BF2S Forums Are you packin? Show off your firearms!

argo4 wrote:

i don't own any guns, but i'd like to take up shooting. What gun did you guys start with?

plastic

1927 wrote:

I got an old .177 air rifle and a couple of black widow catapults, thats about it with me.

My Dad owns a few shotguns which are in the loft (locked), in padlocked cases (locked obviously), with triggers removed. He's 72, has never broken the law and has to have his house checked out every two years to have his licenses renuwed.  He hasn't shot a clay for 20 years and never will but must be keeping them for their value.

Gun laws here are very strict.  Gun culture in the Uk is rapidly growing.  I know of at least 4 teenage deaths in Oct in the uk.

My uncle (N.I side), somehow has licenses for a .308 rifle, and two shotguns (8&12 gauge).

In N.I it's pretty impossible to get a license, so again, no idea how he got them.


I've got a .22 license, but no rifle

argo4 wrote:

i don't own any guns, but i'd like to take up shooting. What gun did you guys start with?

start with a .22 rifle, then move on to a .22 pistol.

after that, everything is the same. the rounds are just different.

SERE i've seen that 1911 so many times on this forum, it should be given mod status

My uncle has some powerful air sniper rifle. It fires metal "bullets" and can make a crack in a brick wall hell yeah

And I've fired some random 9mm

And I've held an MP5 before, and that's about as close as I've ever been.

Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-04-05 08:19:24)

America is a scary place!

God damn SERE, you got some nice fucking guns, i need to get that license myself.

mikkel wrote:

Beyond a .22 for target shooting, competition grade firearms and ammunition, and a shotgun or small handgun for home defence, I can't understand the fascination with collecting instruments of death. Historical weapons? sure. Decommisioned weapons? Yeah, of course. I just don't see what's so amazing about having a closet full of contemporary things that are made to kill other people.

Normally I'd say to each his own, but stockpiling excessive amounts of firearms hasn't exactly brought peace to the world on a local scale.

I wish I could collect guns here.

SEREMAKER wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I just don't see what's so amazing about having a closet full of contemporary things that are made to kill other people.

Normally I'd say to each his own, but stockpiling excessive amounts of firearms hasn't exactly brought peace to the world on a local scale.

well I know whos not coming for thanksgiving dinner this year







some ppl collect cars, I collect guns

I collect knives, doubt I could afford guns even if I could own them...

Mek-Izzle wrote:

I collact knaavz cos I laak dat ineet, dickite

I don't know why but I keep imaging Jord as a complete replica of Devvo

He copied me.

And Devvo is fake.

And I have a bit more hair but its still short.

Parker wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Beyond a .22 for target shooting, competition grade firearms and ammunition, and a shotgun or small handgun for home defence, I can't understand the fascination with collecting instruments of death. Historical weapons? sure. Decommisioned weapons? Yeah, of course. I just don't see what's so amazing about having a closet full of contemporary things that are made to kill other people.

Normally I'd say to each his own, but stockpiling excessive amounts of firearms hasn't exactly brought peace to the world on a local scale.

wow, i dont even know where to begin with this post.


first, you say a .22 is OK to own for target practice. thats cool, i suppose that works....except most .22 rifles have a longer range than assault rifles. you throw a scope on that, head shots are JUST as effective as the scary guns.
pretty nice instrument of death in the right hands, though you deem it OK.

the second thing you said about shotguns is about the only thing you said that i agree with. a shotgun is the ONLY safe option for home defense.....which leads me into my third point.

you think its OK to have a handgun for home defense? what the fuck are you on, seriously? you have a problem with people that collect guns, but you are cool with someone using a HANDGUN TO DEFEND THEIR HOME......how does that even work?

has it ever occurred to you that the collector you cant understand might have a bit more experience and knowledge when it comes to the things he collects, than the random asshat that goes and buys a $200 pistol? i for one would rather a collector have a shit load of guns, than some jackass neighbor shooting through his walls cause he used an overpowered weapon.....

i might take your opinion a *little* bit more seriously if it seemed like you knew what you were talking about.

Well, I might take yours a little more seriously if you had more to offer than a bunch of insults.

I know a .22 is deadly. It's a rifle. Most any firearm is deadly. The thing is, I have nothing against people who use a .22 for target practice. Target shooting is great fun, and not everyone can afford the upkeep of professional competition grade weaponry. There's absolutely nothing illogical about that, considering that my argument isn't against gun ownership - it's against overdoing gun ownership.

Being okay with having a handgun to defend your home as opposed to being against having five handguns to "defend your home" works, and makes perfect sense considering that again, my argument is against overdoing gun ownership. I'm not saying that I would like to see a handgun in every home. In fact, would rather that there were as few guns as possible. While the shotgun would obviously be preferable, it's still a big gun. A gun much bigger than a good number of people can handle. I don't see why some people should be excluded the chance to properly defend themselves in a society where guns play an integral part in home defence.

The collector will undoubtably have a lot more experience with firearms than Joe Sixpack whose weapons serve as an extention to his ego. The thing is, though, that for every one such collector, there will be ten or more such Joe Sixpacks, and those are the ones I have a problem with.

So, what problem do you have with my argument again?

Parker wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Parker wrote:

wow, i dont even know where to begin with this post.


first, you say a .22 is OK to own for target practice. thats cool, i suppose that works....except most .22 rifles have a longer range than assault rifles. you throw a scope on that, head shots are JUST as effective as the scary guns.
pretty nice instrument of death in the right hands, though you deem it OK.

the second thing you said about shotguns is about the only thing you said that i agree with. a shotgun is the ONLY safe option for home defense.....which leads me into my third point.

you think its OK to have a handgun for home defense? what the fuck are you on, seriously? you have a problem with people that collect guns, but you are cool with someone using a HANDGUN TO DEFEND THEIR HOME......how does that even work?

has it ever occurred to you that the collector you cant understand might have a bit more experience and knowledge when it comes to the things he collects, than the random asshat that goes and buys a $200 pistol? i for one would rather a collector have a shit load of guns, than some jackass neighbor shooting through his walls cause he used an overpowered weapon.....

i might take your opinion a *little* bit more seriously if it seemed like you knew what you were talking about.

Well, I might take yours a little more seriously if you had more to offer than a bunch of insults.

I know a .22 is deadly. It's a rifle. Most any firearm is deadly. The thing is, I have nothing against people who use a .22 for target practice. Target shooting is great fun, and not everyone can afford the upkeep of professional competition grade weaponry. There's absolutely nothing illogical about that, considering that my argument isn't against gun ownership - it's against overdoing gun ownership.

Being okay with having a handgun to defend your home as opposed to being against having five handguns to "defend your home" works, and makes perfect sense considering that again, my argument is against overdoing gun ownership. I'm not saying that I would like to see a handgun in every home. In fact, would rather that there were as few guns as possible. While the shotgun would obviously be preferable, it's still a big gun. A gun much bigger than a good number of people can handle. I don't see why some people should be excluded the chance to properly defend themselves in a society where guns play an integral part in home defence.

The collector will undoubtably have a lot more experience with firearms than Joe Sixpack whose weapons serve as an extention to his ego. The thing is, though, that for every one such collector, there will be ten or more such Joe Sixpacks, and those are the ones I have a problem with.

So, what problem do you have with my argument again?

specifically?
the fact that you still think a pistol is an acceptable weapon to defend your house with.......er, im sorry.....its OK cause the proper gun might injure the user?!?! is that what i got out of that?


hhmmmm, now i would buy into that.....i really would.....theres just one problem. to defend my house, i own a Mossberg 500C pistol grip, pump action 20GA shotgun. its a great gun, with #4 bird shot, it wont over penetrate and it will do its job nicely.
my girl used to weigh under 100lbs.....specifically, 96 lbs. she shot that gun and didnt get hurt


if she can do it, anyone can.....at least anyone that isnt mildly retarded.
chances are, if they injured themselves with a shotgun.......well, lets just say the safest place would be right in front of their target



oh, and your argument is about not overdoing gun ownership........yet you still think its OK to use an overpowered weapon.
NOT overdoing gun ownership would involve the responsibility of NOT using the wrong weapon.

I've met a good number of people who wouldn't be anywhere near able to pull out a shotgun and wield it properly, let alone shoot it, if they found the house they were in being broken into. You can choose to not believe that, on account of your singular experience, but I'll maintain that my anecdotal evidence is just as good as yours.

It also has nothing to do about the weapon potentially injuring the user. It has to do with the simple fact that many people simply wouldn't be able to operate it at all.

If the user has a choice between a shotgun that they can't operate, and a small handgun that they can operate, the shotgun is the wrong choice of weapon. It would be ridiculous for state or federal government to assess whether or not a person would be fit to operate a shotgun, so for as long as there's an established need for having firearms as a part of defending your home, I have to say that owning one or the other is acceptable to me, even if I'd rather that people didn't own either.

Owning multiple shotguns, multiple handguns, automatic weaponry or whatever else, though, is something I still don't see a need for beyond a decomissioned collection.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-04-05 13:50:31)

jord wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Owning multiple shotguns, multiple handguns, automatic weaponry or whatever else, though, is something I still don't see a need for beyond a decomissioned collection.

There isn't a absolute requirement or need. It's want, people have the right to do it and that's what they want to spend their money on then let them. Shooting is a hobby enjoyed by millions, owning different guns might bring variation to shooting. I don't know as I only have what the law here allows which is air rifles.

I fully respect personal choice, and I hate the concept of a nanny state. I still feel, however, that one of the responsibilities of a government is ensuring the physical safety of its subjects as best as possible, and beyond drugs, which are at least legislated against for recreational use, I don't see many bigger threats to the wellbeing of your average person than the proliferation of firearms. I can absolutely understand shooting as a hobby - I love shooting myself. I also understand collecting guns as a hobby, but I don't see a need for allowing it, circumstances considered.

It's a personal thing, sure, and my personal feeling is that a sore gunowner is better than a dead anyone. I know that what I'm describing won't stop gun violence overnight, but you have to start somewhere.