is that they'll be afraid that they won't pass the test which most of them won't, and they won't be able to get anymore guns

Well I know that is why I do not want to be tested.

After all who wants to live in a place where only people who have guns are the ones the government wants to have guns. Scary scary.

---

I'm in the military, but I don't believe in owning a gun. Shooting at an intruder in the home or at a mugger on the street gives them unwritten permission to brandish their own firearm, whatever that may be.

Since I'm in the military, I have a very fair grasp as to what guns are for. I believe in keeping a gun on me while down range. I also agree that guns are for hunting. There are specific guns/artillery for wartime, and they should be used as such. There are specific guns for hunting, and the same applies.

Are you at war in our own homes? Are you hunting things on the street? If you answer "no" to both of these questions, then why are you buying a gun?

I am confused by your post. One buys a gun for hunting or competition or protection.

Don't forget about zombies.

---

Because an armed populace prevents government tyranny. You take the guns & it will be Red October all over again!

Y'know, I'm not really sure that works in practice. Even in America, you can have 50 guns if you want, but you can't shoot 50 of them at once and you don't have drones and missiles and the like. I mean, really, if the U.S. government wants to seriously flex muscles against its own people, us having guns isn't going to do much to stop them.

That would never work. You got to remember who volunteers to go into the military to begin with. It is the people who have or at least want to have 50 different guns. In the end if push came to shove do you think gun nut junior will fire on gun nut senior? No. An order like that would have millions of the military go AWOL with all of those choice guns! What would have to happen would Obama or whomever would have to make an appeal to the UN which would only further make the 'rebels' more united.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U

That movie was the reason I did not follow the family tradition of military service. It scared the hell out of me. I was a little too gomer Pyle-ish to have made it. Everytime I sat on a toilet for like a year after seeing that movie I thought that was how my military service would end.

---

Y'know, I'm not really sure that works in practice. Even in America, you can have 50 guns if you want, but you can't shoot 50 of them at once and you don't have drones and missiles and the like. I mean, really, if the U.S. government wants to seriously flex muscles against its own people, us having guns isn't going to do much to stop them.

I support the right to bear all sorts of arms! Even cruise missiles should be legal!

In all seriousness I know where to get some cruise missile parts.

---

I conform my life to the statistical analyses I read and believe.

In the case of US gun ownership:
Carrying a gun increases your chance of being shot in an assault by 4.5 times.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/
Having a gun in the house roughly doubles your chance of dying by homicide.
Guns are very useful in committing suicide.
Being a male in a house with a gun increases your chance of dying by successful suicide by 10.4 times.
You are 31 times more likely to succeed in suicide using a gun compared to other methods.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Before I knew this, I used to be pro gun control.
But being in favor of a lower world population and a believer in natural selection;
Go for it guys!

Again, if someone wants to kill hurt or mame it does not matter what tool they use to do it. They will still hurt kill or mame.

---

Does anyone here own a gun or would like to own a gun, if so what?

I use to collect WWII guns. I still have a few.. Anyone else?

I'd love to own one but it's tricky here in the UK. I think I would mostly go for WWII guns like the MP40, Thompson, Karabiner 98k and M1911A1. An AK47 would definitely be on my list too because of its legendary status.

Perhaps I could find some deactivated versions with a but of luck and an excessive amount of money. In the meantime I'll probably get airsoft versions seems they are cheap and I get to use them once the spring comes and I go airsofting again.

They make an awesome reproduction (semi auto) mp-40 with the right feel and weight they even have the correct markings on them. I was looking at getting one a few years back. They also do the thompson in .45acp. The history Chanel sponsored a company to offer k98s Lugers and p38s. They were a bit pricey but were well worth it as what they offered was all period pieces with the prized unit markings on them.

Ak's are coming back down in price. A few years ago you could get one for about 300 dollars, they went upto 900 and now you can get one between 4 and 5 hundred.

I've got an m1 garand m1 carbine, 1910 Luger, p38, arisaka type 45 carbine with "mum" intact. A jap sword, and some more modern stuff. I would like a BAR or even a Johnson .30 caliber. Since November I have been looking to get a carcano 6.5mm for some reason..

[Bad Writer]

Zombies, huh? At least you're consistent about remaining faithful to fantasy, Drich. In all seriousness, I have no qualms about someone legally buying guns in order to collect them as a hobby. What needs to happen with such a collection is to ensure the weapons are locked up in such a way that a common thief can't walk into your home and take them from you.

[Drich]

Zombies, huh? At least you're consistent about remaining faithful to fantasy, Drich. In all seriousness, I have no qualms about someone legally buying guns in order to collect them as a hobby. What needs to happen with such a collection is to ensure the weapons are locked up in such a way that a common thief can't walk into your home and take them from you.

Zombies are a metaphore for any societal collapse.

I'm a class 3 firearms dealer. Having a gun safe is apart of the deal.

[JuliaL]

Guns are very useful in committing suicide.
Being a male in a house with a gun increases your chance of dying by successful suicide by 10.4 times.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Again, if someone wants to kill hurt or mame(sic) it does not matter what tool they use to do it. They will still hurt kill or mame.

---

They will kill, hurt or maim at lower rates if an efficient tool is not at hand.
If it were the case that violence would be carried out by other means if guns weren't available, then the rates of violent death would be the same in households with or without guns (controlling for other factors such as not being a meth addict).
Of the 31000 gun deaths in the US, roughly 62% are suicides.
The second most likely person you will kill with your gun is a close family member.
This is how evolution by natural selection increases intelligence.
I approve. Please carry on.

[Ryantology]

Have you ever shot a real gun before?

Nope.

What is your favorite video game gun?

I really couldn't say I have a favorite.

If you had a chance to shoot or even own that gun (with no pressure to kill anything except paper targets would you have it?)

A chance to shoot paper targets? Maybe for the experience. I would have no reason to own one, however.

That would never work. You got to remember who volunteers to go into the military to begin with. It is the people who have or at least want to have 50 different guns. In the end if push came to shove do you think gun nut junior will fire on gun nut senior? No. An order like that would have millions of the military go AWOL with all of those choice guns! What would have to happen would Obama or whomever would have to make an appeal to the UN which would only further make the 'rebels' more united.

People in societies have always been armed. It has only rarely made a difference and has never, to my knowledge, been decisive on its own.

We have our share of homegrown terrorists who love making threats against the government and all the people they think aren't American enough. If they fire first, and if there was firing it's virtually certain that they would fire first, how many people do you think are going to go AWOL to help them out?

[Drich]

They will kill, hurt or maim at lower rates if an efficient tool is not at hand.

Deaths may go down but maiming will go up. After all the gun has nothing to so with the intent to hurt or kill, just ones ability to efficiently carry out their want or will to cause harm.

If it were the case that violence would be carried out by other means if guns weren't available, then the rates of violent death would be the same in households with or without guns (controlling for other factors such as not being a meth addict).

That is only assuming those who shy away from gun ownership have the same tendency towards conflict as someone who wants to own a gun.

Just look at the antigun lobby here on this website. Most none gun owners here do not see or can not phathom a situation where a gun is needed to get out of any of life's situations. While gun owners tend see conflict in a completely different way.

Again guns are tools much like a hammer. Hammers can be used to build or to destroy it all depends on the intention of the person who holds the hammer. People who typically buy hammers tend to be builders. Now what if there were no hammers would those very same people stop building or simply find another way to complete their task?

Of the 31000 gun deaths in the US, roughly 62% are suicides.

Perfect example, of a person using a tool to complete a goal he/she wants to complete. The people who take their lives with guns are not the 'cry for help' people who try and commit suicide. With one who takes a gun points it to their own head and pulls the trigger death is wanted, not 'help.' Do you really think that if a person seeks death that badly will be deterred by the lack of a specific tool? What did builders do before hammers? Did they not build things from wood?

The second most likely person you will kill with your gun is a close family member.

ah, no. That kind of stupid statement can only be made by someone who only looks at one specific aspect of a static and ignores everything else.
Circumstance is the only other factor in the death of a family member, outside murder.

Remove the opportunity for circumstance, and that only leaves murder. So unless I want a close family member dead it will not happen. That is how it works in the real world.

This is how evolution by natural selection increases intelligence.
I approve. Please carry on.

I believe We should help those who think suicide is the only option, and we should not let them kill themselves. (One of my employees lost a son a few months back he hanged himself/found a way to complete his task with out a hammer) but to each his own if you think they should be encouraged to die so natural selection be allowed to happen then so be it.

---

Nope.

Don't knock it till you try it. It's a blast.

A chance to shoot paper targets? Maybe for the experience. I would have no reason to own one, however.

what if there were zombies?

People in societies have always been armed. It has only rarely made a difference and has never, to my knowledge, been decisive on its own.

which side of the pond are you on? Do they skip over the time period between July 4 1776
And nov 25 1783 where you are from?
The strongest nation in the world was held off by a personally armed populace.. Maybe that is why gun ownership is frowned on today over there.

We have our share of homegrown terrorists who love making threats against the government and all the people they think aren't American enough. If they fire first, and if there was firing it's virtually certain that they would fire first, how many people do you think are going to go AWOL to help them out?

we are not talking about using the American military against a group of domestic terrorists. We are talking about the president using the American military to breach the second amendment and turn on 60% of the population.. If that were to happen I would estimate 1/2 if not 2/3s of the armed forces would turn on the government.

When ever a soldier enlists they take an oath to up hold and defend the constitution
First then obey they country's leadership. When asked (especially when serving under an unpopular president) the vast majority credit the defense of this country and the protection of our rights as the primary reason they serve. Not all believe this way but most do.
Then if you were to factor in all of the grey coats who have been waiting for the south to rise again.. Obama or whom ever would have one big mess on their hands.

[JuliaL]

They will kill, hurt or maim at lower rates if an efficient tool is not at hand.

Deaths may go down but maiming will go up.

Unsupported assertion. Also assumes that the increase in deaths is to be preferred to an increase in maiming.

If it were the case that violence would be carried out by other means if guns weren't available, then the rates of violent death would be the same in households with or without guns (controlling for other factors such as not being a meth addict).

That is only assuming those who shy away from gun ownership have the same tendency towards conflict as someone who wants to own a gun.

What part of "controlling for other factors" don't you understand?

Again guns are tools much like a hammer. Hammers can be used to build or to destroy it all depends on the intention of the person who holds the hammer. People who typically buy hammers tend to be builders. Now what if there were no hammers would those very same people stop building or simply find another way to complete their task?

Sure, and if there were no cars, people would still travel. Just by oxcart and horse and much slower. He who lives by the analogy...

Of the 31000 gun deaths in the US, roughly 62% are suicides.

Perfect example, of a person using a tool to complete a goal he/she wants to complete.

The second most likely person you will kill with your gun is a close family member.

ah, no. That kind of stupid statement can only be made by someone who only looks at one specific aspect of a statistic and ignores everything else.
Circumstance is the only other factor in the death of a family member, outside murder.

Remove the opportunity for circumstance, and that only leaves murder. So unless I want a close family member dead it will not happen. That is how it works in the real world.

The circumstance in question in the studies cited is the availability of a gun.
It is the increased immediacy and lethality of the tool which directly impacts the presumably undesired outcome, the death of a close family member.

http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_index...=5&e=28649
It is important to understand, according to the study, that the higher rates of suicide among those who own guns has to do with the fact that guns are much more lethal than other methods of attempting suicide.
...
A large number of those who commit suicide by gun shot are adolescents. Teenagers tend to be more emotional, depressed, anxious and impulsive than most adult members of society. When you add to that the fact that teens abuse alcohol and drugs, adding to their depression and emotionality, the availability of a gun makes them extremely vulnerable to a successful suicide attempt.

Are you still under the misapprehension that I disapprove of your gun ownership? By keeping a gun, you are only very slightly increasing the likelihood of someone I care about dying by violence and greatly increasing the similar likelihood in your own circle of loved ones. I strongly support this situation and only wish you'd get on with it. Particularly with respect to any pre-reproductive age offspring you may have.

[Ryantology]

Don't knock it till you try it. It's a blast.

I haven't, but I'm also not really all that interested.

what if there were zombies?

If there's anything that The Walking Dead taught me, it's that you don't want to use firearms unless you really have no other choice.

The strongest nation in the world was held off by a personally armed populace.. Maybe that is why gun ownership is frowned on today over there.

The strongest nation in the world was held off by 4000 miles of Atlantic Ocean, the other wars in which it was engaged at the time, our allies, and the fact that the colonies covered several times the area of the British Isles. Firearms were only one small aspect of that war.

If the American Revolution had been a simple pitting of American arms vs. British arms, without all those other factors, the war may never have even started, and certainly would never have been successfully waged.

we are not talking about using the American military against a group of domestic terrorists. We are talking about the president using the American military to breach the second amendment and turn on 60% of the population.. If that were to happen I would estimate 1/2 if not 2/3s of the armed forces would turn on the government.

When ever a soldier enlists they take an oath to up hold and defend the constitution
First then obey they country's leadership. When asked (especially when serving under an unpopular president) the vast majority credit the defense of this country and the protection of our rights as the primary reason they serve. Not all believe this way but most do.
Then if you were to factor in all of the grey coats who have been waiting for the south to rise again.. Obama or whom ever would have one big mess on their hands.

Some people have been crying about the second amendment being violated for decades. It has been enforced by the law behind it. Nobody's risen up over it. The most we've had is a few redneck sheriffs piss and moan.