Do you own a firearm?

[FurryFury]

If the calendar was up to date id nominate this.

Haha.. **feels the same way...**

I don't intend to convince everyone, just to asses and assert my own opinion. Be more self aware and aware of my surroundings.

I don't look to make you approve or agree.

It is what it is.

The calendar doesn't have to be up to date to put a quote in it. If that were true no one would ever post in it.

 

[JMohegan]

If I ever moved to buttfuck nowhere, I'd probably buy a rifle for the entertainment value of practice on inanimate objects in my backyard.

Barring that unlikely occurrence, my answer will remain at "no".

 

[Dhalgren150]

Yes.

I have 9 Handguns.

5 Shotguns.

4 Rifles.

2 Percussion Rifles.

2 Flintlocks.

 

[Homburg]

I overheard a phone conversation at Walmart one night. The lady was explaining to someone that they can't sell a gun after 10pm. Walked over to the beer section and some lady asked me if it was too late to buy beer. I said no you just can't buy a gun. She thought that was pretty funny.

I have a twelve gauge pump and a 16 gauge automatic. Sold my double barrel 20 gauge to my brother. I'd like another 20 because they are fun to shoot. You have to be a masochist to shoot the 12 with 3.5 inch shells. It will bring tears to your eyes. I'd have to be shooting at a turkey to ever fire off another of those bad boys.

Depends on the piece, actually. They've been doing alot with shotgun design and recoil handling. The easiest thing to do, to be honest, id buy a heavy gun. More mass means it will handle recoil better, thus transmitting a slower push against you. You'll still get the full force, but the mass will help disperse it over time.

It's designed for lighter stuff, but if you want an example of truly impressive recoil handling, take a look at the Beretta Extrema 2. There is a video of it in action in the hands of a beretta factiry shooter that you would not believe.

The worst thing I've ever shot recoil-wise was a British Lee-enfield No ! Mk 3 jungle carbine. The .303 speaks with authority, and carbine means less mass to slow down the push. The designers, realising how much of a beast it would be, added a rubber recoil pad. the pad is a little more than half the hieght of the butt plate. And hard, natural rubber. So it has about a smuch give as the steel butt plate it is attached to. And it presents less surface area to your shoulder. So not only does th ebloody thing kick like a mule, it bites that much deeper into your shoulder than it normally would thanks t that hideous butt-plate. It is the only gun that I have fired once (full ten round mag, I'm proud/stupid to say), and never shot again due to recoil. Do not want.

 

[Homburg]

If I ever moved to buttfuck nowhere, I'd probably buy a rifle for the entertainment value of practice on inanimate objects in my backyard.

This is essentially why I own mine, though not in my current backyard.

 

[Sharon_]

If I ever moved to buttfuck nowhere, I'd probably buy a rifle for the entertainment value of practice on inanimate objects in my backyard.

Barring that unlikely occurrence, my answer will remain at "no".

It's the animate objects you need it for out in BFN.

Just sayin'

A coyote might need to be in a pack to muster up the courage to take on a full grown man, but a coydog has no such fear and will take on a big 200# plus man one to one. And stands a good chance of winning...at least according to one of our state game wardens who's more than a little clued in to critters. I know one faced down a man at the dam I go fishin' in, and now he packs a gun when he goes down there.

I've seen a 'coon take on a man one to one - guy across the street, tusslin' over who had rights to his garbage can. They can kill dogs four or five times their size so are nothing to mess around with, either.

Then there's other pests it's just safer to put down from a distance - poisonous snakes, rabid skunks & other critters.

...and speaking from personal experience, I'd a whole lot sooner put down a partially eviscerated baby bunny with a gun than with the end of a shovel.

 

[Marquis]

Like Netzach, I'm very pro-2nd for a leftist.

I don't actually own any guns but I've fired quite a few on account of my uncle being something of a gun nut. I also did some hunting in Canada when visiting lo's family, but didn't get to shoot anything. Not because of my aim, which is pretty killer, but because there just wasn't anything to shoot.

I avoided buying a gun or accepting one as a gift for a long time because I didn't think I was emotionally stable enough to keep one in the house. I've given it a lot of thought though, and I do think I can trust myself with one and I've wanted one for a long time, so I'm probably going to buy a Beretta when I can comfortably afford it.

 

[packersfan]

I am slightly miffed and perturbed that you're ruling out trebuchets.

I agree. Sometimes you just NEED overwhelming force delivered by a 1000 lb. object at a distance of 200 yards or better.

 

[Sharon_]

I agree. Sometimes you just NEED overwhelming force delivered by a 1000 lb. object at a distance of 200 yards or better.

/trebuchet envy/

Mine only launches baseball sized objects.

/trebuchet envy/

 

[packersfan]

/trebuchet envy/

Mine only launches baseball sized objects.

/trebuchet envy/

That's ok, you have to work your way up!

 

[Sharon_]

That's ok, you have to work your way up!

/gleam in eye/

How far do you reckon' yours will launch...oh...say, a 50# pumpkin?

 

[packersfan]

/gleam in eye/

How far do you reckon' yours will launch...oh...say, a 50# pumpkin?

I don't have one anymore. 2 friends and I built one, and then they expanded it.

I think I'm gonna build a small one, just for that purpose!

 

[Netzach]

I think that when I was a young kid I had something like a gun that popped a cork. However, after having emigrated from Maine to civilization I found out that there were grocery stores with meat and fish already portioned out for cooking. Guns just never seemed to bear any utility to my life. My personal belief is that the vast majority of people who are adamant supporters of gun rights have absolutely no real need for a gun in their lives either. But they just get real pissy when someone suggests that their love of the second amendment is part of a pattern that is contributing to the untimely deaths of a lot of fellow citizens.

Uh, it's time for me to disagree adamantly with you, actually.

The people I find wringing their hands about how horrible gun violence is are usually the people the po po are HAPPY to drive to the doors of day or night. The protected and served not merely the mopped up off the walls.

The people who benefit most from the second are those who die with no one caring, single women, poor working people - who deserve to have a slight chance of defending themselves against the myriad illegal weapons illegally used around them. Anti-ownership statutes take their defenses away and do nothing - NOTHING to curb the proliferation. They're a cosmetic "we care" from the upper class.

I see a STRONG class issue at play here. I've really done a 180 in my opinion on this one in recent years the more I thought about it.

 

[Yasashii_Kaze]

No, but I don't have anything against it. I grew up with guns in the house and I know how to use one. If I lived anywhere else, I would probably have a handgun for personal protection, but I live both in teacher housing within walking distance of four schools, two under a block away, and in an area where theft is a real problem. The odds of someone attacking me are much lower than the chances of someone breaking into my apartment and endangering a child's life. I chose the safer of the two options.

 

[Netzach]

No, but I don't have anything against it. I grew up with guns in the house and I know how to use one. If I lived anywhere else, I would probably have a handgun for personal protection, but I live both in teacher housing within walking distance of four schools, two under a block away, and in an area where theft is a real problem. The odds of someone attacking me are much lower than the chances of someone breaking into my apartment and endangering a child's life. I chose the safer of the two options.

This is exactly how it should work - the decision should be more rational than emotional, and people need to think a step ahead and run some projections through their mental channels. It makes sense for some people and less for others, it's just too bad that a lot of people really don't think.

 

[the_mgp]

Nope, but that's pretty much the norm here in Australia. I don't know anyone that owns a gun.

 

[WriterDom]

In Kennesaw, every household has to have a gun and ammunition. It's the law. And they have one of the lowest crime rates in the state.

 

[midwestyankee]

Uh, it's time for me to disagree adamantly with you, actually.

The people I find wringing their hands about how horrible gun violence is are usually the people the po po are HAPPY to drive to the doors of day or night. The protected and served not merely the mopped up off the walls.

The people who benefit most from the second are those who die with no one caring, single women, poor working people - who deserve to have a slight chance of defending themselves against the myriad illegal weapons illegally used around them. Anti-ownership statutes take their defenses away and do nothing - NOTHING to curb the proliferation. They're a cosmetic "we care" from the upper class.

I see a STRONG class issue at play here. I've really done a 180 in my opinion on this one in recent years the more I thought about it.

I swore that I wouldn't return to this discussion, but here I am. I believe that you're quite right on two counts here. First, most gun-control laws are cosmetic, as you suggest. If our legislators really wanted to do away with guns they'd find a way to do it. Instead they do their usual bait and switch, putting something relatively toothless on the books and lament that they a) did what they could but just couldn't get anything stronger past the NRA-funded opposition, or b) lament that they had to give in a little bit to the libruhls (but did you notice that we can still buy and sell guns all we want anyway?)

You're also right that there is a large element of class wrapped up in the gun rights issue. I'm just cynical enough to see that both sides have manipulated their followers along class lines in order to harden the line of division between the two sides.

 

[midwestyankee]

In Kennesaw, every household has to have a gun and ammunition. It's the law. And they have one of the lowest crime rates in the state.

I'm curious about this: can you track the crime rate before and after this required ownership law was passed? Has Kennesaw's relative crime rate (i.e., relative to the surrounding area and relative to other similar municipalities elsewhere) changed much since the time when the ownership legislation was put on the books?

 

[SouthernDom]

In Kennesaw, every household has to have a gun and ammunition. It's the law. And they have one of the lowest crime rates in the state.

*nods*

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Kennesaw&state=GA

I was trained in the safe handling and useage of firearms long before I was old enough to legally drive an automobile. By the age of 16 years old I was considered by my peers to be an accomplished marksman and hunter.

I own handguns for personal protection. My long guns are for target shooting and sport hunting.

For those who live in locations that allow for legal gun ownership but choose not to own a firearm for personal protection: I do not see it as wise for anyone to broadcast over the web that they are unarmed. What's next..........putting signs in the yard advertising thet you're a potential victim in the waiting for any armed perpetrator?

OK.....I'll get off the soapbox for now, but I will leave you with this quote from Ted Nugent that I strongly agree with!


Ted Nugent: '' To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.''

 

[Sharon_]

I'm curious about this: can you track the crime rate before and after this required ownership law was passed? Has Kennesaw's relative crime rate (i.e., relative to the surrounding area and relative to other similar municipalities elsewhere) changed much since the time when the ownership legislation was put on the books?

You can track it in Kentucky, tho' I've not the time to research it for you.

We returned to a conceal/carry state a few years ago, and violent crime dropped immediately and has stayed down as compared to the period of time when we prohibited concealment.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, criminals go for the easy pickin's....they don't much care to gamble taking on someone who might have the means as well as the will to blow a chunk out of their middle. That's only good common sense...the weasel doesn't go for the hen house what has a german shepherd outside.

 

[midwestyankee]

You can track it in Kentucky, tho' I've not the time to research it for you.

We returned to a conceal/carry state a few years ago, and violent crime dropped immediately and has stayed down as compared to the period of time when we prohibited concealment.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, criminals go for the easy pickin's....they don't much care to gamble taking on someone who might have the means as well as the will to blow a chunk out of their middle. That's only good common sense...the weasel doesn't go for the hen house what has a german shepherd outside.

The thing is, crime rates generally dropped across the board in the mid to late 90's and so any shift in a municipality that tracked generally with larger trends won't demonstrate that a certain piece of legislation was responsible for the change. And because crime rates are measured in a variety of ways, it's really difficult to get useful comparisons. Very often such discussions revolve around one side describing apples and the other side talking about oranges.

 

[Netzach]

*nods*

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Kennesaw&state=GA

I was trained in the safe handling and useage of firearms long before I was old enough to legally drive an automobile. By the age of 16 years old I was considered by my peers to be an accomplished marksman and hunter.

I own handguns for personal protection. My long guns are for target shooting and sport hunting.

For those who live in locations that allow for legal gun ownership but choose not to own a firearm for personal protection: I do not see it as wise for anyone to broadcast over the web that they are unarmed. What's next..........putting signs in the yard advertising thet you're a potential victim in the waiting for any armed perpetrator?

OK.....I'll get off the soapbox for now, but I will leave you with this quote from Ted Nugent that I strongly agree with!


Ted Nugent: '' To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.''

Not having a firearm isn't necessarily being unarmed. If you want to dismiss that as stupid, look up the injuries done to police fighting perps with knives versus guns, it's kind of interesting. There's also the "safety in numbers" aspect of a city, block watches, jiu jitsu, and whatever else. There's preventative work, like seeing to it that no one has to be so desperate and fucked up they NEED to rob people for a living, a fix, or entertainment, but that's really not worth doing if you can just have guns.

No one's needling you for doing what you need to do to feel safe, fuck you for needling other people. It's a personal decision. I am more likely to die under a pancaking piece of shit taxpayer owned bridge than I am at the hands of a gunman. I'm more likely to shoot myself.

I grew up in one of the more violent parts of the country and the much more common sense approach of "don't go there" "don't walk in that direction" "get home before dark" has developed a keen urban spidey sense that I'm *glad* I didn't have the cockswinging assurance to not develop.

Reality is, the law is also NOT on the side of self defense. If, God forbid, I have to put a wusthoff trident though my attacker's neck and I survive the incident, there's going to be a lot of scrutiny and the likelihood that my life is going to be spared to be ruined for at least a decade or so in courts and jail. If you really know the law in some places, it's sobering, it makes conceal carry much less attractive and much less "easy solution to personal safety" and that's OK, by me, it should never be the first solution that springs to mind when you are sizing up a situation - if you CAN escape you should have to escape. The sanctity of property is a horseshit reason to kill some cuckoo crackhead who wants your TV.

 

[Marquis]

Ted Nugent: '' To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.''

I kinda dig this, which itself leaves me feeling a bit confused.

 

[Netzach]

I kinda dig this, which itself leaves me feeling a bit confused.

Are the people who mentor youth, start midnight basketball, organize the block instead of getting their permits "accepting defenselessness?"