Pages: 1 2 3 … 5

 

2007-04-25 08:58:48
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6843|The Gem Saloon
ok, first let me start off by saying that i have decided to try this to hopefully explain to other countries why we, as americans are almost obsessed with firearms, and why other countries ideas of gun control would not be effective here. as many of you are aware, i am a firearms enthusiast and i bump heads with plenty of people on this forum regarding this topic. (bubbalo and vilham for honorable mentions)
before i attempt to explain this i will express my views on the subject so no one is confused on where i stand.


i do support citizens owning firearms.
i do support the call for further regulation.
i do support the second amendment, however i feel when that was written many different threats were existent that are not here anymore.

now, with that out of the way, let me try to explain why i think we as a country will not ever give up our firearms.
there is no way to list every single event in history that impacted this so i will choose the events that i think are significant. if anyone else has anything they would like to add, please do.




so we will start with the revolution.
the americans attmepted to leave the british but didnt do so well. so the english decide, after the young americans start giving them a hard time, to get back at them. search wiki for "Intolerable Acts" for more info on what they did to us. after the english decide to try and take the americans weapons a war starts. we win our freedom with firearms, THAT THE ENGLISH TRIED TO TAKE AWAY.


after the revolution it was all about expansion. the only problem is that where we wanted to expend too was already being used by the natives of this country. at first everyone tried to live in peace, and we all know how that worked out. so again, we get our guns and start fighting with the indians.
now this wasnt a war, as in all the indians got together and met all the whites and they had it out. no, this consisted mainly of small skirmishes when groups would see each other and begin fighting. almost everyone on the frontier carried a rifle, and used it on a daily basis, whether it was for hunting or warfare it was definitely a tool for survival.


the british come back into the picture just in time for the war of 1812, which america was ready to win seeing as how we had ousted these people from our country once, which we did again. this whole time people are moving west. the indians believed silly treaties that only moved them further away from their homes in the end. america is feeling pretty badass right about now.....we have our own country, we are expanding, and it is all thanks to this nice flintlock rifle.



civil war. brother vs brother.
wholesale slaughter at its finest. stand in a line across from one another and shoot. not the best way to fight a war, but hey, they made that call. this is the time when you start hearing about snipers and people like jesse james, who were synonymous with certain firearms. revolvers were becoming predominant with officers and anyone that could find them. so now, after that is finished, the union has one, with firearms.


the expansion west continues, and now we get into the famous "wild west". this is when i think we start to truly become obsessed with firearms. the classic good vs evil. the list of people in the wild west that made a name for themselves is very, very long.
example; wyatt earp was a sheriff in kansas. he did his job great, then one day decided he wanted to go make some money instead of serving the community. he and his brothers move to, you guessed it, a new town called tombstone in the arizona territory. he went to make money, but he wound up being in one of the most famous gunfights in history......the shoot out at the OK corral. so here we have another good man fighting the bad men....history tells that the "good" guys were outnumbered but they won because they SHOT the people that were trying to kill them. a few more examples of the people that lived in the wild west, would be-wild bill hickock, billy the kid, buffalo bill cody and many others.

after the frontier closed things started to settle down a bit for awhile. you see things like roosevelt and the rough riders fighting in santiago with their colt single action army revolvers.



enter the world wars. allies fight true evil and win.......thanks to firearms and our ability to utilize them.

i wont go into the cold war, seeing as how i think our beliefs were formed before then, and truly before the world wars.




so we flash forward to today.
the firearms i own, i use for many different purposes. some are intended for defense, if i ever need, and some are used for sport. i take pride in my ability to shoot accurately, stay safe, and teach others to do the same. when i was 12 my mother bought me a .22 long rifle and took me to the shooting range. that is something that many children here experience, and when my wife and i have children they will experience the same.

firearms are something that this country has a romantic attraction to, and i dont see anyone giving up their guns anytime soon. so while i do think we need more regulations to prevent things like the VT shooting, i know that a ban wouldnt work in this country because these weapons are so ingrained in our history.


i hope i helped people to understand why we seem obsessed with them. i dont want to see my countrymen killed either, but a total ban just would not work.
if anyone has anything they would like to add, please feel free.
now, discuss.
2007-04-25 09:15:41
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|7120|UK
Ban Guns.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2007-04-25 09:17:54
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7215|UK

m3thod wrote:

Ban Guns.
Banning guns wont work. I dont realy mind if they have guns just aslong as the stop denying that they save lives.

An analogy... I dont care if people smoke, but if they deny it harms their health and others around them I wont let it stand. Ill argue with them that they are wrong.
2007-04-25 09:19:03
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6843|The Gem Saloon

m3thod wrote:

Ban Guns.
ok little guy since you want to do it this way, tell me.....the first step to a complete firearms ban would be to disarm the criminals.


as soon as you tell me how to do that, i will further explain to you why your theory wouldnt work.
though im not planning on doing it seeing as how you wont respond to this.
2007-04-25 09:23:13
Lost Hope
Lurker
+20|6776|Brussels, Belgium

Parker wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Ban Guns.
ok little guy since you want to do it this way, tell me.....the first step to a complete firearms ban would be to disarm the criminals.


as soon as you tell me how to do that, i will further explain to you why your theory wouldnt work.
though im not planning on doing it seeing as how you wont respond to this.
It's the cops's job to disarm the criminals, not the citizens.

If the cops don't have enough money/mens, then give it to them.
https://bf3s.com/sigs/9c9f8f6ff3579a4c711aa54bbb9e928ec0786003.png
2007-04-25 09:30:01
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6843|The Gem Saloon

Lost Hope wrote:

Parker wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Ban Guns.
ok little guy since you want to do it this way, tell me.....the first step to a complete firearms ban would be to disarm the criminals.


as soon as you tell me how to do that, i will further explain to you why your theory wouldnt work.
though im not planning on doing it seeing as how you wont respond to this.
It's the cops's job to disarm the criminals, not the citizens.

If the cops don't have enough money/mens, then give it to them.
the reason that wouldnt work is that no one can take all the firearms back.....if they were all registered MAYBE. but as it stands most criminals firearms are not registered and have their serial numbers filed off.


if the cops dont have the means????
how would you suggest they find all these weapons?
once you tell me, then i will continue to explain why that fails.
2007-04-25 09:32:12
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|7120|UK

Parker wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Ban Guns.
ok little guy since you want to do it this way, tell me.....the first step to a complete firearms ban would be to disarm the criminals.


as soon as you tell me how to do that, i will further explain to you why your theory wouldnt work.
though im not planning on doing it seeing as how you wont respond to this.
Wanna bet Parky?

Little guy? Jesus that's not cricket.

Anyway I was jesting...i thought that would be somewhat evident given the 2 word response right out of USM05 book.

Well now that you ask my official response would be....i couldn't give a hoot what you people do on your own soil...not to mention i haven't participated in any other the gun threads bar this one.  You lot can happily kill each other for all i care, seriously knock yourselves out.

And on that note i shall exit.

(BAN GUNS!)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2007-04-25 09:34:54
Lost Hope
Lurker
+20|6776|Brussels, Belgium

Parker wrote:

Lost Hope wrote:

Parker wrote:


ok little guy since you want to do it this way, tell me.....the first step to a complete firearms ban would be to disarm the criminals.


as soon as you tell me how to do that, i will further explain to you why your theory wouldnt work.
though im not planning on doing it seeing as how you wont respond to this.
It's the cops's job to disarm the criminals, not the citizens.

If the cops don't have enough money/mens, then give it to them.
the reason that wouldnt work is that no one can take all the firearms back.....if they were all registered MAYBE. but as it stands most criminals firearms are not registered and have their serial numbers filed off.


if the cops dont have the means????
how would you suggest they find all these weapons?
once you tell me, then i will continue to explain why that fails.
Call Vic Mackey.

Well, here the average joe doesn't have a gun and criminals with guns don't attack the average joes with their guns, they attack banks.
https://bf3s.com/sigs/9c9f8f6ff3579a4c711aa54bbb9e928ec0786003.png
2007-04-25 09:36:08
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6843|The Gem Saloon

m3thod wrote:

Parker wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Ban Guns.
ok little guy since you want to do it this way, tell me.....the first step to a complete firearms ban would be to disarm the criminals.


as soon as you tell me how to do that, i will further explain to you why your theory wouldnt work.
though im not planning on doing it seeing as how you wont respond to this.
Wanna bet Parky?

Little guy? Jesus that's not cricket.

Anyway I was jesting...i thought that would be somewhat evident given the 2 word response right out of USM05 book.

Well now that you ask my official response would be....i couldn't give a hoot what you people do on your own soil...not to mention i haven't participated in any other the gun threads bar this one.  You lot can happily kill each other for all i care, seriously knock yourselves out.

And on that note i shall exit.

(BAN GUNS!)
wow, so you willingly tell me that you dont care and you were just trying to be a smart ass?
i dont come here to debate in jokes, or half seriousness. i guess thats one of the ways we differ...........
2007-04-25 09:37:46
KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|7130|Dayton, Ohio

Lost Hope wrote:

Parker wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Ban Guns.
ok little guy since you want to do it this way, tell me.....the first step to a complete firearms ban would be to disarm the criminals.


as soon as you tell me how to do that, i will further explain to you why your theory wouldnt work.
though im not planning on doing it seeing as how you wont respond to this.
It's the cops's job to disarm the criminals, not the citizens.

If the cops don't have enough money/mens, then give it to them.
The hole idea of this country is freedom.  We are not looking to start a police state.  That is what it would take to disarm all the criminals.  We would have to give up so many freedoms to make this happen it would be un-american.  Not too mention a larger police force will only leed to more corruption and further enabling for criminals with enough money.
2007-04-25 09:39:50
derstralle
Iron Egg Skill, bitches!
+29|6664
Interesting read! +1

I tried to write something similar for Europe, it's not as long and not as good, but meh:

After firearms had been invented they were used in Europe by the mercenaries of the late medieval and early modern times who were hired by the kings and released after war. They had their own leaders and, war or not, greatly relied on robbery and plundering to generate income. The average people did not have firearms, so they saw it them as tools of criminals (which hasn't changed until today).

Later when the modern states have been erected life conditions for the people were very bad, which is also the reason for the great emigration waves to America. There were several uprising, which often led to civil wars (smaller than the famous American one, except for the French revolution) if the people managed to gain access to police or army arsenals.
So the rulers tried their best to restrict firearms to the states forces, otherwise they would have been overthrown most certainly.

And this is the way it goes on until today in Europe: firearms are only of use for armed forces (of course), criminals and revolutionaries. Americans who have a completely different attitude towards guns are seen as weirdos with paranoia or gun fanatics who have mental issues.

edit: feel free to correct/criticise/whatever

Last edited by derstralle (2007-04-25 09:41:06)

2007-04-25 09:40:41
Lost Hope
Lurker
+20|6776|Brussels, Belgium

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

Lost Hope wrote:

Parker wrote:


ok little guy since you want to do it this way, tell me.....the first step to a complete firearms ban would be to disarm the criminals.


as soon as you tell me how to do that, i will further explain to you why your theory wouldnt work.
though im not planning on doing it seeing as how you wont respond to this.
It's the cops's job to disarm the criminals, not the citizens.

If the cops don't have enough money/mens, then give it to them.
The hole idea of this country is freedom.  We are not looking to start a police state.  That is what it would take to disarm all the criminals.  We would have to give up so many freedoms to make this happen it would be un-american.  Not too mention a larger police force will only leed to more corruption and further enabling for criminals with enough money.
I know, but it probably is the only way that will get rid of crime.
https://bf3s.com/sigs/9c9f8f6ff3579a4c711aa54bbb9e928ec0786003.png
2007-04-25 09:45:47
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6843|The Gem Saloon

derstralle wrote:

Interesting read! +1

I tried to write something similar for Europe, it's not as long and not as good, but meh:

After firearms had been invented they were used in Europe by the mercenaries of the late medieval and early modern times who were hired by the kings and released after war. They had their own leaders and, war or not, greatly relied on robbery and plundering to generate income. The average people did not have firearms, so they saw it them as tools of criminals (which hasn't changed until today).

Later when the modern states have been erected life conditions for the people were very bad, which is also the reason for the great emigration waves to America. There were several uprising, which often led to civil wars (smaller than the famous American one, except for the French revolution) if the people managed to gain access to police or army arsenals.
So the rulers tried their best to restrict firearms to the states forces, otherwise they would have been overthrown most certainly.

And this is the way it goes on until today in Europe: firearms are only of use for armed forces (of course), criminals and revolutionaries. Americans who have a completely different attitude towards guns are seen as weirdos with paranoia or gun fanatics who have mental issues.

edit: feel free to correct/criticise/whatever
great information, thank you. +1 for you
2007-04-25 09:48:02
crimson_grunt
Shitty Disposition (apparently)
+214|7103|Teesside, UK

Parker wrote:

firearms are something that this country has a romantic attraction to, and i don't see anyone giving up their guns anytime soon. so while i do think we need more regulations to prevent things like the VT shooting, i know that a ban wouldn't work in this country because these weapons are so ingrained in our history.


i hope i helped people to understand why we seem obsessed with them. i don't want to see my countrymen killed either, but a total ban just would not work.
I agree completely.  Calling for guns to be banned in America seems pointless and is unlikely to ever happen.

It seems to me that in America the honest decent people have guns just in case, I'm sure you guys hope you never have to use them on a person and wouldn't flippantly laugh it of if you did as depicted in film/tv etc.  I guess the off hand way that you guys feel comfortable around guns may seem weird to many people over here who are terrified by guns and couldn't comprehend using them on another human being (guns scare the shit out of me).

I don't want the UK to have guns like America but it's not as ingrained in our society so hopefully the government will crackdown harder on the people using them.  and knifes for that matter.
2007-04-25 09:49:46
KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|7130|Dayton, Ohio

derstralle wrote:

Interesting read! +1

I tried to write something similar for Europe, it's not as long and not as good, but meh:

After firearms had been invented they were used in Europe by the mercenaries of the late medieval and early modern times who were hired by the kings and released after war. They had their own leaders and, war or not, greatly relied on robbery and plundering to generate income. The average people did not have firearms, so they saw it them as tools of criminals (which hasn't changed until today).

Later when the modern states have been erected life conditions for the people were very bad, which is also the reason for the great emigration waves to America. There were several uprising, which often led to civil wars (smaller than the famous American one, except for the French revolution) if the people managed to gain access to police or army arsenals.
So the rulers tried their best to restrict firearms to the states forces, otherwise they would have been overthrown most certainly.

And this is the way it goes on until today in Europe: firearms are only of use for armed forces (of course), criminals and revolutionaries. Americans who have a completely different attitude towards guns are seen as weirdos with paranoia or gun fanatics who have mental issues.

edit: feel free to correct/criticise/whatever
Paranoia, yes, a gun is seen as our last defense against not only criminals, but also our own government.  Remeber, no body trust the govenrment.
2007-04-25 09:51:16
PureFodder
Member
+225|6734

Parker wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Ban Guns.
ok little guy since you want to do it this way, tell me.....the first step to a complete firearms ban would be to disarm the criminals.


as soon as you tell me how to do that, i will further explain to you why your theory wouldnt work.
though im not planning on doing it seeing as how you wont respond to this.
Step one, limit the number of guns a person can own and what types. 2 rifles for hunting 2 shotguns for home defence 2 handguns for protection when out. No automatics at all. Only bolt action rifles with limits on calibre.  Shotguns, no revolving cylinder, and either no magazine, or a non-detachable magazine that is not capable of holding more than two cartridges. This effectively gives a maximum three round overall capacity. This allows everyone to do whatever they need the guns for while limiting the number of firearms in circulation. As there are less firearms out there to go missing / stolen thereby reducing the number in criminal hands.

Step two wait ten years or so. During this time the illegal types of weapons in circulation in criminal hands will drop as they are used and destroyed / abandoned by criminals so they can't be traced back to them, seized by the police or destroyed by poor maintenance. As there are less firearms out there to be stolen, the number of firearms in criminal hands will be reduced too as the potential for supply drops.

Step three. Once the number of high calibre firearms, automatics, pump action/revolver style etc. shotguns in criminal hands have been reduced to an acceptable level, then begin to phase out handgun ownership in much the same way. Increase limits on what handguns are allowed, perhapse even reduce everyone to one handgun per person.

Step four. Wait until the number of handguns in criminal possesion drops again as the supply (the stealing of legally owned firearms) has been removed. Once this drops to acceptable levels drop all handgun ownership except for use at firing ranges, but enforce that those handguns must remain on the firing range when not being used. ie. you go to the firing range, they get your handgun from their safe, you use it, give it back, they lock it away and you go home.
2007-04-25 09:56:47
howler_27
Member
+90|7136
As I see it...Guns shaped the development of our nation, and it's part of our heritage. Rooted in our blood from the time the first settlers set foot on the land.  The good, honest citizens will use them for their intended purpose of hunting and self protection from enemies here and abroad, while the socially immoral will continue to use them against the ill prepared and helpless.  Whether you ban guns or not, criminals will still find a means to get a hold of them, and use them against their victims.

+1 for responsible firearms owners out there.
2007-04-25 09:58:33
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6843|The Gem Saloon

PureFodder wrote:

Parker wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Ban Guns.
ok little guy since you want to do it this way, tell me.....the first step to a complete firearms ban would be to disarm the criminals.


as soon as you tell me how to do that, i will further explain to you why your theory wouldnt work.
though im not planning on doing it seeing as how you wont respond to this.
Step one, limit the number of guns a person can own and what types. 2 rifles for hunting 2 shotguns for home defence 2 handguns for protection when out. No automatics at all. Only bolt action rifles with limits on calibre.  Shotguns, no revolving cylinder, and either no magazine, or a non-detachable magazine that is not capable of holding more than two cartridges. This effectively gives a maximum three round overall capacity. This allows everyone to do whatever they need the guns for while limiting the number of firearms in circulation. As there are less firearms out there to go missing / stolen thereby reducing the number in criminal hands.

Step two wait ten years or so. During this time the illegal types of weapons in circulation in criminal hands will drop as they are used and destroyed / abandoned by criminals so they can't be traced back to them, seized by the police or destroyed by poor maintenance. As there are less firearms out there to be stolen, the number of firearms in criminal hands will be reduced too as the potential for supply drops.

Step three. Once the number of high calibre firearms, automatics, pump action/revolver style etc. shotguns in criminal hands have been reduced to an acceptable level, then begin to phase out handgun ownership in much the same way. Increase limits on what handguns are allowed, perhapse even reduce everyone to one handgun per person.

Step four. Wait until the number of handguns in criminal possesion drops again as the supply (the stealing of legally owned firearms) has been removed. Once this drops to acceptable levels drop all handgun ownership except for use at firing ranges, but enforce that those handguns must remain on the firing range when not being used. ie. you go to the firing range, they get your handgun from their safe, you use it, give it back, they lock it away and you go home.
that took some real thought man, thank you.
instead of just saying "ban guns", you came up with a great solution.


i would love to see something like that implemented, but there are a few problems with that.
the first thing i want to say is regarding caliber. you mentioned high caliber weapons specifically, i want to make sure you know that most street crimes are committed with .22 caliber firearms.....that doesnt have anything to do with this debate, but i dont want you to think the issue is with caliber.


ok, so my only concern with that-criminals will always have guns.
its sad, but alot of money can be made supplying illegal weapons. people in this country can make their own firearms and ammo. that is the only thing that i could see messing that up.


but a great post man, thank you for the input
2007-04-25 12:56:51
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6894|The Land of Scott Walker
I really enjoyed reading derstralle's perspective.  Helped me understand why some people think those of us who own guns in the US are strange. 

Kudos PureFodder for having a well-crafted response instead of the usual knee-jerk type thing we usually read in this section. 

Regarding limits on number and type:  My father-in-law has invested significantly in his collection of firearms.  He has upwards of 20 that I have seen and more that I have not. He is a Marine that served in Vietnam, should he be required to give up his collection simply because many of them are semi-automatic weapons with magazines?  Several other family members of mine have large collections also.  What about those individuals who go through the lengthy process to obtain a license for fully automatic firearms? 

The plan has one serious flaw - criminals do not obtain their weapons solely by stealing them from law-abiding citizens.  There is a huge market for illegally imported weapons world-wide and criminals will access that long before they’d risk attracting attention with theft of a weapon.  Even if the supply and production did theoretically drop in the US, the world-wide supply would not. 

Limiting caliber, as Parker said, wouldn’t accomplish a great deal since a .22 is capable of killing at close range.  The type of action could possibly reduce the number of victims a criminal injures or kills, but does nothing to prevent a crime.  A person could rob a bank with a black powder rifle if they wanted to because no one wants to be the person on the receiving end of that one bullet.  Quite some time ago a man robbed a bank with a compound bow.  Why?  Because no one wanted a carbon fiber arrow stuck in them!
2007-04-25 13:11:04
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6672|Escea

This isn't exactly in the league of say a .22 or 9mm, but a BB gun is just as deadly at close range, just because someone owns a gun doesn't mean they're some psychopathic lunatic, they want them for personal defense or they collect them and I see nothing wrong with that. This is a report from the local newspaper in my area about a teen who got shot with a BB gun and nearly went blind, though it could have been worse.

http://www.southtynesidetoday.co.uk/lat … id=2728800
2007-04-25 13:59:01
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|7151|Little Rock, Arkansas

M.O.A.B wrote:

This isn't exactly in the league of say a .22 or 9mm, but a BB gun is just as deadly at close range, just because someone owns a gun doesn't mean they're some psychopathic lunatic, they want them for personal defense or they collect them and I see nothing wrong with that. This is a report from the local newspaper in my area about a teen who got shot with a BB gun and nearly went blind, though it could have been worse.

http://www.southtynesidetoday.co.uk/lat … id=2728800
Interesting observation. I will say that in my years of EMS, the only child I have seen that was accidentally shot and killed was shot in the chest by a friend with a pellet rifle. One of those one-in-a-million shots, it was just off the sternum and the ribs, and was powerful enough to pierce his aorta (which subsiquently tore itself to shreds).

Now, I've seen other young ones (less than 16) die from accidental gunshots, but I don't count them. Most of the time, it's some 14 year old wanna be gangsta with a pistol tucked in his belt that goes off and pierces his femoral artery or goes into his pelvis and does all kinds of damage. I don't believe those should get to count in the statistcs.

PureFodder wrote:

Step one, limit the number of guns a person can own and what types. 2 rifles for hunting 2 shotguns for home defence 2 handguns for protection when out. No automatics at all. Only bolt action rifles with limits on calibre.  Shotguns, no revolving cylinder, and either no magazine, or a non-detachable magazine that is not capable of holding more than two cartridges. This effectively gives a maximum three round overall capacity. This allows everyone to do whatever they need the guns for while limiting the number of firearms in circulation. As there are less firearms out there to go missing / stolen thereby reducing the number in criminal hands.

Step two wait ten years or so. During this time the illegal types of weapons in circulation in criminal hands will drop as they are used and destroyed / abandoned by criminals so they can't be traced back to them, seized by the police or destroyed by poor maintenance. As there are less firearms out there to be stolen, the number of firearms in criminal hands will be reduced too as the potential for supply drops.

Step three. Once the number of high calibre firearms, automatics, pump action/revolver style etc. shotguns in criminal hands have been reduced to an acceptable level, then begin to phase out handgun ownership in much the same way. Increase limits on what handguns are allowed, perhapse even reduce everyone to one handgun per person.

Step four. Wait until the number of handguns in criminal possesion drops again as the supply (the stealing of legally owned firearms) has been removed. Once this drops to acceptable levels drop all handgun ownership except for use at firing ranges, but enforce that those handguns must remain on the firing range when not being used. ie. you go to the firing range, they get your handgun from their safe, you use it, give it back, they lock it away and you go home.
Well rationed and well thought out. There are a couple of fundamental flaws, however.

First and foremost, I'll start with the shotguns, since that's what I compete with. I own 7. And use each of them for different purposes. I have an automatic shotgun that I use for uplands birds, a pump action for waterfoul, a pump action I use for home defense, a single barrel that I use for trap, a double barrel I use for skeet, and two double barrels that I use for sporting clays/FITASC/5 stand.

Each is different. I have different shotguns becuase I have different needs. There is no one shotgun that will be good for all purposes.

Same with rifles. You use different calibers for different purposes. I have a .270 for deer, and a .300 win mag for things bigger than deer. I used to have a .223 for keeping the pests down, but I gave it to my brother.

My dad, on the other hand, has rifles in 6 different calibers. Again, for different purposes. There is no one "good" caliber for all purposes.

Handguns are the same way. Here, the issues are trading off stopping power for concealability. And again, there is no "perfect" compromise.

Next is the point Parker brought up. Criminals really don't want to steal a gun to commit a crime. It's way easier to just find a criminal dealer who sells weapons under the table. And with our porous border and minimal port security, it's easy to get guns in here illegally.

Penultimately, I feel compelled to bring up again that rifles and shotguns are not the weapon of choice for the vast, vast majority of criminals. They use .22 revolvers and glocks. Putting unnecessary restrictions on weapons that are almost never used in the commission of a criminal act is kind of useless.

Finally, I just want to say one thing about autoloading rifles and shotguns. Most people who choose to shoot these don't do it becuase it gets a new round into the chamber without any work. They do it becuase the mechanism by which the new round is loaded greatly reduces the felt recoil of the shot. In this way, a woman who would be beaten to a pulp by an over/under 12ga shooting heavy rounds can shoot the same rounds, and have the felt recoil decrease by 15% or more, and still have the benefit of the magnum/heavy load.
2007-04-25 14:04:21
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6672|Escea

Is it true that when you buy a handgun, its a five day waiting period for background checks, but say a rifle or shotgun you can buy and take the same day.
2007-04-25 14:09:59
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|7151|Little Rock, Arkansas

M.O.A.B wrote:

Is it true that when you buy a handgun, its a five day waiting period for background checks, but say a rifle or shotgun you can buy and take the same day.
It all depends on where you are. Here where I live, I can go in, show my concealed carry license, pay for any firearm, and walk out the door with it.

If you don't have a CHL, you have to fill out an application and have it called in/computer checked for convictions, warrants, restraining orders, ect. If you pass the background check, you can pay and walk out with your weapon, be it a handgun, shotgun, or rifle.

Other states have different laws. Some require a 3 day waiting period to pick up your weapon after passing your background check, others limit you to one handgun purchase a month, etc.

Its all in where you live.
2007-04-25 14:12:10
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6672|Escea

Ok, thx for clearing that one up for me.
2007-04-25 14:24:34
hate&discontent
USMC 0311 SEMPER FI
+69|6838|USA, MICHIGAN
i, personally don't have a waiting period.  i can walk into any gun store in MI and purchase a handgun, shotgun or rifle on the spot, i also have had a background check done and have been fingerprinted, so that i can buy on the spot, i also have a ccw permit.  do regular eveyday citizens need a fully auto weapon, no, ban large cal. rifles, that depends on what you consider a large cal. to be.  to me anything over .50 bmg is a large cal.  this is gonna sound totally wrong but here it goes anyways, we don't need less guns, we need more guns in the right hands.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard