BF2S Forums Are you packin? Show off your firearms!

Parker wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Parker wrote:

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.

how do those "good number of people" feel about over powered pistol rounds being used in a situation that could injure innocent people?
a pump action shotgun is one of the easiest firearms to operate on the face of this earth. the action and sound are universally known.
if the fucking retard cant operate that, he for damn sure shouldnt be attempting to shoot a pistol!

but, the good news is, i live in a country where i can own as many of those as i want. in fact, if everything goes right, ill soon be a firearms dealer!
proudly helping collectors add to those useless collections they insist on having.

Considering your lengthy rant about how little I apparently know about weapons, I choose to believe that you're fully aware of handguns with low recoil, that you're also aware that most any .22LR/.22 WMR handgun is about as dangerous to the public as a shotgun for stray shooting inside a home, and that you're simply ignoring these to get out of the discussion without imparting anything of substance to argue against my opinion, leaving us back at square one with nothing gained but a handful of insults thrown my way.

If you had bothered reading my posts, you would have seen that I, at two or three different points in the discussion, said that I fully understood collecting weapons as a hobby. Apparently you chose to ignore that so that you could back out of the discussion with an arrogant comment like your last. If you have nothing of substance to reply with, that's fine with me. If you'd rather leave the discussion with a supercilious comment, it won't really faze me. If your arguments against my opinion run dry, though, at least do me the favour of having substance to your insults.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-04-05 23:37:36)

Home protection Gun - ammo that will go in and not come out

Buying cheap ass shit just to add another number to your gun collection is pretty lame

It's like saying you own 10 cars, but you bought them each for around $450 bucks.. wow cool huh...

mikkel wrote:

Perhaps you should read the thread instead of posting your knee-jerk reaction. The day television, bicycles, steak knives, telephones and classic cars become murder weapons to the degree that firearms are today, I'll have trouble seeing the need for collections. I won't start to address the flaws in those analogies, because they're wholly irrelevant to what I'm saying.

It has nothing to do with collecting guns being "proper" or not, and it has nothing to do with wanting to limit you in any way on the grounds of morality, so please, for the sake of a sober argument, leave those misguided sentiments at the door, and read through all the posts again so that we can have a proper discussion, should you be interested.

Cars are a far more dangerous weapon.  In fact, hospitals are far more dangerous that guns.

Last edited by Reciprocity (2008-04-06 00:38:28)

If I ever have a 'grudge against humanity' I'll jump in a Buick and plow through a preschool playground at recess.  the kids they manage to scrape out of my fenders who are still alive can all go to hospitals and die of infections and clerical errors. 

there, no guns.  happy?

my arguement is that  if I or anyone wants to kill someone or everyone, availability, or lack thereof, of firearms would not hinder my or anyone's need or ability.  If anything, guns are a rather inefficient means of killing.  Bombs, cars, jetliners, chemicals, diseases, there are so many more expedient, reliable means of killing.

Firearms are what the lemmings readily recognize, so that's what terrifies them most.

mikkel wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

my arguement is that  if I or anyone wants to kill someone or everyone, availability, or lack thereof, of firearms would not hinder my or anyone's need or ability.  If anything, guns are a rather inefficient means of killing.  Bombs, cars, jetliners, chemicals, diseases, there are so many more expedient, reliable means of killing.

Firearms are what the lemmings readily recognize, so that's what terrifies them most.

Firearms are what people readily recognise, because you cannot go a day without hearing about at least one local case of gun crime, most often murder. You can, however, go a good few days without hearing about a local case of bombing, premeditated vehicular manslaughter, aircraft hijacking, murder by chemicals, murder by viral infection, and any other absurd means of killing another person that you can come up with up.

Are you even being serious? Are you really suggesting that it's more likely that a person looking to murder another person would proceed to his chemical lab to conjure up an acidic potion, or his local CDC research laboratory to acquire a few spores of Anthrax, rather than just grabbing a gun and pulling the trigger? If you wanted to kill another person, would you hijack an airliner and crash it into his home as a more practical way of murdering him?

You're missing the point.

Do you honestly believe that banning guns is going to stop murders, or even slow them down?

Number one, everyone who owns a gun will still own a gun if they are banned. So all you'd be doing is preventing them from being boughten, from stores, in the future. You could still obtain them from the black market, private dealers, a neighbor, ebay...

Number two, even if every gun suddenly vanished, it does not mean murders will cease to happen. I know you understand that, but you are implying otherwise. People use guns to kill because they are readily available...yes. If you remove them, they will use knives because they are readily available...or a baseball bat because they are readily available, or a rope....

Should we ban these items too, because they are readily available potential murder weapons?

The fact is, you think guns should be banned/limited because some people use them for means other than intended use. So you're taking away from thousands of law-abiding citizens who have a right to own that item, because some people use them for illegal activities. The same can be said for pretty much every thing. Some people use computers for illegal activities, such as organizing crime, involvement with terrorists, hacking, etc...

Should we also ban computers because some people don't use them legally?

CrazeD wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

my arguement is that  if I or anyone wants to kill someone or everyone, availability, or lack thereof, of firearms would not hinder my or anyone's need or ability.  If anything, guns are a rather inefficient means of killing.  Bombs, cars, jetliners, chemicals, diseases, there are so many more expedient, reliable means of killing.

Firearms are what the lemmings readily recognize, so that's what terrifies them most.

Firearms are what people readily recognise, because you cannot go a day without hearing about at least one local case of gun crime, most often murder. You can, however, go a good few days without hearing about a local case of bombing, premeditated vehicular manslaughter, aircraft hijacking, murder by chemicals, murder by viral infection, and any other absurd means of killing another person that you can come up with up.

Are you even being serious? Are you really suggesting that it's more likely that a person looking to murder another person would proceed to his chemical lab to conjure up an acidic potion, or his local CDC research laboratory to acquire a few spores of Anthrax, rather than just grabbing a gun and pulling the trigger? If you wanted to kill another person, would you hijack an airliner and crash it into his home as a more practical way of murdering him?

You're missing the point.

Do you honestly believe that banning guns is going to stop murders, or even slow them down?

Of course it would lower murder rates, but I don't believe in banning guns. If you're going to argue against me, please, at least get my argument right.

CrazeD wrote:

Number one, everyone who owns a gun will still own a gun if they are banned. So all you'd be doing is preventing them from being boughten, from stores, in the future. You could still obtain them from the black market, private dealers, a neighbor, ebay...

Again, I haven't been close to talking about banning firearms. Nowhere. Please get that straight.

You're talking about easily being able to obtain firearms here. I'm talking about trying to limit the proliferation of these. The availability of weapons is a consequence of their proliferation, right? The "black market" doesn't just magically procure weapons out of thin air. It should be no surprise where they come from.

CrazeD wrote:

Number two, even if every gun suddenly vanished, it does not mean murders will cease to happen. I know you understand that, but you are implying otherwise. People use guns to kill because they are readily available...yes. If you remove them, they will use knives because they are readily available...or a baseball bat because they are readily available, or a rope...

Should we ban these items too, because they are readily available potential murder weapons?

mikkel wrote:

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.

I'd say that you should go with what I'm explicitly stating, rather than what you think I'm implying.

People use guns to kill because it's simple and easy. It's the basic concept of impulse. If all you have to do is pull a trigger to kill someone across a room, you're detached from the act. If the only immediately practical way to kill someone is to grab a knife and gut the person, many people simply wouldn't do it. Murdering isn't as easy for most people as it's portrayed.

CrazeD wrote:

The fact is, you think guns should be banned/limited because some people use them for means other than intended use. So you're taking away from thousands of law-abiding citizens who have a right to own that item, because some people use them for illegal activities. The same can be said for pretty much every thing. Some people use computers for illegal activities, such as organizing crime, involvement with terrorists, hacking, etc...

Should we also ban computers because some people don't use them legally?

Hold on there, sport. The fact is that I don't think guns should be banned. Have you missed my -entire- argument here?

Parker wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Parker wrote:

how do those "good number of people" feel about over powered pistol rounds being used in a situation that could injure innocent people?
a pump action shotgun is one of the easiest firearms to operate on the face of this earth. the action and sound are universally known.
if the fucking retard cant operate that, he for damn sure shouldnt be attempting to shoot a pistol!

but, the good news is, i live in a country where i can own as many of those as i want. in fact, if everything goes right, ill soon be a firearms dealer!
proudly helping collectors add to those useless collections they insist on having.

Considering your lengthy rant about how little I apparently know about weapons, I choose to believe that you're fully aware of handguns with low recoil, that you're also aware that most any .22LR/.22 WMR handgun is about as dangerous to the public as a shotgun for stray shooting inside a home, and that you're simply ignoring these to get out of the discussion without imparting anything of substance to argue against my opinion, leaving us back at square one with nothing gained but a handful of insults thrown my way.

If you had bothered reading my posts, you would have seen that I, at two or three different points in the discussion, said that I fully understood collecting weapons as a hobby. Apparently you chose to ignore that so that you could back out of the discussion with an arrogant comment like your last. If you have nothing of substance to reply with, that's fine with me. If you'd rather leave the discussion with a supercilious comment, it won't really faze me. If your arguments against my opinion run dry, though, at least do me the favour of having substance to your insults.

wait, your telling me again that pistols are OK for home defense?

come on....what dont you understand about this?

ill break it down for you.
a .22 is not an acceptable weapon to defend your house with. remember how they travel for over a mile? ya see, neighbors usually get pissed off when they get holes in their walls....even more upset when one of their family members gets shot.
whats that, low recoil you say?
that would be awesome, if you lived in a fucking airplane....if not, you are shooting underpowered rounds, and would be lucky to damage someone anyway.
90+90.....ever heard of it?
90% of defense related shootings happen in a low light situation. (added difficulty to acquire and engage target)
90% of shots fired in a defense situation do not hit their target. (more difficulty, due to adrenaline etc.)

so that means, that the person who is doing the shooting has A LOT of things against them. considering that a handgun is WAY more difficult to operate, why would they use it?

It's amazing that you suddenly throw this discussion we had about the feasibility of certain firearms for certain people, and act like it never happened. A handgun is not more difficult to operate than a shotgun if you're able to operate the handgun and not the shotgun. You sound like a broken record.

I know a handgun isn't ideal for home defence if only the weapon itself is considered. You have to consider the user, though, and for many users, a shotgun just isn't a feasible home defence weapon.

Parker wrote:

the advantage to using a shotgun is the area effect. while using a pistol, you must acquire the target, sight alignment, trigger squeeze.
shotgun.....point it in their general direction and shoot.

im sorry if you feel thats insulting, but everything i just said was fact.

It's simply not a fact that a shotgun is the better weapon for people who would be unable to operate one when the need comes.

Parker wrote:

oh, and just for shits and grins.....do you feel the same about knife collections?

Like I said in my reply to the previous poster, the reason why I dislike the proliferation of guns is that guns make killing easy and detached. People are always going to kill people, and knives are always going to be invaluable tools for anyone from the soldier to the homemaker. I don't see why knife ownership should be restricted.

Oh lawed, DST is raiding JD.

irishtop wrote:

oh and y'all who are saying all this crap against guns, how many of you have actually shot a wide variety of guns? how many of you hunt? how many of you collect? i would say very few. your whole argument is crap because you dont know what your talking about. 'you dont see the need' is a difference of culture. its like comparing apples to oranges. i dont see the need for brits to drive on the left side of the road, but i dont make them change it. a whole culture of people cannot have their opinions mandated. do we remember what happened when prohibition was enacted?

Are you saying that collecting firearms, firing a wide variety of them, and hunting with them is a prerequisite for understanding their impact on society? If you are, then there's something you're really not understanding.

"Don't see the need" isn't a difference of culture. People die the same way no matter who they are and where they're from.

Idiot bashes Britain, but look at his name. I hate those American bastards that constantly bash Europe yet bring up their fuckin Heritage all the time and act all proud. I mean what the fuck.

Yes, Ireland is considered part of the British Isles, before you get into that shit.

bash bash bash bash

mikkel wrote:

Are you saying that collecting firearms, firing a wide variety of them, and hunting with them is a prerequisite for understanding their impact on society? If you are, then there's something you're really not understanding.

"Don't see the need" isn't a difference of culture. People die the same way no matter who they are and where they're from.

yes i am bc not treating them as something to be cherished and enjoyed is not understanding guns as a whole. and for seeing the need, it is a difference because a culture without guns heavily involved will treat them differently than one that has them in the society. justifying the need for restrictions on guns is like saying we shouldnt drive cars because ppl die. if you are trying to make the world safer, i suggest you think about these 2 things, 1) ppl kill ppl, a gun will not just go kill someone. even if you take guns away they are still available. there are untold hundreds of millions of guns in circulation its too late the get rid of them now. 2) the world is a dangerous place, many will die of things we may deem unjust. but no one makes it out of this world alive. taking away firearms does not make the region without them safer. Think of Washington d.c., murder capital of the US for the past 14 yrs i think? they have a ban on firearms, and look where it has gotten them. I would not feel safe if my government took away my  rights to guns, i need to posses the ultimate power to inflict my will on the government (i.e. overthrow). And if you wish to argue the feasability of that first think of how the American revolutionaries defeated the best army in the world at the time, how the Vietcong slowly ran the obviously superior US military out of Vietnam, and how the guerrillas in the middle east are doing similar things right now. When Hitler came to power in 1933, he took away the civilians firearms. The government did not have to fear an armed uprising from the people. I need my government to fear me so that it truly is the people that maintain control.