PDA

View Full Version : Could Your Shotgun Soon be Outlawed?



[LoD] EE
04-19-2011, 04:42
Maybe, If the ATF Has Its Way (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/could-your-shotgun-soon-be-outlawed/)

What’s the definition of a “shotgun?” According to Dictionary.com it’s “a smoothbore gun for firing small shot to kill birds and small quadrupeds, though often used with buckshot to kill larger animals.” For the gun enthusiasts, that’s only partly true, as there is also the option of using slugs. But what if there’s another addition that will soon be added to the definition? How about, illegal.

In a series of fascinating, and eerie, posts over at the blog Beregond’s Bar (and linked on Redstate.com), author “Tom” pens a four-part series on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and their new campaign to change the definition of the term “shotgun.” A change, based on a recent study,* that could soon make some of them illegal. But as Tom points out, the implications for all guns are chilling.

Below are excerpts from the series. Click on the appropriate link to read more.

Part 1 (http://beregondsbar.com/banning-guns-by-changing-definitions-part-1/), which focuses on changing the term “sporting use” in order to ban certain shotguns:

The Obama administration is seeking once again to do via regulation what they would never be able to do via legislation. This time shotguns are in the crosshairs, specifically certain popular imported weapons.

[...]

Sporting use is one of the three main thrusts of gun control efforts in America. The other two are racism and those who openly advocate complete bans except for military and police. (The complete ban advocates often hide under cover of sporting use, but that and the racist history of gun control are topics for another day.

Sporting use was how the original distinction was made about what weapons would be subject to a special tax in the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934, and again in Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The congressional power to tax was used selectively to make ownership of weapons the government didn’t like burdensome and expensive. This was gun control via the back door, as even the ATF admits. As would become the pattern, politicians found that actually dealing with crime and criminals was difficult and expensive. Blaming guns and passing a law to look like they were doing something about it was much simpler.

Part 2 (http://beregondsbar.com/banning-guns-by-changing-definitions-part-2/), which notes that the administration and the ATF’s definition of “sporting use” includes a list of things that cannot apply to such use. Things that are common in hunting and self-defense:

In this case the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is seeking to master the definition of the term “sporting use” to “traditional” sports, things similar to what might have been found in 1934 when the Treasury Department first began regulating firearms. The ATF “Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns” (PDF) limits “sporting purpose.”

However, consistent with past court decisions and Congressional intent, the working group recognized hunting and other more generally recognized or formalized competitive events similar to the traditional shooting sports of trap, skeet, and clays.

In order to decide what shotguns fit the “sporting purpose” definition the study comes up with a list of characteristics that aren’t sporting. Nobody has yet taken to bayoneting deer or skeet as far as I know, so I’m not going to raise a big stink about bayonet lugs being on the list of features that aren’t particularly suited for sporting purposes. (Please stop shouting that the Constitution of the United States says nothing about “sporting purpose.” We’ll look at why the “sporting purpose” rule violates the constitution in Part 3.)

One major problem (aside from the constitution) is that many of the features the ATF study group settled on make a shotgun particularly useful for self defense, especially home defense. Here are the characteristics that the study has decided are unsuitable for sporting use:

(1) Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;

(2) bayonet lugs;

(3) flash suppressors;

(4) magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;

(5) grenade-launcher mounts;

(6) integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel);

(7) light enhancing devices;

(8) excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);

(9) excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);

(10) forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand.

Some of these features, such as folding stocks and larger capacity magazines clearly are useful in sports if you include practical shooting sports.

Part 3 (http://beregondsbar.com/banning-guns-by-changing-definitions-part-3-2/), which looks at how “sporting use” stacks up to the Constitution and how it came into use:

But there is a far more basic objection that must be raised to this new attempt at regulatory gun ban- Nowhere in the constitution of the United States is there anything about a “sporting purpose.” The second amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Like all rights of Americans, the rights exist because you are a person. The Constitution is a contract we have with the central government to protect those rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic. One of the enumerated rights is the right to keep and bear arms. Nary a “sporting purpose” in sight in the entire document. So where did it come from?

And finally, Part 4, which shows that the ATF’s “sporting use” definition puts all guns, not just certain shotguns, at risk of being outlawed:

One factor that jumps out from the current ATF study is that it differs from the Clinton gun ban in a critical way. The Clinton ban looked at guns and said if it could accept a high capacity magazine and had any 2 other characteristics then it was banned. Thus you could have a magazine and a pistol grip, or a magazine and night sights, and still be legal. Few people missed having a bayonet lug, and grenade launchers and grenades had essentially been banned from civilian hands since the NFA became law in 1934. The current study says that any ONE item on a list, including a magazine that holds more than five rounds or a place to attach a flashlight so you can see the burglar in your home, and the gun is banned.

So the problem doesn’t end with shotguns. The current study refers to the conclusions drawn in prior ATF studies of rifles in 1989 and 1998, and handguns in 1968. It also draws on the NFA and the GCA (Gun Control Act of 1968) to justify the “sporting purpose” test, and the narrow interpretation that the ATF places on the test. The justifications are all linked together, like a knitted sweater. Pull on the piece of yarn called “imported shotguns” and you find when it’s unraveled enough that you’re tugging on the “domestic shotguns” yarn. Only now the “imported rifle” bit of yarn is hanging loose, just begging for someone to tug on it. Unravel that a bit and you reach “domestic rifles.” A similar bit of unraveling is likely to happen with the piece of yarn labelled “handgun.”

Each piece is well worth the time it takes to read it. Meanwhile, the ATF is taking comments on its study. Tom lets you know how here.

But here’s the catch: in order to let the ATF know what you think, you have to give it your mailing address.

Interesting.



*According to Tom, the study “spends a lot of time showing that hunting, trap and skeet, and target shooting are sports, but plinking and practical shooting sports are not REALLY sports, and therefore guns that are particularly suitable for, or readily adaptable to those sports shouldn’t be allowed into the country.

UPDATE:

Jack Minor of the Greeley Gazette covered the ATF’s study, too. He puts in terms of “military”-style shotguns vs. others. But, he notes, according to the specifications used, “military” could apply to so many shotguns:

The ATF completed a study regarding the importability of certain shotguns. The basis for a possible ban is based on a loosely defined “Sporting Purpose” test. Using the vague definition almost all pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns could be banned as they are all capable of accepting a magazine, box or tube capable of holding more than 5 rounds. Other characteristics determined to be “military” by the ATF can also be used as a basis for a ban.

Ironically, many shotguns with “military” features are currently being used in shooting competitions held by the USPSA, IDPA and IPSC. The rules could also result in obscure regulations where an individual would be unsure if he is violating them or not.

Dudley Brown, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said if the ATF succeeds with the banning of tactical shotguns it “will be the most dangerous interpretation of the 1968 Gun Control Act ever envisioned and will outlaw thousands of perfectly legitimate home defense shotguns.”

zato`1
04-19-2011, 04:46
well... they can TRY to take it... :O

[LoD] EE
04-19-2011, 04:51
well... they can TRY to take it... :O


I think the same way. I will own a shotgun by the end of the month. My initial plan was to own a IZ-109 aka Saiga 12. With the price going up to about $750 I doubt I will be picking one up.. unless I can sell my PSL for a good $900-$1000. What I will most likely be doing is picking up a pump 12 gauge and sticking with that, regardless, as I have said before. Putting holes in baby blue helmets will be a sport of mine if anyone attempts to rid me of my personal protection.

natedagreat
04-19-2011, 05:06
EE;4913962']Maybe, If the ATF Has Its Way (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/could-your-shotgun-soon-be-outlawed/)

What’s the definition of a “shotgun?” According to Dictionary.com it’s “a smoothbore gun for firing small shot to kill birds and small quadrupeds, though often used with buckshot to kill larger animals.” For the gun enthusiasts, that’s only partly true, as there is also the option of using slugs. But what if there’s another addition that will soon be added to the definition? How about, illegal.

In a series of fascinating, and eerie, posts over at the blog Beregond’s Bar (and linked on Redstate.com), author “Tom” pens a four-part series on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and their new campaign to change the definition of the term “shotgun.” A change, based on a recent study,* that could soon make some of them illegal. But as Tom points out, the implications for all guns are chilling.

Below are excerpts from the series. Click on the appropriate link to read more.

Part 1 (http://beregondsbar.com/banning-guns-by-changing-definitions-part-1/), which focuses on changing the term “sporting use” in order to ban certain shotguns:

The Obama administration is seeking once again to do via regulation what they would never be able to do via legislation. This time shotguns are in the crosshairs, specifically certain popular imported weapons.

[...]

Sporting use is one of the three main thrusts of gun control efforts in America. The other two are racism and those who openly advocate complete bans except for military and police. (The complete ban advocates often hide under cover of sporting use, but that and the racist history of gun control are topics for another day.

Sporting use was how the original distinction was made about what weapons would be subject to a special tax in the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934, and again in Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The congressional power to tax was used selectively to make ownership of weapons the government didn’t like burdensome and expensive. This was gun control via the back door, as even the ATF admits. As would become the pattern, politicians found that actually dealing with crime and criminals was difficult and expensive. Blaming guns and passing a law to look like they were doing something about it was much simpler.

Part 2 (http://beregondsbar.com/banning-guns-by-changing-definitions-part-2/), which notes that the administration and the ATF’s definition of “sporting use” includes a list of things that cannot apply to such use. Things that are common in hunting and self-defense:

In this case the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is seeking to master the definition of the term “sporting use” to “traditional” sports, things similar to what might have been found in 1934 when the Treasury Department first began regulating firearms. The ATF “Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns” (PDF) limits “sporting purpose.”

However, consistent with past court decisions and Congressional intent, the working group recognized hunting and other more generally recognized or formalized competitive events similar to the traditional shooting sports of trap, skeet, and clays.

In order to decide what shotguns fit the “sporting purpose” definition the study comes up with a list of characteristics that aren’t sporting. Nobody has yet taken to bayoneting deer or skeet as far as I know, so I’m not going to raise a big stink about bayonet lugs being on the list of features that aren’t particularly suited for sporting purposes. (Please stop shouting that the Constitution of the United States says nothing about “sporting purpose.” We’ll look at why the “sporting purpose” rule violates the constitution in Part 3.)

One major problem (aside from the constitution) is that many of the features the ATF study group settled on make a shotgun particularly useful for self defense, especially home defense. Here are the characteristics that the study has decided are unsuitable for sporting use:

(1) Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;

(2) bayonet lugs;

(3) flash suppressors;

(4) magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;

(5) grenade-launcher mounts;

(6) integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel);

(7) light enhancing devices;

(8) excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);

(9) excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);

(10) forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand.

Some of these features, such as folding stocks and larger capacity magazines clearly are useful in sports if you include practical shooting sports.

Part 3 (http://beregondsbar.com/banning-guns-by-changing-definitions-part-3-2/), which looks at how “sporting use” stacks up to the Constitution and how it came into use:

But there is a far more basic objection that must be raised to this new attempt at regulatory gun ban- Nowhere in the constitution of the United States is there anything about a “sporting purpose.” The second amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Like all rights of Americans, the rights exist because you are a person. The Constitution is a contract we have with the central government to protect those rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic. One of the enumerated rights is the right to keep and bear arms. Nary a “sporting purpose” in sight in the entire document. So where did it come from?

And finally, Part 4, which shows that the ATF’s “sporting use” definition puts all guns, not just certain shotguns, at risk of being outlawed:

One factor that jumps out from the current ATF study is that it differs from the Clinton gun ban in a critical way. The Clinton ban looked at guns and said if it could accept a high capacity magazine and had any 2 other characteristics then it was banned. Thus you could have a magazine and a pistol grip, or a magazine and night sights, and still be legal. Few people missed having a bayonet lug, and grenade launchers and grenades had essentially been banned from civilian hands since the NFA became law in 1934. The current study says that any ONE item on a list, including a magazine that holds more than five rounds or a place to attach a flashlight so you can see the burglar in your home, and the gun is banned.

So the problem doesn’t end with shotguns. The current study refers to the conclusions drawn in prior ATF studies of rifles in 1989 and 1998, and handguns in 1968. It also draws on the NFA and the GCA (Gun Control Act of 1968) to justify the “sporting purpose” test, and the narrow interpretation that the ATF places on the test. The justifications are all linked together, like a knitted sweater. Pull on the piece of yarn called “imported shotguns” and you find when it’s unraveled enough that you’re tugging on the “domestic shotguns” yarn. Only now the “imported rifle” bit of yarn is hanging loose, just begging for someone to tug on it. Unravel that a bit and you reach “domestic rifles.” A similar bit of unraveling is likely to happen with the piece of yarn labelled “handgun.”

Each piece is well worth the time it takes to read it. Meanwhile, the ATF is taking comments on its study. Tom lets you know how here.

But here’s the catch: in order to let the ATF know what you think, you have to give it your mailing address.

Interesting.



*According to Tom, the study “spends a lot of time showing that hunting, trap and skeet, and target shooting are sports, but plinking and practical shooting sports are not REALLY sports, and therefore guns that are particularly suitable for, or readily adaptable to those sports shouldn’t be allowed into the country.

UPDATE:

Jack Minor of the Greeley Gazette covered the ATF’s study, too. He puts in terms of “military”-style shotguns vs. others. But, he notes, according to the specifications used, “military” could apply to so many shotguns:

The ATF completed a study regarding the importability of certain shotguns. The basis for a possible ban is based on a loosely defined “Sporting Purpose” test. Using the vague definition almost all pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns could be banned as they are all capable of accepting a magazine, box or tube capable of holding more than 5 rounds. Other characteristics determined to be “military” by the ATF can also be used as a basis for a ban.

Ironically, many shotguns with “military” features are currently being used in shooting competitions held by the USPSA, IDPA and IPSC. The rules could also result in obscure regulations where an individual would be unsure if he is violating them or not.

Dudley Brown, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said if the ATF succeeds with the banning of tactical shotguns it “will be the most dangerous interpretation of the 1968 Gun Control Act ever envisioned and will outlaw thousands of perfectly legitimate home defense shotguns.”

cool story bro.

Apex Vertigo
04-19-2011, 08:30
Lol, I can't wait for idiot rednecks to start killing and inevitably getting killed by cops. Can anyone say 2 birds 1 stone?

Emolas
04-19-2011, 09:02
Mexicans are tekkin arr jerbs

doomahx
04-19-2011, 11:49
EE;4913974']I think the same way. I will own a shotgun by the end of the month. My initial plan was to own a IZ-109 aka Saiga 12. With the price going up to about $750 I doubt I will be picking one up.. unless I can sell my PSL for a good $900-$1000. What I will most likely be doing is picking up a pump 12 gauge and sticking with that, regardless, as I have said before. Putting holes in baby blue helmets will be a sport of mine if anyone attempts to rid me of my personal protection.

So if the police come to take a gun from you, you are going to shoot them and go to jail?

Emolas
04-19-2011, 12:03
He will attempt to raise the weapon against the police, just as cholesterol claims another victim.

Weeking
04-19-2011, 12:30
If you outlaw shotguns, only outlaws and hobos will have them.

Sqarak
04-19-2011, 13:14
If you outlaw shotguns, only outlaws and hobos will have them.

A hobo with a shotgun is quite awesome though.

Emolas
04-19-2011, 13:25
outlaws and hobos having shotguns is not enough. Let's give them to rednecks, too..



Owait.

Sqarak
04-19-2011, 13:30
Benelli, accept no substitute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5uHt4AwYb4

[LoD] EE
04-19-2011, 14:33
So if the police come to take a gun from you, you are going to shoot them and go to jail?

If someone came into my home uninvited to take my rights away from me, they would have to kill me to take them from me.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

My rights shall not be infringed.


cool story bro.

Its a good thing your parents didnt abort you so you could waste our oxygen.


Mexicans are tekkin arr jerbs

Yes they are. They just busted McDonalds for hiring of illegal aliens. (www.newyorkinjurynews.com/2011/04/17/14-Arrested-2-Savannah-McDonalds-Shut-Down-Following-Immigration-Sting_201104176280.html) Lots of citizens were not working because of that. Dont really know how that pertains to this conversation but at least your dumb ass is seeing the light finally.


Benelli, accept no substitute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5uHt4AwYb4

Great shotguns but mighty expensive. I dont need a $700 shotgun for home defense. $400 shipped Mossberg 500 will do fine.

I have not decided on which one yet. It will be my boat gun, in case something happens and I am stuck out in the wilderness for a bit, I have some form of defense against boar, mountain lions, bear, Christians or whatever else it is needed against.

Mossberg 500 cruiser JIC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq7z56BUlq0)

Mossberg 500 Mariner JIC (www.youtube.com/watch?v=193BtueZxfs&feature=related)

Sqarak
04-19-2011, 14:55
Against Christians I usually use a "torch-a-church"-kit.

To be honest I really wonder how the US is ever going to round up all guns like many fear-mongers claim. It's basically very big hassle, a load of paperwork and bad for the US economy.

If a large portion of the US citizens buy guns and ammunitions so frequently then the big arms-dealers in the US will never allow for a ban on anything that might cost them their profit.
At least it would be odd if they did. Seeing as lobbying makes a large part of US legislation I'd expect them to step in and say "errmm good Sir, I don't fucking think so."

[LoD] EE
04-19-2011, 15:02
Against Christians I usually use a "torch-a-church"-kit.

To be honest I really wonder how the US is ever going to round up all guns like many fear-mongers claim. It's basically very big hassle, a load of paperwork and bad for the US economy.

If a large portion of the US citizens buy guns and ammunitions so frequently then the big arms-dealers in the US will never allow for a ban on anything that might cost them their profit.
At least it would be odd if they did. Seeing as lobbying makes a large part of US legislation I'd expect them to step in and say "errmm good Sir, I don't fucking think so."

Honestly, I dont see the US trying it. I would say the chance of that is a 1 in a million. Did they round up all the automatic weapons when they banned them? Nope, they just made you pay a $200 tax for owning them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act) If anything, what would happen is exactly this, you pay a $200 tax for owning them and its a bitch to sell them so.. they stay put, the government knows where they are and that is it. Truthfully I think they would be insane to try to take them from US Citizens, it would be a messy cleanup.

Sqarak
04-19-2011, 15:05
EE;4914924']Honestly, I dont see the US trying it. I would say the chance of that is a 1 in a million. Did they round up all the automatic weapons when they banned them? Nope, they just made you pay a $200 tax for owning them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act) If anything, what would happen is exactly this, you pay a $200 tax for owning them and its a bitch to sell them so.. they stay put, the government knows where they are and that is it. Truthfully I think they would be insane to try to take them from US Citizens, it would be a messy cleanup.

So long story short, they just do this to tax something extra and gain extra income. Feels more in line with what many Western governments are doing nowadays.

Suncross
04-19-2011, 15:07
EE;4914873']
Its a good thing your parents didnt abort you so you could waste our oxygen.


Cool story bro.

No seriously, my brother just bought a S&W 22 rifle. It looks like an assault rifle, and it made in a way where he can put all sorts of fixtures on it. Red dot, different scopes, lasers, flashlights, etc.

I personally want a real assault rifle if I can get my hands on it. .22s are really high velocity though. I am not old enough to own a handgun yet, but I can own a shotgun if I wanted. 6 more months until I get a concealed permit + a .45 handgun. No more feeling unsafe at the ATM at 10pm no more. I know a concealed permit wont help for that, but I can at least have it in my car.

[LoD] EE
04-19-2011, 15:15
Benelli, accept no substitute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5uHt4AwYb4

I wanted to go a little further on this.

Mossberg is making some variants that are quite... interesting.

Mossberg Roadblocker. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypikRC7Idl8)

Mossberg Chainsaw (www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ahiIbQS9HE)

[LoD] EE
04-19-2011, 15:23
Cool story bro.

No seriously, my brother just bought a S&W 22 rifle. It looks like an assault rifle, and it made in a way where he can put all sorts of fixtures on it. Red dot, different scopes, lasers, flashlights, etc.

I personally want a real assault rifle if I can get my hands on it. .22s are really high velocity though. I am not old enough to own a handgun yet, but I can own a shotgun if I wanted. 6 more months until I get a concealed permit + a .45 handgun. No more feeling unsafe at the ATM at 10pm no more. I know a concealed permit wont help for that, but I can at least have it in my car.

Dont go .45. Go 9mm. Trust me when I say, 9mm stops people just fine, having the extra ammo is a plus, you have less recoil which means, easier follow up shots, faster firing if needed and its easier to conceal. Also.. 9mm is the only NATO approved round so if anything stupid were to happen, 9mm will be the easiest round to find and will be plentiful. Always good to think ahead. Dont use ball ammo, it will just punch a hole straight through your target, dont buy cheap walmart hollow points either.

I just passed my CCW last Saturday, should be a couple more weeks before my permit arrives.

As for your brothers rifle.. please dont tell me he is going tacti-cool on it. Nothing worse than a $500 gun with $1500 worth of crap stuck to it.

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/642/TactiCool.JPG
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_wsLvDlJPrk/TZXls84nvrI/AAAAAAAAECc/YHOA6rotSWg/s1600/tacticool2.jpg
http://hellinahandbasket.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/tacticool.jpg

Suncross
04-19-2011, 15:27
EE;4914955']Dont go .45. Go 9mm. Trust me when I say, 9mm stops people just fine, having the extra ammo is a plus, you have less recoil which means, easier follow up shots, faster firing if needed and its easier to conceal. Also.. 9mm is the only NATO approved round so if anything stupid were to happen, 9mm will be the easiest round to find and will be plentiful. Always good to think ahead. Dont use ball ammo, it will just punch a hole straight through your target, dont buy cheap walmart hollow points either.

I just passed my CCW last Saturday, should be a couple more weeks before my permit arrives.

As for your brothers rifle.. please dont tell me he is going tacti-cool on it. Nothing worse than a $500 gun with $1500 worth of crap stuck to it.

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/642/TactiCool.JPG
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_wsLvDlJPrk/TZXls84nvrI/AAAAAAAAECc/YHOA6rotSWg/s1600/tacticool2.jpg
http://hellinahandbasket.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/tacticool.jpg

Oh yeah. I mean my brother told me about how cheap .22 ammo is in comparison. Part of this I am talking out of my ass, and I want something that is visually appealing. When I start trying the guns on, I am sure I will go more for comfort and practicality.

My father has a 9mm pistol though. I am sure it is a make / model thing, but he is ex-military, and he told me stories about 9mm pistols always locking up on him.

nizzie
04-19-2011, 15:33
EE;4914955']Trust me when I say, 9mm stops people just fine

:ohno: I'm not gonna try to upset EE anymore.. ever. :ohno:

Rokstarr
04-19-2011, 15:34
Oh yeah. I mean my brother told me about how cheap .22 ammo is in comparison. Part of this I am talking out of my ass, and I want something that is visually appealing. When I start trying the guns on, I am sure I will go more for comfort and practicality.

My father has a 9mm pistol though. I am sure it is a make / model thing, but he is ex-military, and he told me stories about 9mm pistols always locking up on him.

9mm sucks; and contrary to what EE told you, it won't stop a full grown man unless you hit him in the vitals. You should eventually own a good 9mm, if only for the sake of ammo, but for personal protection I would definitely start with a .40 or .45. You don't need to need to high-capacity clip to fend off the thugs at the ATM, but you do want something that's going to put him on his fucking ass.

zato`1
04-19-2011, 15:47
6 shot revolver .45

at night you just pretend you dont know your holster is showing when you go to the ATM

shit works wonders... only gotten in trouble for "flashing" my holstered weapon once and it was the biggest dickhead cop in the world, he couldnt give me a citation anyway, but he sure tried.

[LoD] EE
04-19-2011, 15:47
Oh yeah. I mean my brother told me about how cheap .22 ammo is in comparison. Part of this I am talking out of my ass, and I want something that is visually appealing. When I start trying the guns on, I am sure I will go more for comfort and practicality.

My father has a 9mm pistol though. I am sure it is a make / model thing, but he is ex-military, and he told me stories about 9mm pistols always locking up on him.

.22 ammo is very cheap. 550 rounds runs less than $20 here. I just picked up a Mossberg international 702 Plinkster for practice shooting. .22 rifles are great for honing your skills, small, light gun, if you have any bad habits they really show upon the range with a .22

Before you go trying on guns. I would suggest going to a local range and renting pistols, trying out each one and seeing if you like how it shoots. Just like each rifle has a use, each pistol does too. If you are wearing shorts and tighter clothing, a 22 pistol would make a good conceal weapon. .22's will kill just like anything else. Glocks have a different feel compared to say, a Springfield Armor XD 9mm. I prefer the XD because it has the same setup as a Colt 1911. I grew up firing my fathers 1911 government issue so the XD feels natural to me. You could also look on Youtube for different pistol reviews.

I dont see how all 9mm would lock up. It could have been a flaw in the design of that specific pistol, it could have been a flaw in only that pistol. Its like saying because Toyota had gas pedals getting stuck, ALL CARS have the problem. not all 9mm are made the same, different designs can end up doing the same thing. One could fail more than the other. He probably had a Beretta.

20,000 round torture test XD 9mm (http://www.weaponscache.com/forum/pistols/1934-springfield-xd-torture-test.html)

Print these off and use them when you are practicing, it will help you a shotload.

Pistol Marksmanship Diagnostic Chart (http://users.rcn.com/gwhite/DIAGNOSE.PDF)

[LoD] EE
04-19-2011, 15:50
:ohno: I'm not gonna try to upset EE anymore.. ever. :ohno:

I have personally never shot anyone. I have had to pull a gun on someone before, it stopped a guy from getting his motorcycle jacked.

I have seen people shot though. I lived in a not so nice, gang infested area of San Bernardino Ca back in the early 90's. Saw a guy shot in the face with a 12 gauge and saw a guy gunned down by cops. 9mm does a fantastic job of dropping someone. Shots to the chest do great.

[LoD] EE
04-19-2011, 15:56
9mm sucks; and contrary to what EE told you, it won't stop a full grown man unless you hit him in the vitals. You should eventually own a good 9mm, if only for the sake of ammo, but for personal protection I would definitely start with a .40 or .45. You don't need to need to high-capacity clip to fend off the thugs at the ATM, but you do want something that's going to put him on his fucking ass.

Complete and utter bullshit. The only time a 9mm wont stop someone is if they are wearing heavy clothing but that isnt because of the round itself but the design. The problem is, the HP rounds get clogged from the clothing and expand early, causing them to not penetrate like they should. That is why cops dont use cheap HP rounds anymore, they use the Hornady Critical Defense. It penetrates the clothing, mushrooms constantly and does what it is designed to do, stop the threat. .45's have a harder time with heavy clothing as well because of the lower muzzle velocity.

Also.. pistols dont use clips, they use magazines.

[LoD] EE
04-19-2011, 15:58
6 shot revolver .45

at night you just pretend you dont know your holster is showing when you go to the ATM

shit works wonders... only gotten in trouble for "flashing" my holstered weapon once and it was the biggest dickhead cop in the world, he couldnt give me a citation anyway, but he sure tried.

Yep, because that law against Brandishing a weapon is one you want to break. Had you been reported by someone else and not noticed by the cop personally, you could have been ticketed for 'inciting panic'. Its the laws little way of getting around the 'open carry' aspect of the state laws. If they have to keep responding to, " Man with gun " reports, they will cite you for it.

zato`1
04-19-2011, 16:05
well its a simple thing... my shirt rode up past my holster. im sure that happens to you all the time if you use a hip holster, or maybe you wear much baggier clothes than myself, but i am your average white guy with button down shirt and regular pair of slacks... i just make sure any unscrupulous peoples i see hanging out near the ATM stands are aware i am armed.

camden city... you'd do that shit too.

edit: when you roll up to a lonely ATM at 11pm and theres 2 or 3 guys standing around it, and the next ATM isn't for miles, you're telling me you'd risk a confrontation rather than show you are armed?

doomahx
04-19-2011, 16:10
EE;4914873']If someone came into my home uninvited to take my rights away from me, they would have to kill me to take them from me.




Well, i don't think they would just walk into your house like that. Unless you have violent priors they would most likely come to the door with a warrant to search the premises, if you didn't comply they would probably cuff you and put you in a squad car. You can be pretty sure they would use non lethal force so they could run you through the system and if you showed up in front of a judge because you drew a firearm while officers were trying to simply serve a search warrant I don’t think they would be very sympathetic towards you.

I gotta say though, if you are willing to die over losing SOME(not all) of your guns that seems pretty silly to me and I would hope you value your own life more than that. For all you know the law could be overturned a year later and then you died for absolutely no reason.. i doubt your family would deal with that very well.

Permanent solutions to temporary problems aren't very smart.

[LoD] EE
04-19-2011, 16:13
well its a simple thing... my shirt rode up past my holster. im sure that happens to you all the time if you use a hip holster, or maybe you wear much baggier clothes than myself, but i am your average white guy with button down shirt and regular pair of slacks... i just make sure any unscrupulous peoples i see hanging out near the ATM stands are aware i am armed.

camden city... you'd do that shit too.

I wear a hip holser when I am out fishing, the pistol stays exposed as I didnt have my CCW.

As for concealed, I will be using a Supertuck Deluxe from Crossbreed, its a IWB holster. I am your average white guy as well, 6'2" and 200 pounds. You should research the supertuck, I think it would be perfect for you. You tube some reviews, google image it as well. its one of the best holsters on the market.

It is also your duty to make sure your weapon is not exposed. If that requires longer shirts, so be it.

The way I see it is like this. If they know you are armed, if they do ever decide to rob you, they will just shoot you first from behind. Best not let them know you have the advantage until you need it.

[LoD] EE
04-19-2011, 16:18
Well, i don't think they would just walk into your house like that. Unless you have violent priors they would most likely come to the door with a warrant to search the premises, if you didn't comply they would probably cuff you and put you in a squad car. You can be pretty sure they would use non lethal force so they could run you through the system and if you showed up in front of a judge because you drew a firearm while officers were trying to simply serve a search warrant I don’t think they would be very sympathetic towards you.

I gotta say though, if you are willing to die over losing SOME(not all) of your guns that seems pretty silly to me and I would hope you value your own life more than that. For all you know the law could be overturned a year later and then you died for absolutely no reason.. i doubt your family would deal with that very well.

No way in hell would I be spending $150 to get my CCW if I had violent priors. They do a detailed background check at the federal level before issuing you a CCW.

The Government has no reason to confiscate weapons from your average citizen so I dont think there will ever be a real issue with it. If there is for some reason a ban and round up of 'weapon x', you sure as hell better believe I wont be giving it up. If the government was not attempting to screw the people, they would not need to remove the only thing the people have to assert leverage and get things right.

You continue to stand there as the government continues to take, take and take. When you have nothing left, let me know how that workes out for you.

zato`1
04-19-2011, 16:21
i feel differently, having known some people from that criminal element. they seek only victims, and the less like a victim you appear, the less chance you stand of getting harassed/robbed.

if you try to imagine it from a professional standpoint, it would be completely unwise to challenge someone you know is armed when the next person is going to be a powderpuff.

i understand the carrying laws but i feel like they dont really apply to "real life" a lot of the time because the simple fact you are carrying a gun is enough of a deterrence for 99% of criminals. it doesnt do anyone any good to have the situation escalated - even if i had a gun and somebody robbed me id give them my money- thats easy to recover. i would only ever use my gun to shoot someone else if it was truly a threat to my life. truthfully, no bs, i cannot picture a scenario in my life where i will need to actually fire my weapon to defend myself.

i am CERTAINLY not going to shoot a man over $80 from a ATM and my debit card that he cant even use. thats what i mean when i say, i feel its more important to show you are armed.

i think you live in an area where you dont see a lot of people with guns. over here you see mexican and black gangbangers on the corners with what appear to be illegal weapons blatantly drawn. there just arent enough cops (or they dont give enough of a shit) to patrol all the streets where people are... so you gotta take it upon yourself.

a gun does me no good if the guy has already decided to rob me, because like i said, if he wants my money he can take it, i value both my life and life in general too highly to willingly put myself into a lethal situation, and i think that if you don't see that, then you're a crazed gun nut.

Adûn_East
04-19-2011, 16:28
I support this thread, for I too possess a deadly weapon, which I strategically keep concealed by way of trousers. If anyone dared attempt to part me from it, you could bet we would have more than words, for I wield it with deadly purpose, and it bears me much fruit, especially with my duel partner. I'm with you all the way on this one, [LoD] EE.

Napalm_Enema
04-19-2011, 16:37
I'd shoot a mother fucker if he stole $80 from me.

Just saying.

Laxe
04-19-2011, 16:50
EE;4915047']No way in hell would I be spending $150 to get my CCW if I had violent priors. They do a detailed background check at the federal level before issuing you a CCW.

The Government has no reason to confiscate weapons from your average citizen so I dont think there will ever be a real issue with it. If there is for some reason a ban and round up of 'weapon x', you sure as hell better believe I wont be giving it up. If the government was not attempting to screw the people, they would not need to remove the only thing the people have to assert leverage and get things right.

You continue to stand there as the government continues to take, take and take. When you have nothing left, let me know how that workes out for you.


lol you fit american stereotypes so well

[LoD] EE
04-19-2011, 16:54
i feel differently, having known some people from that criminal element. they seek only victims, and the less like a victim you appear, the less chance you stand of getting harassed/robbed.

if you try to imagine it from a professional standpoint, it would be completely unwise to challenge someone you know is armed when the next person is going to be a powderpuff.

i understand the carrying laws but i feel like they dont really apply to "real life" a lot of the time because the simple fact you are carrying a gun is enough of a deterrence for 99% of criminals. it doesnt do anyone any good to have the situation escalated - even if i had a gun and somebody robbed me id give them my money- thats easy to recover. i would only ever use my gun to shoot someone else if it was truly a threat to my life. truthfully, no bs, i cannot picture a scenario in my life where i will need to actually fire my weapon to defend myself.

i am CERTAINLY not going to shoot a man over $80 from a ATM and my debit card that he cant even use. thats what i mean when i say, i feel its more important to show you are armed.

i think you live in an area where you dont see a lot of people with guns. over here you see mexican and black gangbangers on the corners with what appear to be illegal weapons blatantly drawn. there just arent enough cops (or they dont give enough of a shit) to patrol all the streets where people are... so you gotta take it upon yourself.

a gun does me no good if the guy has already decided to rob me, because like i said, if he wants my money he can take it, i value both my life and life in general too highly to willingly put myself into a lethal situation, and i think that if you don't see that, then you're a crazed gun nut.

I am talking about those who dont give a fuck. They would sooner shoot you in the back, take your money and your pistol, as its extra loot. Some criminals are scared of an armed person, others are not. No reason to advertise, advertising you are armed can put you at added risk so there is no point in doing it.

Shooting someone over $80 is pointless, shooting someone to protect yourself or others isnt. I dont go putting myself in the situations to have to figure out if and when I will need to use my pistol, I hope I never do but if the time comes that I do need to, know this, I wont hesitate to do so.

[LoD] EE
04-19-2011, 17:12
lol you fit american stereotypes so well

And you fit the type that has a 'king and queen' and no elected officials. Hows that doing you?

Oh wait.. ours aint doing us good either :D

Regardless, you cant invoke change of leadership ever as you have disarmed yourselves and become the prey of the criminals. Hows your sheep dog of a police system been doing when it comes to protecting you? Whistle and Nightstick? Really? LOL!

FIREARM FACTS

The NRA's call to help arm Britain in 1940 resulted in the collection of more than 7,000 firearms for Britain's defense against potential invasion by Germany (Britain had virtually disarmed itself with a series of gun control laws enacted between World War I and World War II).

During Word War II one of the reasons the Japanese were reluctant to invade the US was due to the number of firearms in private citizens hands.

9mm Parabellum: The word "parabellum" is derived from the Latin meaning "if you seek peace, prepare for war"

Suicide - Firearms. One might want to study the correlation, not between firearms and suicide, but between alcohol or drug consumption - the causes - and suicide. According to the World Health Organization, suicide rates in Ireland are marginally less than the US and endemic - nearly double - in Japan. Gun control in Ireland and Japan is absolute.

Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are low comparable to other developed countries, such as the UK, Australia, Finland, notwithstanding the much lower levels of gun ownership in those countries.

The number of handguns used in crime (approximately 7,500 per year) is very small compared to the approximately 70 million handguns in the United States (i.e., 0.011%). [Committee on Law and Justice (2004). "Chapter 4", Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. National Academy of Science]

raja
04-19-2011, 17:14
in switzerland everybody has an ak and is highly trained in using it, and they have practically no crime...

[LoD] EE
04-19-2011, 17:22
in switzerland everybody has an ak and is highly trained in using it, and they have practically no crime...

The problem here is, the Government and Liberals are trying to disarm the population while at the same time, the criminals and gangs are getting military training and finally learning how to USE the weapons they have been holding sideways for so long.

Gangs in the military (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpMg393Imk4)
Gangs In the US military - History Channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5LU64FGe5A&feature=related)

[LoD] EE
04-19-2011, 18:14
lol you fit american stereotypes so well

You know, I would really love to hear you elaborate on that a little more. Lets hear this dumbass argument of yours, please.

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-20-2011, 00:51
Benelli, accept no substitute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5uHt4AwYb4

he totalled admitted to the use of a aimbot...



Its a good thing your parents didnt abort you so you could waste our oxygen.
to be fair 95% of the world population dont give a shit about owning a gun.

The only countries I know with that kind of mentality are arab countries :P



I personally want a real assault rifle if I can get my hands on it. .22s are really high velocity though. I am not old enough to own a handgun yet, but I can own a shotgun if I wanted. 6 more months until I get a concealed permit + a .45 handgun. No more feeling unsafe at the ATM at 10pm no more. what the fuck. I've never felt unsafe at an atm at night. are you living in a third world country or something?

FACT: if someone try to rob you at an ATM, he will come from behind and you wont fucking see him. if he has a gun (or a knife for that matter) and you try to grab your gun, you're gonna get shot/stabbed before you get to make a move.



I grew up firing my fathers 1911 government issue I feel like calling BS on that. government guns are usually not allowed to be taken home, first. second they use service ammos which are not found on market. At least it's like that up here and every bullet used must be justified. A cop caught taking his gun out of his workplace for anything other then the job can be suspended/lose it's job.


You know, I would really love to hear you elaborate on that a little more. Lets hear this dumbass argument of yours, please. you live in a war zone in which you think you NEED a gun to feel safe...

Let's be honest, I dont have a gun but I went hunting a few time. If I was a cop/military or even a judge/journalists covering serious criminal activities I'd probably own a handgun but that's really the only people who NEED it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Auger

But then again I have to be fair. The criminals in the US will shoot rather then go in Jail.



17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths. in the US while Canada has like 580 TOTAL murders per year.

PS: that means that if population of both countries were thesame it would be around 5200 murders per year total in Canada

[LoD] EE
04-20-2011, 01:11
[QUOTE=Ragnarok Delrhe;4915770

to be fair 95% of the world population dont give a shit about owning a gun.

The only countries I know with that kind of mentality are arab countries :P [/quote]

Firearms have been the most important thing to own over the last several hundred years, before that, it was a sword.

Remember, we are one super disaster away from the US being like the arab countries. One massive power failure could cause a large portion of the US to go into the dark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Blackout_of_2003

Read up about the blackout of 2003. Imagine that lasting for a month or two. Imagine the lawlessness that would go on. No power for cell phones, no power for phones, no nothing.. how would you call the police? Smoke Signal? How would you protect your property, family, yourself? Praying? LOL!

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-20-2011, 01:32
EE;4915781']Firearms have been the most important thing to own over the last several hundred years, before that, it was a sword.

Remember, we are one super disaster away from the US being like the arab countries. One massive power failure could cause a large portion of the US to go into the dark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Blackout_of_2003

Read up about the blackout of 2003. Imagine that lasting for a month or two. Imagine the lawlessness that would go on. No power for cell phones, no power for phones, no nothing.. how would you call the police? Smoke Signal? How would you protect your property, family, yourself? Praying? LOL!
I dont pray. and I know what you mean But I love my province. 95% of our electricity comes from hydro-electric plants :P


actually: 96.8% for hydro-electric plants, 0.1% for windmills.

Rokstarr
04-20-2011, 01:34
EE;4915003']Complete and utter bullshit. The only time a 9mm wont stop someone is if they are wearing heavy clothing but that isnt because of the round itself but the design. The problem is, the HP rounds get clogged from the clothing and expand early, causing them to not penetrate like they should. That is why cops dont use cheap HP rounds anymore, they use the Hornady Critical Defense. It penetrates the clothing, mushrooms constantly and does what it is designed to do, stop the threat. .45's have a harder time with heavy clothing as well because of the lower muzzle velocity.

I shot a guy in Konar with a .308 (M24) from 110 meters 2 inches from his heart (fucking wind kicked up on me). He ran 150 meters before collapsing, carrying his AK with him.

I shot a guy in Korengal 3 times (once in the intestines, once in the shoulder, once in the wrist) with .556 (M4) at 450 meters. He ran 1.5km down a mountain to a marine VCP where he turned himself in to get surgery. He had half his intestines removed. He didn't die until 6 months later when he was released on his trip home.

I shot a guy in Kamdesh 3 times center mass at 15 feet. He sprayed a burst of .762 from his AK at me, and didn't drop until I hit him in the top of his head.

I watched an MP from a squad I was working with get shot in the upper mandible from about 10 feet by a .9mm pistol. The bullet lodged in his upper mandible and he killed the guy who shot him. He didn't even lose any teeth (though the bottom of his nose was fucked up).

Bullets don't stop grown men immediately unless you take out the brain or the spine, so I'll take a heavier round every time that's going to pull more shit out of the exit wound.


EE;4915003']
Also.. pistols dont use clips, they use magazines.

True.

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-20-2011, 01:41
Suicide - Firearms. One might want to study the correlation, not between firearms and suicide, but between alcohol or drug consumption - the causes - and suicide. According to the World Health Organization, suicide rates in Ireland are marginally less than the US and endemic - nearly double - in Japan. Gun control in Ireland and Japan is absolute. suicide problems are common with countries that have been recently or not been invaded or are still under occupation.


edit: or straight up at war on their land.



I shot a guy in Konar with a .308 (M24) from 110 meters 2 inches from his heart (fucking wind kicked up on me). He ran 150 meters before collapsing, carrying his AK with him.

I shot a guy in Korengal 3 times (once in the intestines, once in the shoulder, once in the wrist) with .556 (M4) at 450 meters. He ran 1.5km down a mountain to a marine VCP where he turned himself in to get surgery. He had half his intestines removed. He didn't die until 6 months later when he was released on his trip home.

I shot a guy in Kamdesh 3 times center mass at 15 feet. He sprayed a burst of .762 from his AK at me, and didn't drop until I hit him in the top of his head.

I watched an MP from a squad I was working with get shot in the upper mandible from about 10 feet by a .9mm pistol. The bullet lodged in his upper mandible and he killed the guy who shot him. He didn't even lose any teeth (though the bottom of his nose was fucked up).

Bullets don't stop grown men immediately unless you take out the brain or the spine, so I'll take a heavier round every time that's going to pull more shit out of the exit wound.

hit the heart or a lung and it will be much quicker. Isnt the M-16 going to be replaced by the US military because at long range it lacks power? 450 meters is a long time. a 9 MM pistol shooting at a 90 ° angle will drop before even reaching that.

a guts shot always took long to kill, same with a shoulder and let's not mention the wrist. a shot in the heart is an "instant" kill.

I dont know how much power it still has at 450 meters but it's probably really low

Rokstarr
04-20-2011, 01:57
hit the heart or a lung and it will be much quicker. Isnt the M-16 going to be replaced by the US military because at long range it lacks power? 450 meters is a long time. a 9 MM pistol shooting at a 90 ° angle will drop before even reaching that.

a guts shot always took long to kill, same with a shoulder and let's not mention the wrist. a shot in the heart is an "instant" kill.

the 5.56 ball was never designed to kill in the first place, it was designed to wound (by catching bone and tumbling). wounding takes 3 people out of the fights, killing only takes 1.

as far as being replaced, i dont know. havn't been in since 08. i do love the m4 though, despite it's lacking power; it's a wonderful CQB weapon.

Ya, a gut shot will certainly take a long time to kill; the reason i mentioned it however was to demonstrate that human beings are a lot more capable and resilient then people think; regardless of time-to-kill, running that far down a mountain with 3 bullets in you is an impressive feat, and IMO, demonstrates the potential of a human beings survival instinct. Just as getting a hole drilled through your chest 2 inches from your heart by a .308 and running with your weapon before collapsing does.

Seriousbisnis
04-20-2011, 02:05
EE;4913974'] Putting holes in baby blue helmets will be a sport of mine if anyone attempts to rid me of my personal protection.

You must live in a bad city or something. Protection from what, exactly? Home invasion?

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-20-2011, 02:13
the 5.56 ball was never designed to kill in the first place, it was designed to wound (by catching bone and tumbling). wounding takes 3 people out of the fights, killing only takes 1.

as far as being replaced, i dont know. havn't been in since 08. i do love the m4 though, despite it's lacking power; it's a wonderful CQB weapon.

Ya, a gut shot will certainly take a long time to kill; the reason i mentioned it however was to demonstrate that human beings are a lot more capable and resilient then people think; regardless of time-to-kill, running that far down a mountain with 3 bullets in you is an impressive feat, and IMO, demonstrates the potential of a human beings survival instinct. Just as getting a hole drilled through your chest 2 inches from your heart by a .308 and running with your weapon before collapsing does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EudD51v9uHo

he explains straight up why they want to replace the M-16 for it. cause it knocks the target on the ground at long range.
it's using a 6.8 mm spc and it's designed to work with a suppressor.

1998altima
04-20-2011, 02:26
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EudD51v9uHo

he explains straight up why they want to replace the M-16 for it. cause it knocks the target on the ground at long range.
it's using a 6.8 mm and it's designed to work with a suppressor.

I don't mean to be rude but you shouldn't take that shit seriously.

The time for the 6.8 SPC has come and gone, it was not worth the cost according to USSOCOM. If the high speed guys ain't getting it then neither is the 'big military'.

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-20-2011, 04:00
I don't mean to be rude but you shouldn't take that shit seriously.

The time for the 6.8 SPC has come and gone, it was not worth the cost according to USSOCOM. If the high speed guys ain't getting it then neither is the 'big military'.

well they are trying to find something better then the m-16 otherwise they wouldnt be looking for something better...

ArmyOkie
04-20-2011, 04:26
t

What unit did you serve with?

Sqarak
04-20-2011, 08:31
i feel differently, having known some people from that criminal element. they seek only victims, and the less like a victim you appear, the less chance you stand of getting harassed/robbed.

if you try to imagine it from a professional standpoint, it would be completely unwise to challenge someone you know is armed when the next person is going to be a powderpuff.

i understand the carrying laws but i feel like they dont really apply to "real life" a lot of the time because the simple fact you are carrying a gun is enough of a deterrence for 99% of criminals. it doesnt do anyone any good to have the situation escalated - even if i had a gun and somebody robbed me id give them my money- thats easy to recover. i would only ever use my gun to shoot someone else if it was truly a threat to my life. truthfully, no bs, i cannot picture a scenario in my life where i will need to actually fire my weapon to defend myself.

i am CERTAINLY not going to shoot a man over $80 from a ATM and my debit card that he cant even use. thats what i mean when i say, i feel its more important to show you are armed.

i think you live in an area where you dont see a lot of people with guns. over here you see mexican and black gangbangers on the corners with what appear to be illegal weapons blatantly drawn. there just arent enough cops (or they dont give enough of a shit) to patrol all the streets where people are... so you gotta take it upon yourself.

a gun does me no good if the guy has already decided to rob me, because like i said, if he wants my money he can take it, i value both my life and life in general too highly to willingly put myself into a lethal situation, and i think that if you don't see that, then you're a crazed gun nut.

This is one of the most sane posts I've read from someone carrying a gun around here. I'd plus you if I could.

[LoD] EE
04-20-2011, 14:42
Ill post it again because it pertains to this conversation.


"The Gun Is Civilization"

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act !!

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

zato`1
04-20-2011, 14:44
i dont think my gun makes me unafraid.......

thats going a little far

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-20-2011, 15:49
EE;4916620']Ill post it again because it pertains to this conversation.

that's coming from a marine. It's like a pedo saying he doesnt hurt kids, you cant take that to the letter cause well he has some agenda obviously.

I dont think a man/woman cheating on his wife/husband is using either reason or force. He's using stupidity.



People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

false. There is over 4 time the people per capita being prosecuted in the USA then there is in Canada. Whilst owning a gun is legal (some legislation about magazines for assaults rifles, etc.) in Canada, carrying it is less obvious



AUTHORIZATION TO CARRY

Carry of a handgun, whether open or concealed, requires an Authorization to Carry Restricted Firearms and Prohibited Handguns (download form CAFC 680 here).

This particular license is almost impossible to get. It's issued to armored car personnel and occasionally to trappers and other workers in the bush. Authorizations to Carry are unique is that there is no appeal from a refusal of an application for an ATC; "no" means no.

I have never heard of a non-resident successfully obtaining it.

There is a third type of Authorization To Carry, described in Firearms Act section 20(a), and with the following regulations:

For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where

(a) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals;
(b) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and
(c) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.

StainlessSteelRat
04-20-2011, 20:28
false. There is over 4 time the people per capita being prosecuted in the USA then there is in Canada. Whilst owning a gun is legal (some legislation about magazines for assaults rifles, etc.) in Canada, carrying it is less obvious

Nothing here ^^ supports your claim of 'false'.

StainlessSteelRat
04-20-2011, 20:37
in the US while Canada has like 580 TOTAL murders per year.

PS: that means that if population of both countries were thesame it would be around 5200 murders per year total in Canada

Again, ^^ so what? There's no causation in your information. It doesn't matter if Canada's crime rate is lower than the US in absolute. You have to show that gun control is the reason for the lower crime rate. No one ever has been able to demonstrate that; quite the contrary actually.

PS: that means your argument is poorly constructed and inherently flawed.

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-20-2011, 22:01
Again, ^^ so what? There's no causation in your information. It doesn't matter if Canada's crime rate is lower than the US in absolute. You have to show that gun control is the reason for the lower crime rate. No one ever has been able to demonstrate that; quite the contrary actually.

PS: that means your argument is poorly constructed and inherently flawed.



http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_hom_wit_fir-crime-gun-violence-homicides-firearms

39% homicides by guns in the USA

here's a tip Canada doesnt even make the list so it's lower then 2%


PS: I quoted the wrong message with the false thingy.

Bissen
04-20-2011, 22:09
Dey tuk our gunz!!!

StainlessSteelRat
04-20-2011, 22:16
39% homicides by guns in the USA

here's a tip Canada doesnt even make the list so it's lower then 2%

You don't understand what causation means, do you?

Gun control is only a factor in the number of homicides if changes in gun laws result in lower rates which is the opposite of what the data shows. Without causation, all the stats you post are meaningless.

Here's a tip: that means that if all the guns in the US disappeared today and the total number of homicides in the US did not change, guns are not a dependent variable in the murder rate. To put it another way, if all the guns disappeared and the homicide rate dropped 39%, you might have a point. But that's not what happens when gun control is increased.

Bissen
04-20-2011, 22:21
You don't understand what causation means, do you?

Gun control is only a factor in the number of homicides if changes in gun laws result in lower rates which is the opposite of what the data shows. Without causation, all the stats you post are meaningless.

Here's a tip: that means that if all the guns in the US disappeared today and the total number of homicides in the US did not change, guns are not a dependent variable in the murder rate. To put it another way, if all the guns disappeared and the homicide rate dropped 39%, you might have a point. But that's not what happens when gun control is increased.

Agreed. America is socially fucked either way.

Rokstarr
04-20-2011, 22:49
Dey tuk our gunz!!!

You quoting Cpt. John Parker?

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-21-2011, 00:04
You don't understand what causation means, do you?


let me google translate it :(


Here's a tip: that means that if all the guns in the US disappeared today and the total number of homicides in the US did not change, guns are not a dependent variable in the murder rate. To put it another way, if all the guns disappeared and the homicide rate dropped 39%, you might have a point. But that's not what happens when gun control is increased.

It's easier to murder someone with a gun then to murder him with your fists or even a knife? but again your country is fucked up. In Canada people dont get shot(like 40 time) by the cops because they are robbing a car. I've seen that happen a few time in the USA. So either way they would probably drop. I'd like you to show me those allegedly stats saying it's not true. I've shown you numbers show me yours.

PS: Bissen, America is not a country, it's not even a continent. You have the americas or the North America/South America. If you wanted to call your country America you should have named it America. You're a united-statian.

zato`1
04-21-2011, 03:48
united-statian LOLOLOLLOL

do we need to conquer your country or something for you to understand the USA -IS- America?

fuckin euros man, fuckin euros

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-21-2011, 04:52
united-statian LOLOLOLLOL

do we need to conquer your country or something for you to understand the USA -IS- America?

fuckin euros man, fuckin euros

Did you learn how to read?

here's a tip:
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/2793/locationv.png (http://img838.imageshack.us/i/locationv.png/)

xpiher
04-21-2011, 05:12
what do you all think of a kindergartener showing up to school with a pistol causing injury to himself and a classmate? (WSJ story)

Sure, the second amendment is important, but what do you have in place to prevent shit like that from happening and punishing that kind of stupidity? Some gun advocates say requiring a lock to be on weapon is going too far.

bongloads
04-21-2011, 08:21
what do you all think of a kindergartener showing up to school with a pistol causing injury to himself and a classmate? (WSJ story)

Sure, the second amendment is important, but what do you have in place to prevent shit like that from happening and punishing that kind of stupidity? Some gun advocates say requiring a lock to be on weapon is going too far.

Requiring a lock is going too far. Making a rule to compensate for every single retard in the country is not the answer. Just because this kid's parents are retarded, doesn't mean the rest of us are, or should be treated as such.

xpiher
04-21-2011, 09:02
Requiring a lock is going too far. Making a rule to compensate for every single retard in the country is not the answer. Just because this kid's parents are retarded, doesn't mean the rest of us are, or should be treated as such.

Then what do you purpose? What if, you don't lock your weapon up and something like that happens then you go to prison for reckless endangerment?

bongloads
04-21-2011, 10:08
Then what do you purpose? What if, you don't lock your weapon up and something like that happens then you go to prison for reckless endangerment?

Seems like a far better alternative. I believe punishing the one person for their actions/inactions instead of punishing everybody as a preventative measure is usually best.

Emolas
04-21-2011, 10:33
You have the americas

How about no. Saying america in spanish doesn't make a difference.

Weeking
04-21-2011, 12:53
what do you all think of a kindergartener showing up to school with a pistol causing injury to himself and a classmate? (WSJ story)

Sure, the second amendment is important, but what do you have in place to prevent shit like that from happening and punishing that kind of stupidity? Some gun advocates say requiring a lock to be on weapon is going too far.

That's natural selection at work. If it becomes a big mortality factor, the population will naturally stop doing it. If it's not a big factor, it's not a big deal and we can ignore it.

Also the school, or education system, is to blame for accepting retard kids from retard parents in the first place without taking special precautions like requiring that they don't live at home or actually educate kids in keeping out of danger since retard parents are too stupid or lazy to do so. F ex not sticking things in the electrical socket, not crossing the road like a retard, not playing in the road, not eating non-food substances, not eating poisonous material, keeping basic hygiene, getting proper nutrition etc.

StainlessSteelRat
04-21-2011, 13:23
Agreed. America is socially fucked either way.

Correct. Our problem is not guns but that people are willing to kill each other for sneakers.


It's easier to murder someone with a gun then to murder him with your fists or even a knife? but again your country is fucked up. In Canada people dont get shot(like 40 time) by the cops because they are robbing a car. I've seen that happen a few time in the USA. So either way they would probably drop. I'd like you to show me those allegedly stats saying it's not true. I've shown you numbers show me yours.

You still don't understand causation. I don't need numbers, you are trying to establish a cause-effect relationship, not me.

StainlessSteelRat
04-21-2011, 13:26
what do you all think of a kindergartener showing up to school with a pistol causing injury to himself and a classmate? (WSJ story)

Sure, the second amendment is important, but what do you have in place to prevent shit like that from happening and punishing that kind of stupidity?

There is legal recourse for anyone injured. Beyond that, what fairy tale land do you think you are living in where "Shit Happens" has become "We Prevent All Shit"? It's not possible and all attempts to achieve that goal require forfeiture of liberty.

raapnaap
04-21-2011, 14:31
I just don't get it honestly, why do American citizens need guns, when everyone else in the world does not? Are they that paranoid to think 'some bad guy' can jump them around every corner that they need guns to 'protect themselves'?

I mean, the whole situation is just weird to me.

Glabro
04-21-2011, 15:02
WTF? Are we all living on the same planet? I never ever felt or though about a need to own a gun to shoot at other people...

[LoD] EE
04-21-2011, 15:03
Then what do you purpose? What if, you don't lock your weapon up and something like that happens then you go to prison for reckless endangerment?

My pistol is sitting here, right next to my monitor, loaded, 1 in the chamber, all I have to do is grab, point and shoot. Thing is, no kids in the house. When my nephew comes over, I put the pistol in my room and lock the door. Otherwise, its always ready to be used if need be.

As for the parents, they are responsible for their fire arm. You cant blame everyone for the stupidity of 1 or 2 dumbasses. How many morons text and drive? Should we remove all cell phones and cars because of it?

Napalm_Enema
04-21-2011, 15:05
I just don't get it honestly, why do American citizens need guns, when everyone else in the world does not? Are they that paranoid to think 'some bad guy' can jump them around every corner that they need guns to 'protect themselves'?

I mean, the whole situation is just weird to me.

Because we have a lot of criminals, that used to work our fields, running amok and being criminals. If they weren't here we wouldn't need as many guns. :ninja:

[LoD] EE
04-21-2011, 15:08
Because we have a lot of criminals, that used to work our fields, running amok and being criminals. If they weren't here we wouldn't need as many guns. :ninja:

Well, it is true we have a lot of criminals here illegally running around, raping our children.

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-21-2011, 15:16
You still don't understand causation. I don't need numbers, you are trying to establish a cause-effect relationship, not me.

Yes I do. You dont. 39% of murders in the USA compared to less then 2.5% in Canada In populations that are both relatively close, where the culture is kind of similar (at least in the north of the US) the murder rate is roughly 3 time lower per capita. You said that studies prove that guns are not the cause. Prove it or shut the fuck up.


I just don't get it honestly, why do American citizens need guns, when everyone else in the world does not? Are they that paranoid to think 'some bad guy' can jump them around every corner that they need guns to 'protect themselves'?
they watch too much Hollywood movies


There is legal recourse for anyone injured. Beyond that, what fairy tale land do you think you are living in where "Shit Happens" has become "We Prevent All Shit"? It's not possible and all attempts to achieve that goal require forfeiture of liberty. yeah like a government with the right to arrest/listen to anyone without a reason. I think canadians have more right then americans and we dont have the right to carry guns geeze I though a country where people cant carry guns had no civil rights.



Because we have a lot of criminals, that used to work our fields, running amok and being criminals. If they weren't here we wouldn't need as many guns I bet you most of those illegals are better citizens then rednecks who think that carrying a gun is a necessity.



My pistol is sitting here, right next to my monitor, loaded, 1 in the chamber, all I have to do is grab, point and shoot. Thing is, no kids in the house. When my nephew comes over, I put the pistol in my room and lock the door. Otherwise, its always ready to be used if need be. obvious paranoia.

StainlessSteelRat
04-21-2011, 15:54
Yes I do. You dont. 39% of murders in the USA compared to less then 2.5% in Canada In populations that are both relatively close, where the culture is kind of similar (at least in the north of the US) the murder rate is roughly 3 time lower per capita. You said that studies prove that guns are not the cause. Prove it or shut the fuck up.

You presented data to make the claim that guns cause crimes. You are a mental infant if you can't see the flaws in your argument.

I did state that studies show the opposite moreso than what you claim but I'm not here to prove anything. It's been done before. My only intent is to refute your claim which I have done. If you can't see the flaws in your argument despite how simply I expressed it, there's just no hope for you. Any moron (see mirror) can regurgitate data from nationmaster, understanding the data is a different matter entirely.

StainlessSteelRat
04-21-2011, 15:58
yeah like a government with the right to arrest/listen to anyone without a reason. I think canadians have more right then americans and we dont have the right to carry guns geeze I though a country where people cant carry guns had no civil rights.

English please. Or French. Something that makes sense.

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-21-2011, 16:24
You presented data to make the claim that guns cause crimes. You are a mental infant if you can't see the flaws in your argument.

I did state that studies show the opposite moreso than what you claim but I'm not here to prove anything. It's been done before. My only intent is to refute your claim which I have done. If you can't see the flaws in your argument despite how simply I expressed it, there's just no hope for you. Any moron (see mirror) can regurgitate data from nationmaster, understanding the data is a different matter entirely.

what? I presented data that said that 39% of murders are with guns in the US as oppose to less then 2.5% in Canada where gun-laws are more strict. I have also admitted that the culture in the US is more fucked up then it is in Canada. You're just a plain troll trying to piss someone off.



English please. Or French. Something that makes sense.

patriot act, no second amendment in Canada + Lod EE's claim that a country without the right to carry arms has less civil rights then one letting their citizens carry arms.

StainlessSteelRat
04-21-2011, 16:26
what? I presented data that said that 39% of murders are with guns in the US as oppose to less then 2.5% in Canada where gun-laws are more strict. I have also admitted that the culture in the US is more fucked up then it is in Canada. You're just a plain troll trying to piss someone off.

Ah, so there is no link between the gun control and the homicide rates? Why did you post it then? You just browse the forum and post random stats?

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-21-2011, 16:30
Ah, so there is no link between the gun control and the homicide rates? Why did you post it then? You just browse the forum and post random stats?

there is a link. A gun can be used in homicides. That's about it. The murder rate in the USA is roughly 3 time higher per capita then it is in Canada. Why? I have no fucking clue. it's just extrapolation but it may certainly be caused by the redneck mentality that Lod EE is showing in this thread. You said you had proof that it was not gun-related, show me I'd like to read it.

[LoD] EE
04-21-2011, 17:25
there is a link. A gun can be used in homicides. That's about it. The murder rate in the USA is roughly 3 time higher per capita then it is in Canada. Why? I have no fucking clue. it's just extrapolation but it may certainly be caused by the redneck mentality that Lod EE is showing in this thread. You said you had proof that it was not gun-related, show me I'd like to read it.

A pencil can be used to murder someone you dipshit, should we ban pencils?

The reason why there are more is quite simple.

Large number of people in a confined space, low income, low education, unable to resolve thier differences via talking so they result to guns. LET THEM KILL THEMSELVES!!!! They are removing themselves from the gene pool, let them continue to do so since we as a species have pretty much stopped natural selection. We let the dumbest and fattest motherfuckers breed to pass on their dumb fat genes.. At least let the other dumb fucks kill themselves and weed out a useless.

Why do you want to stop them?

zato`1
04-21-2011, 17:30
okay you lost all credibility when you said its paranoia to lock a gun away when theres a kid around.

speaking from fucking experience, i know for a fact: guns are shiny and AWESOME when you're a kid. you don't ever present that opportunity to a kid because they WILL take it. its not paranoia, its making the right decision. the gun i played with had a safety and i couldnt take it off, not all guns have one... my own revolver for example, could be picked up by a 6 year old and he could accidentally shoot himself. i dont have any kids in my life at all except my brothers niece who doesnt come over anymore, but i sure as fuck put my weapon in a fire vault when she did come over.

StainlessSteelRat
04-21-2011, 18:52
there is a link. A gun can be used in homicides. That's about it. The murder rate in the USA is roughly 3 time higher per capita then it is in Canada. Why? I have no fucking clue. it's just extrapolation but it may certainly be caused by the redneck mentality that Lod EE is showing in this thread. You said you had proof that it was not gun-related, show me I'd like to read it.

Make up your mind. You have no idea and posted random stats or there is a link and you are extrapolating...... Can't have it both ways.

I already told you, I don't give a shit about convincing you. You can't even grasp the concept of causation. Why would I waste even more time trying to explain a study on gun control as it relates to crime rates.......

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-21-2011, 18:56
EE;4918639']A pencil can be used to murder someone you dipshit, should we ban pencils?

Takes a lot of fucking will to kill someone with a pencil compared to a gun. You can shot someone in the leg and kill that person if you hit the right blood vessel.


I already told you, I don't give a shit about convincing you. You can't even grasp the concept of causation. Why would I waste even more time trying to explain a study on gun control as it relates to crime rates....... I asked for the link cause I want to inform myself. Looks like that link doesnt exist.


Why do you want to stop them?I dont really give a shit about them to be honest. I'm not agreeing with your statement that guns protect civil rights.

Shrang
04-21-2011, 19:18
EE;4918375']
As for the parents, they are responsible for their fire arm. You cant blame everyone for the stupidity of 1 or 2 dumbasses. How many morons text and drive? Should we remove all cell phones and cars because of it?

Just going to throw this out there,and it may not be so where you are located, but in Texas you get a ticket for texting while driving... which means that the comparison seems rather humorous.

[LoD] EE
04-21-2011, 19:35
Takes a lot of fucking will to kill someone with a pencil compared to a gun. You can shot someone in the leg and kill that person if you hit the right blood vessel.

I asked for the link cause I want to inform myself. Looks like that link doesnt exist.

I dont really give a shit about them to be honest. I'm not agreeing with your statement that guns protect civil rights.

Dont be a fucking moron. It takes the same amount of will to kill with a pencil as it does a sword, spoon, gun, bat, baby seal or a sock with batteries in it. When you have the will to kill, it just matters what weapon is the easiest for you to use at the time. If no guns are around, a bat will do, the killing is still going to happen. The tool isnt the problem, the mental state of the person wielding the tool is.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

Chandrasekhar
04-21-2011, 20:28
EE;4918912']Dont be a fucking moron. It takes the same amount of will to kill with a pencil as it does a sword, spoon, gun, bat, baby seal or a sock with batteries in it. When you have the will to kill, it just matters what weapon is the easiest for you to use at the time. If no guns are around, a bat will do, the killing is still going to happen. The tool isnt the problem, the mental state of the person wielding the tool is.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

Oviously a spoon will do when robbing a bank, they'll take you so serious they'll hand over the money in a second!

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-21-2011, 20:41
EE;4918912']Dont be a fucking moron. It takes the same amount of will to kill with a pencil as it does a sword, spoon, gun, bat, baby seal or a sock with batteries in it. When you have the will to kill, it just matters what weapon is the easiest for you to use at the time. If no guns are around, a bat will do, the killing is still going to happen. The tool isnt the problem, the mental state of the person wielding the tool is.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

hmm it takes a lot more will to kill someone with a pencil for the simple fact that it's probably going to take you 10-15 stabs in the neck to kill someone. asuming the pencil doesnt break before. Dont believe Bourne's supremacy or whatever you can hurt someone with a pencil, you're not gonna kill them unless they let you. A knife is more dangerous then a gun in some situations. Sadly we need knives to cut our meat. unless you use your gun to do so.

PS: gun users/hunters are faggot. Using a bow is much more fair to animals.

[LoD] EE
04-21-2011, 21:03
Oviously a spoon will do when robbing a bank, they'll take you so serious they'll hand over the money in a second!

This isnt about robbing a bank with a spoon, this is about murder.

And yes, someone did attempt to rob a bank with a spoon, a polish guy, he was laughed out of the bank.

[LoD] EE
04-21-2011, 21:10
hmm it takes a lot more will to kill someone with a pencil for the simple fact that it's probably going to take you 10-15 stabs in the neck to kill someone. asuming the pencil doesnt break before. Dont believe Bourne's supremacy or whatever you can hurt someone with a pencil, you're not gonna kill them unless they let you. A knife is more dangerous then a gun in some situations. Sadly we need knives to cut our meat. unless you use your gun to do so.

PS: gun users/hunters are faggot. Using a bow is much more fair to animals.

Takes little skill. Stab them in the chest or the back, puncture a lung, they cant breath and they die Its not that hard to do. Believe it or not, pencils are deadly weapons.

Student Stabbed To Death With Pens And Pencils

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/240816#ixzz1KBqXkRY3
(www.digitaljournal.com/article/240816)

And I would not consider a bow fair in the aspect you think its fair. Bows now days are deadly accurate.

What you do need to understand that now days, the skill isnt entirely in the kill. The skill is knowing the animals patterns, finding the clues as to where they have been and luring them in and not being detected. The kill itself is usually pretty easy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTmnltC7aFM

Chandrasekhar
04-21-2011, 21:54
EE;4919069']This isnt about robbing a bank with a spoon, this is about murder.

And yes, someone did attempt to rob a bank with a spoon, a polish guy, he was laughed out of the bank.

The argument you were having was about guns leading to murder.

If you have trouble understanding, I'll explain how it relates to eachother.

StainlessSteelRat
04-21-2011, 21:56
http://www.gunlaws.com/NationalAcademyStudy.htm

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=1

Just FYI -

All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders.
All suicides are homicides also in the US, but not everywhere so compare countries carefully.

[LoD] EE
04-21-2011, 22:15
The argument you were having was about guns leading to murder.

If you have trouble understanding, I'll explain how it relates to eachother.

I know that you stupid fuck, that was the point I was making, if you would pay attention. Here, let me quote it for you one more time so you can reread it.


This isnt about robbing a bank with a spoon, this is about murder.

Now, do you have trouble understanding?

Now onto related news




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/02/2261965.htm
Spoon stabbing puts man in hospital

A man from Shepparton was taken to hospital on Sunday afternoon after being stabbed in the throat with a spoon.

The 18-year-old was stabbed at a home in Maude Street.

He was taken to hospital but was released a short time later.

Another 18-year-old man has been charged over the incident.

He has been released on bail to face the magistrates court in Shepparton later this month.



If you can stab someone with a spoon, you can kill them with it.

Chandrasekhar
04-21-2011, 22:45
EE;4919207']I know that you stupid fuck, that was the point I was making, if you would pay attention. Here, let me quote it for you one more time so you can reread it.


This isnt about robbing a bank with a spoon, this is about murder.

Now, do you have trouble understanding?


Yes. Please analyze your previous posts and my posts. Sentence by sentence.

Rokstarr
04-21-2011, 23:04
http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.1/gun-facts-5.1-screen.pdf

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-22-2011, 01:01
http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.1/gun-facts-5.1-screen.pdf

ty reading

wait a sec: 7 murder per capita in the USA? HUH?




In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a
significant increase. 40 In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of
the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000).41 That made me giggle a lot. 66 years between the 2 dates of course crime rates will change...

xpiher
04-22-2011, 01:09
EE;4918375']My pistol is sitting here, right next to my monitor, loaded, 1 in the chamber, all I have to do is grab, point and shoot. Thing is, no kids in the house. When my nephew comes over, I put the pistol in my room and lock the door. Otherwise, its always ready to be used if need be.

As for the parents, they are responsible for their fire arm. You cant blame everyone for the stupidity of 1 or 2 dumbasses. How many morons text and drive? Should we remove all cell phones and cars because of it?

You didn't answer the question. Do you support tough laws that punish fucking morons who have weapons and don't know how to keep them safe?

Marrik
04-22-2011, 06:12
Cool story bro.

No seriously, my brother just bought a S&W 22 rifle. It looks like an assault rifle, and it made in a way where he can put all sorts of fixtures on it. Red dot, different scopes, lasers, flashlights, etc.

I personally want a real assault rifle if I can get my hands on it. .22s are really high velocity though. I am not old enough to own a handgun yet, but I can own a shotgun if I wanted. 6 more months until I get a concealed permit + a .45 handgun. No more feeling unsafe at the ATM at 10pm no more. I know a concealed permit wont help for that, but I can at least have it in my car.

you live in Florida, right? there are gun shows at the Central Florida Fairgrounds all the time, and you can go their and buy all kinds of weapons for cash on the spot. they dont even care if you have ID with you as long as you have cash. i got glock there when i was 19

Rokstarr
04-22-2011, 14:59
hmm it takes a lot more will to kill someone with a pencil for the simple fact that it's probably going to take you 10-15 stabs in the neck to kill someone. asuming the pencil doesnt break before. Dont believe Bourne

You sir, are unenlightened!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KX3OriDpgg&feature=related



As for that Bourne fellow, to quote Brad Thor:

Jason Bourne is the ultimate liberal superhero,” Thor says. “He doesn’t remember who he is; he was turned into a killing machine by an evil U.S. government; and he’s always portrayed as a persecuted, perpetual victim. Scot Harvath is none of those things.”

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWTzyU5MFgM

[LoD] EE
04-22-2011, 15:03
You didn't answer the question. Do you support tough laws that punish fucking morons who have weapons and don't know how to keep them safe?

I answered it, Parents are responsible for their firearm, which means, if a kid gets it, they are the ones who will share the blamed for it and how it is used.. like it is now.

[LoD] EE
04-22-2011, 15:10
Could have used someone with a CCW (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ec0_1303444048)

StainlessSteelRat
04-22-2011, 15:54
EE;4920238']Could have used someone with a CCW (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ec0_1303444048)

That and a few extra rounds. 99% chance the employees turn on you when you try to defend the girl.

[LoD] EE
04-22-2011, 16:47
That and a few extra rounds. 99% chance the employees turn on you when you try to defend the girl.

Doubt they would. This is just one of many times when seconds count, you cant wait minutes for the police. Had she been armed, perhaps she could have defended herself and ended the altercation early.

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-22-2011, 23:34
EE;4920378']Doubt they would. This is just one of many times when seconds count, you cant wait minutes for the police. Had she been armed, perhaps she could have defended herself and ended the altercation early.

WOW. Yeah just pull out a gun every time you have an argument with someone, you never know.


http://www.kentucky.com/2009/07/07/854207/lexington-doctor-shot-to-death.html dude got shot by his own gun. I can pull retarded links too.

[LoD] EE
04-22-2011, 23:43
WOW. Yeah just pull out a gun every time you have an argument with someone, you never know.


http://www.kentucky.com/2009/07/07/854207/lexington-doctor-shot-to-death.html dude got shot by his own gun. I can pull retarded links too.

Argument? Dude, it was 3 people beating someone down. Stomping and kicking their head, that can fucking kill someone. Damned right you do something about it. What are you going to do? Stand there and watch it happen like the manager? Call 911 and stand there and watch it happen while waiting 5-10 minutes for the police to show up, sit back and pray and hope some supernatural being comes and helps or pull your weapon, and make sure no one else comes near? I would sooner risk my life to save someone elses than be like all the other bitches in the restaurant and sit back and watch some get beat to death.

As for your link, seems the dip shit chose to close in with a knife instead of staying back with the gun. He paid for it. The gun saved the other guys life. Good thing his attacker chose to bring it.

StainlessSteelRat
04-23-2011, 00:13
WOW. Yeah just pull out a gun every time you have an argument with someone, you never know.


http://www.kentucky.com/2009/07/07/854207/lexington-doctor-shot-to-death.html dude got shot by his own gun. I can pull retarded links too.

Stupid link. You just gave an example of why people should have guns.

[LoD] EE
04-23-2011, 00:26
Stupid link. You just gave an example of why people should have guns.

Hes too dumb to understand that.

[LoD] EE
04-23-2011, 00:43
Dad who split up fight in McDonald's shot dead (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/04/21/dad-who-split-up-fight-in-mcdonald-s-shot-dead-115875-23075797/)

A DAD-of-four who split up a fight in a McDonald’s was shot dead moments after being told he wouldn’t see the morning.

Raymond Mitchell, 34, had only popped into the restaurant to buy a hot chocolate.

But he apparently caused offense after splitting up two men fighting in the queue.

One of them, who had several gold teeth, shouted at Raymond: “You are gonna die tonight, you are not gonna see the morning.”

The thug is then said to have phoned an accomplice to fetch a gun, yelling into his mobile: “Bring me that thing.”

Raymond left the 24-hour McDonald’s but was chased into a cul-de-sac. The gun was then delivered and Mr Mitchell was beaten and pistol-whipped before being shot three times in an alley in Brixton, South London, at 6.50am on Sunday. Raymond, nicknamed Brown, was taken to hospital but died hours later.

One neighbor, who saw the shooting but was too terrified to be named, said: “He was begging, literally begging for his life. I didn’t dare look out my window in case they saw me. I heard them laughing and swearing at him, calling him a ‘b***h’. I heard them laughing afterwords as well.”

Raymond’s partner, who asked not to be named, said: “I’m terrified. They’re still out there and they’ve not been caught. I’ve been told how they were laughing, actually laughing after they beat him and shot him. How could anybody do something like that?”

Chandrasekhar
04-23-2011, 00:45
EE;4921065']Dad who split up fight in McDonald's shot dead

A DAD-of-four who split up a fight in a McDonald’s was shot dead moments after being told he wouldn’t see the morning.

Raymond Mitchell, 34, had only popped into the restaurant to buy a hot chocolate.

But he apparently caused offense after splitting up two men fighting in the queue.

One of them, who had several gold teeth, shouted at Raymond: “You are gonna die tonight, you are not gonna see the morning.”

The thug is then said to have phoned an accomplice to fetch a gun, yelling into his mobile: “Bring me that thing.”

Raymond left the 24-hour McDonald’s but was chased into a cul-de-sac. The gun was then delivered and Mr Mitchell was beaten and pistol-whipped before being shot three times in an alley in Brixton, South London, at 6.50am on Sunday. Raymond, nicknamed Brown, was taken to hospital but died hours later.

One neighbor, who saw the shooting but was too terrified to be named, said: “He was begging, literally begging for his life. I didn’t dare look out my window in case they saw me. I heard them laughing and swearing at him, calling him a ‘b***h’. I heard them laughing afterwords as well.”

Raymond’s partner, who asked not to be named, said: “I’m terrified. They’re still out there and they’ve not been caught. I’ve been told how they were laughing, actually laughing after they beat him and shot him. How could anybody do something like that?”
What's all this shit happening in mcdonalds in the us? Is it a meeting place for low lifes or something?

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-23-2011, 00:46
Stupid link. You just gave an example of why people should have guns.

the stupidity of the link was meant :bang: it's even written right behind the link. cant read?



Argument? Dude, it was 3 people beating someone down. Stomping and kicking their head, that can fucking kill someone. Damned right you do something about it. What are you going to do? Stand there and watch it happen like the manager? Call 911 and stand there and watch it happen while waiting 5-10 minutes for the police to show up, sit back and pray and hope some supernatural being comes and helps or pull your weapon, and make sure no one else comes near? I would sooner risk my life to save someone elses than be like all the other bitches in the restaurant and sit back and watch some get beat to death.

nooooooo. white girl has a gun. 3 bitch start fucking her up without a reason. Unless she pulled her gun from the start (which could have very well been interpreted as a hate crime because she pulled a gun just because they're black) the gun wouldnt do shit. If you mean by that a bystander should have pulled a gun at the start of the argument just in case, you're the one who's dumb. Would a bystander have been able to negate the incident if he did, most likely. Or maybe he would have had to shot one of them and which would have led him to make jail time.

Why? Because apart from the head stomp, it is not the use of a lethal weapon. kicks are considered a deadly weapon when the victim is on the ground.

PS: I agree these black bitches need to make jail time and not like 2 years but more like 10-15 years.

[LoD] EE
04-23-2011, 00:46
What's all this shit happening in mcdonalds in the us? Is it a meeting place for low lifes or something?

Notice the underlined.

Also.. McDonalds is the food mecca for the poor and those with horrible taste in food.

And more proof of how a disarmed society is at the mercy of a armed criminal element.

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-23-2011, 01:01
EE;4921072']Notice the underlined.

Also.. McDonalds is the food mecca for the poor and those with horrible taste in food.

And more proof of how a disarmed society is at the mercy of a armed criminal element.


And more proof of how a disarmed society is at the mercy of a armed criminal element.yeah cause having a gun will totally protect you against gang bangers. If anything a bulletproof would have proved more efficient not that it would have necessary helped. (I'm assuming they didnt shoot him in the head otherwise he would have very likely died "instantly".)

The V-Shine
04-23-2011, 01:22
yeah cause having a gun will totally protect you against gang bangers. If anything a bulletproof would have proved more efficient not that it would have necessary helped. (I'm assuming they didnt shoot him in the head otherwise he would have very likely died "instantly".)

As long as they're shooting AT you and not BY you, you should be fine.

[LoD] EE
04-23-2011, 01:33
yeah cause having a gun will totally protect you against gang bangers. If anything a bulletproof would have proved more efficient not that it would have necessary helped. (I'm assuming they didnt shoot him in the head otherwise he would have very likely died "instantly".)

Bulletproof vest is quite bulky. Look at any police officer, they wear a vest under their uniforms. Not something you can just walk around every day in. A gun on the other hand, can easily be concealed and drawn. Had he been able to be armed, he could have attempted to save his own life instead of pleading for it to be spared. He could have at least gone down fighting.

I would sooner be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Bulletproof vest to the rescue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnkYN_4XZhI&feature=player_embedded)

Concealed pistol (http://home.comcast.net/~lucastl/holsters/xdcb.jpg)

StainlessSteelRat
04-23-2011, 17:34
the stupidity of the link was meant :bang: it's even written right behind the link. cant read?

Sorry, let me re-phrase since you couldn't add 2 and 2.

Stupid of you to post that link.

ExcursionRob
04-30-2011, 14:26
EE;4913962']Maybe, If the ATF Has Its Way (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/could-your-shotgun-soon-be-outlawed/)

What’s the definition of a “shotgun?” According to Dictionary.com it’s “a smoothbore gun for firing small shot to kill birds and small quadrupeds, though often used with buckshot to kill larger animals.” For the gun enthusiasts, that’s only partly true, as there is also the option of using slugs. But what if there’s another addition that will soon be added to the definition? How about, illegal.

In a series of fascinating, and eerie, posts over at the blog Beregond’s Bar (and linked on Redstate.com), author “Tom” pens a four-part series on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and their new campaign to change the definition of the term “shotgun.” A change, based on a recent study,* that could soon make some of them illegal. But as Tom points out, the implications for all guns are chilling.

Below are excerpts from the series. Click on the appropriate link to read more.

Part 1 (http://beregondsbar.com/banning-guns-by-changing-definitions-part-1/), which focuses on changing the term “sporting use” in order to ban certain shotguns:

The Obama administration is seeking once again to do via regulation what they would never be able to do via legislation. This time shotguns are in the crosshairs, specifically certain popular imported weapons.

[...]

Sporting use is one of the three main thrusts of gun control efforts in America. The other two are racism and those who openly advocate complete bans except for military and police. (The complete ban advocates often hide under cover of sporting use, but that and the racist history of gun control are topics for another day.

Sporting use was how the original distinction was made about what weapons would be subject to a special tax in the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934, and again in Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The congressional power to tax was used selectively to make ownership of weapons the government didn’t like burdensome and expensive. This was gun control via the back door, as even the ATF admits. As would become the pattern, politicians found that actually dealing with crime and criminals was difficult and expensive. Blaming guns and passing a law to look like they were doing something about it was much simpler.

Part 2 (http://beregondsbar.com/banning-guns-by-changing-definitions-part-2/), which notes that the administration and the ATF’s definition of “sporting use” includes a list of things that cannot apply to such use. Things that are common in hunting and self-defense:

In this case the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is seeking to master the definition of the term “sporting use” to “traditional” sports, things similar to what might have been found in 1934 when the Treasury Department first began regulating firearms. The ATF “Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns” (PDF) limits “sporting purpose.”

However, consistent with past court decisions and Congressional intent, the working group recognized hunting and other more generally recognized or formalized competitive events similar to the traditional shooting sports of trap, skeet, and clays.

In order to decide what shotguns fit the “sporting purpose” definition the study comes up with a list of characteristics that aren’t sporting. Nobody has yet taken to bayoneting deer or skeet as far as I know, so I’m not going to raise a big stink about bayonet lugs being on the list of features that aren’t particularly suited for sporting purposes. (Please stop shouting that the Constitution of the United States says nothing about “sporting purpose.” We’ll look at why the “sporting purpose” rule violates the constitution in Part 3.)

One major problem (aside from the constitution) is that many of the features the ATF study group settled on make a shotgun particularly useful for self defense, especially home defense. Here are the characteristics that the study has decided are unsuitable for sporting use:

(1) Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;

(2) bayonet lugs;

(3) flash suppressors;

(4) magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;

(5) grenade-launcher mounts;

(6) integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel);

(7) light enhancing devices;

(8) excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);

(9) excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);

(10) forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand.

Some of these features, such as folding stocks and larger capacity magazines clearly are useful in sports if you include practical shooting sports.

Part 3 (http://beregondsbar.com/banning-guns-by-changing-definitions-part-3-2/), which looks at how “sporting use” stacks up to the Constitution and how it came into use:

But there is a far more basic objection that must be raised to this new attempt at regulatory gun ban- Nowhere in the constitution of the United States is there anything about a “sporting purpose.” The second amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Like all rights of Americans, the rights exist because you are a person. The Constitution is a contract we have with the central government to protect those rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic. One of the enumerated rights is the right to keep and bear arms. Nary a “sporting purpose” in sight in the entire document. So where did it come from?

And finally, Part 4, which shows that the ATF’s “sporting use” definition puts all guns, not just certain shotguns, at risk of being outlawed:

One factor that jumps out from the current ATF study is that it differs from the Clinton gun ban in a critical way. The Clinton ban looked at guns and said if it could accept a high capacity magazine and had any 2 other characteristics then it was banned. Thus you could have a magazine and a pistol grip, or a magazine and night sights, and still be legal. Few people missed having a bayonet lug, and grenade launchers and grenades had essentially been banned from civilian hands since the NFA became law in 1934. The current study says that any ONE item on a list, including a magazine that holds more than five rounds or a place to attach a flashlight so you can see the burglar in your home, and the gun is banned.

So the problem doesn’t end with shotguns. The current study refers to the conclusions drawn in prior ATF studies of rifles in 1989 and 1998, and handguns in 1968. It also draws on the NFA and the GCA (Gun Control Act of 1968) to justify the “sporting purpose” test, and the narrow interpretation that the ATF places on the test. The justifications are all linked together, like a knitted sweater. Pull on the piece of yarn called “imported shotguns” and you find when it’s unraveled enough that you’re tugging on the “domestic shotguns” yarn. Only now the “imported rifle” bit of yarn is hanging loose, just begging for someone to tug on it. Unravel that a bit and you reach “domestic rifles.” A similar bit of unraveling is likely to happen with the piece of yarn labelled “handgun.”

Each piece is well worth the time it takes to read it. Meanwhile, the ATF is taking comments on its study. Tom lets you know how here.

But here’s the catch: in order to let the ATF know what you think, you have to give it your mailing address.

Interesting.



*According to Tom, the study “spends a lot of time showing that hunting, trap and skeet, and target shooting are sports, but plinking and practical shooting sports are not REALLY sports, and therefore guns that are particularly suitable for, or readily adaptable to those sports shouldn’t be allowed into the country.

UPDATE:

Jack Minor of the Greeley Gazette covered the ATF’s study, too. He puts in terms of “military”-style shotguns vs. others. But, he notes, according to the specifications used, “military” could apply to so many shotguns:

The ATF completed a study regarding the importability of certain shotguns. The basis for a possible ban is based on a loosely defined “Sporting Purpose” test. Using the vague definition almost all pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns could be banned as they are all capable of accepting a magazine, box or tube capable of holding more than 5 rounds. Other characteristics determined to be “military” by the ATF can also be used as a basis for a ban.

Ironically, many shotguns with “military” features are currently being used in shooting competitions held by the USPSA, IDPA and IPSC. The rules could also result in obscure regulations where an individual would be unsure if he is violating them or not.

Dudley Brown, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said if the ATF succeeds with the banning of tactical shotguns it “will be the most dangerous interpretation of the 1968 Gun Control Act ever envisioned and will outlaw thousands of perfectly legitimate home defense shotguns.”

good luck taking one of my guns from me.

[LoD] EE
05-01-2011, 03:59
good luck taking one of my guns from me.

Well, toiday is the last day to get your responses in to the ATF. I had a chance to pick up a Saiga 12 today for $700 but I turned it down. Sold my PSL for $800 and made $50 profit on it so I cant complain. Also today was day 1 of carrying concealed since getting my permit yesterday. I really need some larger pants and a tad bit longer shirts. Dont want to accidentally brandish my firearm.