# What guns do you own?



## Get-dancing (Apr 12, 2007)

I dont actually own one myself .b But I pretty much own one of these:





My cousin-in law has it and he lets me use it whenever I go like, Im one hellova shot with it.

Which ones do _you_ own?


----------



## Option7 (Apr 12, 2007)

I don't own any guns, but as soon as I turn 18 I wanna get a gun liscence.


----------



## Iron-Wolf (Apr 12, 2007)

I am a big gun collector. I currently own:

-Sig-Sauer P-224 9mm pistol
-Ithica 12g shotgun
-Remington 12g shotgun
-Winchester 20g shotgun
-(2) bolt action .22 rifles
-bolt action 30-06 rifle
-bolt action .223 rifle
-bolt action .327 rifle
-M1 Garand rifle
-M1 carbine
-M2 rifle
-M2 Carbine
-M14 assault rifle
-Mini 14 assault rifle
-Pancor automatic shotgun
-AR15 assault rifle
-Russian SKS assault rifle
-Thompson sub machine gun
-AK47 assault rifle


----------



## GuitarSolo (Apr 12, 2007)

i have 12-guage shot gun. Praticly the only gun you need where I live. That and a hunting rifile


----------



## Icarus (Apr 12, 2007)

two airsoft pistols and an airsoft rifle.

(they don't kill, but I get to shoot stuffs.)


----------



## Thot (Apr 12, 2007)

None. Isn't worth the effort getting a permit to carry a loaded weapon with me and I wouldn't need it anyway. A knife's sufficient.


----------



## DarkMeW (Apr 12, 2007)

SKS
AK47
My grand father's WW1 service revolver
a old Russian bolt action snipper rifle (it's been in storage so long I can't recall the type.)
a couple shot guns
and a fare assortment of hand guns 

Most of them have been locked up in storage for a long time. So I don't have any of them at my place.


----------



## V3N0M (Apr 12, 2007)

AK47?  How can I get one of those legally?


----------



## Iron-Wolf (Apr 12, 2007)

V3N0M said:
			
		

> AK47?Â Â How can I get one of those legally?



You have to get a special license from the ATF. It permits you to own automatic and assault grade weaponry.


----------



## foxy (Apr 12, 2007)

I can hurt people's eyes with it.
What more do i need ?


----------



## DavidN (Apr 12, 2007)

Rubber band launcher built out of K'nex?


----------



## capthavoc123 (Apr 12, 2007)

Iron-Wolf said:
			
		

> V3N0M said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Half correct. The permit is only for assault-grade weaponry. Automatic is military-only.

Anyways, I own a Walther P99. As soon as I have enough money, I'll go for a Desert Eagle. Mostly for display purposes only, but I'll shoot every once in a while. The gun is $1500, so I don't want it to go to waste, but the bullets are $20 for a box of 20 rounds. Shooting a Desert Eagle is an EXPENSIVE hobby.


----------



## Iron-Wolf (Apr 12, 2007)

capthavoc123 said:
			
		

> Iron-Wolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, yes my friend, it is legal to own an automatic firearm.

How To Own a NFA Weapon 
(Machine Guns, etc.)

-You must be a U.S. citizen over 21 years of age. 
-You must live in a state that allows Class 3 weapons. 
-You must be clear of any felonies as verified by an F.B.I. background check. 
-You must submit a fingerprint card and two passport photos, which are kept on file by the BATF. 
-You must obtain a signature from your local Chief Law Enforcement Officer verifying that you have no felony indictments pending against you, and are mentally stable. 
-You must pay a one-time federal tax for each NFA weapon or suppressor purchased.  Full auto $200.00.  Short Barreled Rife (SBR) $200.00.  Suppressor $200.00.  Any Other Weapon (AOW) $5.00.


----------



## DavidN (Apr 12, 2007)

I sort of skipped over the thread the first time and didn't notice your quite incredible list, Iron Wolf - what, are you expecting the Russians to invade next week or something?


----------



## Iron-Wolf (Apr 12, 2007)

DavidN said:
			
		

> I sort of skipped over the thread the first time and didn't notice your quite incredible list, Iron Wolf - what, are you expecting the Russians to invade next week or something?



Hah! I wish they would! Then at least I would have a use for this hardware. Actually most of those guns are in glass display cases. My grandfather collected old military firearms as a hobby, and when he died since I was the only other member of the family with an interest in guns, I got his entire collection.


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 12, 2007)

Only a semi-auto Gameface paintball gun here. I'm not one for real guns, I don't like them around me, or even in my sight.


----------



## Arsonos (Apr 13, 2007)

Guns are for people who have....








A love for guns.


----------



## Bokracroc (Apr 13, 2007)

I have a home-modded Super Soaker thay can shoot ping-pong balls I made when I was bored. Fill them up with flour and they hurt. Sorta like paintball that don't pop, and a gun you have to constantly pump after every shot. Rock 'n Cock paintball guns are faster.


----------



## The Sonic God (Apr 13, 2007)

I like the gun that's attached to me... down there...

Â¬.Â¬

<.<



(Don't own any guns, but I'm pretty accurate... 'cept those arcades suck.)


----------



## WelcomeTheCollapse (Apr 13, 2007)

Just paintball for me. Tippman 98C with many things on it, and an M-1 (custom body) Orracle autococker.

Imma go get a weapons permit over the summer, though.


----------



## XNexusDragonX (Apr 13, 2007)

I've never even seen a gun before, even with all the armed Police carrying Mp5's around London, I've never actually come across any of them.


----------



## Foxstar (Apr 13, 2007)

I'm armed with a .357 Magnum but they give those out at birth and it vanished when I shot at a crackhead running though my backyard, via my grandmom. So I should get a new one.


----------



## darkchukkz (Apr 14, 2007)

The Sonic God said:
			
		

> I like the gun that's attached to me... down there...



Oh you mean this evil thing featured in "From Dusk Till Dawn"!!! =D


----------



## imnohbody (Apr 14, 2007)

_~o
This is my rifle,
this is my gun.
This is for shooting,
and this is for fun.
o~_



(I don't own one now, and haven't for years, but I don't object to them on general principle.)


----------



## Sulacoyote (Apr 14, 2007)

I was given a Swedish Mauser when I was 12, but left it behind in California when I moved. Tiny car, big gun.

Looking to get a 4" .357 Magnum, hopefully a S&W. And a nice cheap .22 revolver.


----------



## Sulacoyote (Apr 14, 2007)

Iron-Wolf said:
			
		

> I am a big gun collector. I currently own:
> 
> -Sig-Sauer P-224 9mm pistol
> -Ithica 12g shotgun
> ...



..That is so cool.

_Please_ invite me to your house.


----------



## Iron-Wolf (Apr 14, 2007)

Sulacoyote said:
			
		

> Iron-Wolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Heh heh. Well, everyone has to have a hobby. Mine is just kinda violent. Man if zombies ever attack, you guys all know where to come.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Apr 14, 2007)

Iron-Wolf said:
			
		

> Heh heh. Well, everyone has to have a hobby. Mine is just kinda violent. Man if zombies ever attack, you guys all know where to come.



Well, actually, the only things you've got that would be very good against zombies are the Sig pistol and the carbines. Automatics are useless, bolt-actions are too slow, and shotguns take to long to reload.


----------



## Iron-Wolf (Apr 15, 2007)

capthavoc123 said:
			
		

> Iron-Wolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, I have to disagree. The 20g shotgun is useless cause it's single shot. But my two 12g shotguns are pump action, and they each hold 8 shells. Also, the assault rifles like the M1, M2, and M14 are clip fed, and semi-automatic. So they're pretty useful. Not to mention a .223 slug has alot more stopping power than a little 9mm. Also the AR15 and the AK can fire in 3 burst, which can be great if you need to lay down fire fast, but yet still aim.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Apr 15, 2007)

Stopping power doesn't matter for a zombie. You need a headshot every time. A shotgun with 8 shells is no help when you've got a horde of zombies after you. Sure, some of the pellets may hit multiple targets, but you still got a long reload time. Meanwhile, you've lost fingers and you're down on the ground with your jugular bitten out.

According to the Zombie Survival Guide, an M1 carbine is the best weapon for fighting zombies, along with a melee weapon like a machete.


----------



## DavidN (Apr 15, 2007)

Grenade launcher, that's what you need for that.


----------



## Iron-Wolf (Apr 15, 2007)

capthavoc123 said:
			
		

> Stopping power doesn't matter for a zombie. You need a headshot every time. A shotgun with 8 shells is no help when you've got a horde of zombies after you. Sure, some of the pellets may hit multiple targets, but you still got a long reload time. Meanwhile, you've lost fingers and you're down on the ground with your jugular bitten out.
> 
> According to the Zombie Survival Guide, an M1 carbine is the best weapon for fighting zombies, along with a melee weapon like a machete.


Now that I will whole heartedly agree to! I think an M1c and a machete is a bitching combination. But I'm also a little partial to the baseball bat with nails sticking out of it too.


----------



## Bokracroc (Apr 15, 2007)

How about attaching a machete to a M1?
Or a Machete launcher?


----------



## DarkMeW (Apr 15, 2007)

This is of course all depending on what type of zombie you're fighting. There's the bio-contamination zombie, parasite zombie, virus zombie, or even the classic magically risen from the grave zombie. All of which have different methods of despatching. Of course I'd go with a good katana for close up, a machete would get stuck to often. Not to mention several improvised weapons that would be good for dealing with any hoards.


----------



## Bokracroc (Apr 15, 2007)

DarkMeW said:
			
		

> This is of course all depending on what type of zombie you're fighting. There's the bio-contamination zombie, parasite zombie, virus zombie, or even the classic magically risen from the grave zombie. All of which have different methods of despatching. Of course I'd go with a good katana for close up, a machete would get stuck to often. *Not to mention several improvised weapons that would be good for dealing with any hoards.*


Like the Vengaboys album?


----------



## Saint Jimmy (Apr 15, 2007)

50 mm howitzer
Hunting rifles
Ballista
2 handguns
and Mini Gun PaintBall

i have a uncle thatlives with me and he collects weapons, these are just the ones he let me have.:twisted::twisted::evil::twisted:


----------



## capthavoc123 (Apr 15, 2007)

DarkMeW said:
			
		

> This is of course all depending on what type of zombie you're fighting. There's the bio-contamination zombie, parasite zombie, virus zombie, or even the classic magically risen from the grave zombie. All of which have different methods of despatching. Of course I'd go with a good katana for close up, a machete would get stuck to often. Not to mention several improvised weapons that would be good for dealing with any hoards.



What? No, all zombies die the same. Destroy the brain. The bio-contamination, parasite, and virus zombies are all the same thing. The risen-from-the-grave zombie is a reanimated corpse, not quite the same thing, not quite a zombie at all. And katanas are too fragile for the kind of work you'd need for a zombie horde. Thems are slashin' weapons, not stabbin' weapons.



			
				Bokracroc said:
			
		

> Like the Vengaboys album?



LOL i see wut u did thar


----------



## Saint Jimmy (Apr 15, 2007)

the list of guns that my uncle owns goes into the hundreds


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 15, 2007)

capthavok, as a "hammer boy" blacksmith myself(basically an aprentice) ill tell you a real katana will do quite nicely for ALOT of hacking and slashing. the only time you would exepect said steel to break is if it got stuck and you wrenched it wrong or you kept hitting hard things like oposing steel. katana and good european swords are made out of steel similar to modern spring steel(carbon conents of .9 to 1.05%) and are extreemly flexible and durable .

anyway for dealing with zombies i'd want either a hefty mace or a whirling flail . if its the head that must be destroyed just bash it in!

hey saint jimmy, could you tell me more about the balista you have? i made one a long while back out of scrap metal and wood(the rope was good though). currently i use it to beat all the neighbor kids in water ballon fights(i dont have the ropes as tight as they should be so it is pretty low power). i was just wondering because it seemed odd for someone that isnt as strange as me to have one .


----------



## Saint Jimmy (Apr 15, 2007)

well its made with a steel frame and can fire projectiles weighing 10-60 pounds over 900 meters. the average things i shoot are lead weights and the rare weight chicken. i have a smaller wood and steel one that i use to shoot at pests and the local kids.... you know water balloons and small smoke bombs!


----------



## Saint Jimmy (Apr 15, 2007)

I know a blacksmith, AutoShop teacher, and a person that likes to shoot things at high speeds using stuff he builds!!!
i Am a Architectual designer and i designed the big one to shoot through the target and keep going!!!


----------



## Orlith Nemeth (Apr 15, 2007)

Spirit Wolf said:
			
		

> Only a semi-auto Gameface paintball gun here. I'm not one for real guns, I don't like them around me, or even in my sight.



I agree, I have a moral objection to guns, but I'll leave it at that *glares at the thread*


----------



## Saint Jimmy (Apr 15, 2007)

Hey don't like guns do yah?? then how do you feel about those who own Paint Ball guns that are illegal in most states and even in canada???


----------



## DavidN (Apr 15, 2007)

Ever played paintball? It's incredibly sore when you're hit.

I don't believe that guns cause people to be violent any more than, say, computer games - another common scapegoat - do (although if they're in the hands of a violent person, the gun obviously helps more). Nevertheless I do find the sheer amount of them that some people own slightly worrying.


----------



## Iron-Wolf (Apr 15, 2007)

Orlith Nemeth said:
			
		

> Spirit Wolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I myself can fully understand why people do not like guns. But in the defense of guns, even if all the guns in the world were destroyed, and all knowledge of them stricken from memory... Sadly mankind would just keep killing eachother with swords and bows. Man will always fight his fellow man no matter what.


----------



## Orlith Nemeth (Apr 15, 2007)

Saint Jimmy said:
			
		

> Hey don't like guns do yah?? then how do you feel about those who own Paint Ball guns that are illegal in most states and even in canada???



To me guns embody violence and I gernerally morally object to all kinds of violence, right down to movies and video games that are particularily violent (and it's not because I think they "make people become violent" they just try to make violence entertaining, wich it shouldn't be IMHO) The only kind of gun I like are water guns, and thats because I live in a semi-arid dessert like area and have good reason to like them in the summer,that and they don't hurt, but I don't even own one of those.Â Â I hate paintball guns only slightly less than real ones, and I don't think people should be using them _especially_ if they are illegal. I just feel that they all help promote violence.Â Â There easy to obtain and eay to use...if we all used bow and arrows woud there still be school shootings?
...anyway, I don't want to derail the topic, so I'll just stop posting now ^.=.^ I can't stop you all from likeing what you like just  like you can't stop me from hating what I hate


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 15, 2007)

Paintball guns don't hurt if you are playing the game correctly. If you are going to paintball, you really need to have the following:

A Semi-auto/full auto gun. Don't use a single action. Thats asking to get murdered.

A FULL COVERAGE helmet, thick plastic, with anti-fog so you can see

Neck protection

Padded chest armor that straps to your chest underneath 1-2 LONG SLEEVE shirts

Thick pants made for paintball, very good protection and are durable

Shoes ( duh)

Handguards

And make sure you play in an area that doesn't allow over 280-300 psi, people get hurt when it goes over 300.


----------



## Get-dancing (Apr 15, 2007)

I hate it when all the fucking gay emo people are like "OMG! Guns kill people Gavin! Guns only purpose is to kill!"
I mean sure, guns 'original' purpose was a to kill, but it dosn't mean its its only purpose. What about hammers, knifes, axes, clubs, slingshots and even yo-yos? All their original purpose was to kill.
Also what about cars? Cars are used in murders far more than guns, not to mention the general deaths in general they cause.
It seems that these liberals want guns banned because they think they are like "perfect killing machiens in which you can defenetly kill a man from a distance" which they egagurated in film and television to be. But thats far from the truth. You've got to constantly reload them for one thing, its quite hard to aim, the gun can fuck up at ANY time and it takes quite a shot to kill a man. Only a head shot or about 3 shots to the chest has a reliable chance of killing him.

And as we all know, Blaming guns on school shoot-ups is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donald for being fat.


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 15, 2007)

Theres no need to pop a blood vein friend, just step back and take a few breaths. Go outside and enjoy a fresh breeze of the wind. It helps a lot.


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 15, 2007)

lol, get dancing that is never the way to get your point across and have it taken seriously . trust me i used to get pissed off all the time like that. now i just get pissed off on the inside and controll my actions.

guns have a long history of being hated.... ever since leonardo da-vinci invented the first truely effective firearm(a wheellock, before that people were using difficult match locks) people have been trying to get rid of them. the church feared them because it gave a peasant the power to kill any man if he got close and you'd never tell he was armed. governments were concerned that the lower classes would have the power to overthrow them and so on. 

however, its not the gun itself that does murder, its a tool of power to be true but it doesnt murder. the man behind the gun murders. orlith, to anser your question about school shootings... there have been lots of cases where students either on or off school grounds have been stabbed and beaten by thier peers. when looking at school violence one should understand that is the student's environment that drives him to violence and not the fact that he is capible of it. people just dont do things on the simple grounds of because they can.

anyway as for guns i own... i dont own one yet. ive been saving and maybe in the next few months ill bring home a brand new rifled .50 flintlock musket by traditions . ive fired off alot of guns despite not owning any and i have to say, muskets are slow but they are fun! im so exited about buying that firearm.... i know it'l be tons of fun at the range or on my family property(20 acres of space to do what you want)..... i think ill stick to the range so i dont scare our horses .


----------



## thegreathamster (Apr 15, 2007)

My boyfriend's gun.........


----------



## TheSkunkCat (Apr 15, 2007)

Well... I am still trying to build my 'death lazor 3000 satellite of utter doom.' does that qualify as a gun?

If it does half as well as my current projections it'll be able to turn the entirity of shotgunland USA into a smouldering crater with one quarterpower shot, and give every gunowner a case of penis envy that will send them crying to a therapists couch in fetal position! If I so desire of course. Which I might not if I'm declared ruler of the planet. In case of which I'll only use eight-power shot to quell insurrections.

Unfortunately, I have been having a bit of trouble getting the parts. Friggin' Kazakhstanians.... They never did come true on that rocket engine! And the ruby core's been a bit of a problem too.

Still, do expect my world domination somewhere within the next two decades. And if it happens... do yourself a favour and just cooperate with my wishes. Seriously there's no glory in death, and I totally will press that button, so why even make the stand? Its not like I'll be such a bad ruler. How much worse then the collection of buffoons currently ruling the world do you think I'd be?

Anyhow, should my sattelite not qualify as a gun, I think the various attachments I've lately been adding to my powerarmour certainly qualify. My new masercannon makes handguns look like those cheap korean squirtguns that only hold half a squirt!


----------



## capthavoc123 (Apr 15, 2007)

That's it.

Thread over.

Because, seriously, how do you top that?


----------



## DarkMeW (Apr 16, 2007)

capthavoc123 said:
			
		

> What? No, all zombies die the same. Destroy the brain. The bio-contamination, parasite, and virus zombies are all the same thing.


Not at all. First off parasite zombies don't have to take over the brain, they can just be attached to the nerve system, sometimes circonventing the brain (a old zombie flick where slug like parasites could take over any corpse, despite to condition of the brain.) Virus zombies, such as in the Resident Evil moves still function with most of the brain gone. When the zombies first start to appear they get approached by one that has had most of its head blown off. The brain was destroyed, but still it functions. There is also several B movies/anime I recall that the bio contamination created a regeneration effect, so the whole body had to be destroyed. Even with the regeneration the beginning is still a zombie. (I wish I had some of the titles, but it's been a good six years since I've watch a good zombie movie.) 

Most weapons wouldn't get rid of the entire brain. It might destroy a portion of the brain but with out decapitation it could still function as a zombie. (sometimes even with that.) 



> The risen-from-the-grave zombie is a reanimated corpse, not quite the same thing, not quite a zombie at all.



Actually that is the classical zombie. You are thinking of modern version where they had to be more cleaver in their explanations to how a zombie can come into being.



> And katanas are too fragile for the kind of work you'd need for a zombie horde. Thems are slashin' weapons, not stabbin' weapons.



A slashing weapon is exactly what you need. Most 'good' katanas are not that fragile, the crappy 50-100 dollars ones at the mall would be what you're thinking of. You don't need to try and hack trough flesh and bone, that would only drain you of strength and cause the weapon to get stuck. A slash across the neck with a diamond sharpened katana would cut deep enough that the head wouldn't be able to stay on or at least be susceptible to toppling off. 

I worked grave yard at a store. We'd get bored, and the subject of zombie seemed to be a recurring theme at night. So we've gone through a lot of possible scenarios, especially about weapon choice. Destorying them by fire was always the best choice, but rather problematic. Unless you follow Army of The Darkness rules, which are just plain silly.


----------



## Orlith Nemeth (Apr 16, 2007)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> orlith, to anser your question about school shootings... there have been lots of cases where students either on or off school grounds have been stabbed and beaten by thier peers. when looking at school violence one should understand that is the student's environment that drives him to violence and not the fact that he is capible of it. people just dont do things on the simple grounds of because they can.


Hmm I didn't really think about that kind of thing. I don't think people do violent things on the grounds that just because they have the ability to, they do it. I just don't like the thought of guns. Or any weapon for that matter.  It just bothers me to think that (and yes I know they do daily) people would feel the need to kill one another for purposes other than self defence.


----------



## Xenofur (Apr 16, 2007)

little convo i had with one of my mods a while back, on the topic of her getting a job, so she could pay for medical treatment she needed:

07-03-21@02:04:09 (Samiya) It's either heavy labor or working in a gas station.
07-03-21@02:04:29 (Samiya) I can't do the former and I just won't do the latter. Too many gas station attendants get shot.

( for clarity, i should mention that i was absolutely shocked. where i live simply the concept of what she wrote there is completely impossible. )


----------



## Bokracroc (Apr 16, 2007)

Spirit Wolf said:
			
		

> [size=x-small]
> Paintball guns don't hurt if you are playing the game correctly. If you are going to paintball, you really need to have the following:
> 
> A Semi-auto/full auto gun. Don't use a single action. Thats asking to get murdered.
> ...


Jebus! Are you actually going to war or playing League or something along those lines?
You only absolutely need a mask (covers forehead, eyes and mouth) and shoes. If you're getting shot in the back of your head you really should rethink your postion.
Neck protection is good to have (even if it's just a scarf). It's not a given you'll get shot in the neck but you never know.
Thicks pants and Handguards is optional.
Padded chest armour? They're not shooting rocks at you nor standing 30cm from your chest. 

The guns and PSI depend on the Field.
There's this indoor I go to with uses Pump-loaded guns and lower PSI because it's an inclosed field. If you get close to an enemy you just pointed your gun at them and yell "Surrender!". They put up their arms and gun as have they've been shot.
An outdoor one I went to used Semi-Auto and a good level of PSI to make up for the size of the field. In this place you really shouldn't be able to get that close to someone.


----------



## sunshyne (Apr 16, 2007)

22 (at least) dead this morning in a campus shooting at Virginia Tech. 

On one hand, it obviously wasn't an issue for this psycho to get his hands on a gun and massive amounts of ammo. On the other hand, if more people who weren't crazies had guns, maybe they could have stopped this guy earlier... Just a very sad situation all around.

Discuss.


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 16, 2007)

quite obviously our isntitutions of learning are not places where students feel comfortable. generally as a whole we view school with disdain and why not? our schools are filthy, the class materials are falling apart and students with attitude problems arent taken care of....

there are several things that *I* think can have promoted such violence. one, our culture is screwed up. parrents are more worried about thier own selfish gains in life these days than thier kids. most of my friends have LOUSY parrents.... i was lucky growing up because i was raised my grandparrents.

i dont think its realy the parrents though, its the atmosphere that the kids are in. kids these days spend most of thier time in school and its just a lousy environment. other countries dont experience the sheer level of violence that our schools do(guns or otherwise) because they have built a better environment. the schools are cleen, the study materials are in good condition and most inportantly the teachers take steps to make sure that unruly students are diciplined to the point that bullying isnt at all comman.

environment reflects on yourself. i went through depression once and the first thing i learned is that my environment controlls how i function and react. mayor juliani of new york realised that and greatly reduced crime in new york city by inproving the environment(cracking down on litering and graphiti for example). it is my opinion that we should inprove the environment of our students to prevent such horrible things and not ban firearms.

an example is that in canada students have far easier acess to firearms but they dont have nearly the issues that we do. that is simply because the environment of the students is cleaner and better.


----------



## DavidN (Apr 16, 2007)

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of such free access to firearms in the first place, but that was an excellent post and I can see your point - the reason behind what drove him to do it was the problem, rather than the weapon itself.

I was just about to post the same news story - unfortunate that such an example came up right in the middle of it.


----------



## sunshyne (Apr 16, 2007)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> quite obviously our isntitutions of learning are not places where students feel comfortable. generally as a whole we view school with disdain and why not? our schools are filthy, the class materials are falling apart and students with attitude problems arent taken care of....
> 
> there are several things that *I* think can have promoted such violence. one, our culture is screwed up. parrents are more worried about thier own selfish gains in life these days than thier kids. most of my friends have LOUSY parrents.... i was lucky growing up because i was raised my grandparrents.
> 
> ...




Naturally, there was just a guy on MSNBC ranting about how we need more cops patrolling the schools, metal detectors at every door, etc. etc... Not EXACTLY a step in the right direction, wouldn't you think?


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 16, 2007)

no, not a step in the right direction... the point is to make the environment for the students BETTER not worse. cops patrolling the school only increese tension and worsen things. the school counseler is however a proven method of helping students out... 

at this point i dont know what we can do to fix the school system. its such an enourmus(sorry bout the spellin) task that its crazy. however if we intend to prevent things like this from happening the first thing to do is fix the environment. stop the school fights, get good books, make sure the school is cleaned and enforce dicipline.... things that most schools fail miserably at...


----------



## capthavoc123 (Apr 16, 2007)

DavidN said:
			
		

> I'm uncomfortable with the idea of such free access to firearms in the first place, but that was an excellent post and I can see your point - the reason behind what drove him to do it was the problem, rather than the weapon itself.
> 
> I was just about to post the same news story - unfortunate that such an example came up right in the middle of it.



It's quite obvious that you have convictions against guns and owning them. I just pray you're not one of those people who push for outlawing private ownership of firearms. It is a cliche, but if you outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have guns.

Personally, I'd feel a whole lot better having a gun if a guy busts into my house with a gun. It's not like I can hold up the phone and say, "Sorry, I already called the police. You can't shoot me now."


----------



## sunshyne (Apr 16, 2007)

I'm not against private gun ownership or even private handgun ownership. Like capthavoc, I think they're good to have for protection in certain situations. But answer me this: why can't we have mandatory registration for ALL firearms? This is a giant hang-up many red, pro-gun people have, and almost all of them say the same thing: that if we have mandatory registration, then next we'll go after the guns themselves. Well that's not true. There's no slippery slope here. Why no mandatory registration for every gun in every state? It doesn't seem to me that you can have a legitimate hangup with this idea unless you plan to use your gun for illegal purposes.


----------



## DavidN (Apr 16, 2007)

capthavoc123 said:
			
		

> It's quite obvious that you have convictions against guns and owning them. I just pray you're not one of those people who push for outlawing private ownership of firearms. It is a cliche, but if you outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have guns.



You're right about that, but I try not to push my opinions about it too far. I know that guns aren't the problem in themselves, it's when mental people get their hands on them. Perhaps just far stricter rules about who can be sold them would help, but I've no idea what checks take place at the moment.

Having said that, what was the effect of the handgun ban after Dunblane in Britain?


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 16, 2007)

sunshyne, im ALL for mandatory gun registration. i DONT believe in the severe limitation of firearms but i believe they should be monitored and tracked so that when a violent gun related crime happens its easier to track the firearm. thats all i want. that is extreemly difficult to do however, the best we can do is register all firearms manufactured in the us. you wouldnt believe how many illegal ones are shipped in...

now, washington for the longest of time had laws that banned ALL firearms, recently the supreme court overtuned that law saying it was unconstitutional. the funny thing is that after the banning of firearms the crime rate climbed a little, could be something else but it could also be the banning of legal firearms. as it was said before, the criminals dont follow the rules.

europe doesnt realy count in this case because large private firearms ownership never realy took place. when firearms first came into existance(in europe) two kinds of people owned them, the rich and those willing to steal them and that continued pretty much all the way up to the second world war. the industrial revolution for example was kind to the united states but in europe it was cruel and the comman folk often had less than they had before. essentially banning firearms was viable in european countries because they werent that comman amongst the people in the first place. in places like the united states all banning firearms does is makes it more difficult to track firearm related crime and figure out who is an honorable gun owner.

one thing to note, in HIGHLY stable countries like britian, france and so on the banning of guns is not so inportant. however in areas that are not so stable and do experience violent crimes it has been demonstrated that the severe limitation/banning of firearms is bad for the stability of the region. for example, trying to ban firearms in africa would only mean that there would be less to stop the violence. villages often have armed militias that protect themselves.. this case was also demonstrated with washington in our own country, the banning of firearms seemed to have increesed crime because there is less deterant and people are less capible of defending themselves. 

im part of a group of people that believes that the police cannot be everywhere. we should be good citizens and learn how to uphold the law in our own way, sometimes that means defending your property and your own with a deterrance of violence.


----------



## sunshyne (Apr 16, 2007)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> sunshyne, im ALL for mandatory gun registration. i DONT believe in the severe limitation of firearms but i believe they should be monitored and tracked so that when a violent gun related crime happens its easier to track the firearm. thats all i want. that is extreemly difficult to do however, the best we can do is register all firearms manufactured in the us. you wouldnt believe how many illegal ones are shipped in...
> 
> now, washington for the longest of time had laws that banned ALL firearms, recently the supreme court overtuned that law saying it was unconstitutional. the funny thing is that after the banning of firearms the crime rate climbed a little, could be something else but it could also be the banning of legal firearms. as it was said before, the criminals dont follow the rules.
> 
> ...




I agree with your sentiments almost entirely, and you make a good point, that mandatory registration and tracking would be very hard. But unfortunately there are politicians that use that argument as a reason not to try in the first place. As though a society where a gun is as easy to buy as a pack of cigarettes would be in some way SAFER than one where mandatory registration were enforced, but skirted by some criminals. THAT doesn't register with me.


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 16, 2007)

the registration is aimed to be able to track criminals and bring them to justice, NOT to prevent crime. you cannot stop some idiot from choosing to do something, you can only bring him to justice after the fact or try to stop him from acomplishing his goal durring his attempt. 

what i think is we currently need better methods to track firearms within our country, currently that is something that is generally beyond us. even if we were to put something like a gps in the weapon if the weapon was stolen someone would likely just simply remove the chip...

one thing to note, what brought an end to the constant gunfights in the old west wasnt a sudden limitation of firearms. what brought the end of all the roberies, shootings and so on was that the police forces gained great leaps in tracking and identifying criminals(the ability to print pictures on wanted posters, railways and finally the real savior, telegraph lines). often citizens would volunteer to help the law bring criminals to justice and with these tools criminals got away less and less, suddenly crime rates plumeted. it wasnt the banning of firearms that tamed the west, nor was it the over abundance, what tamed the west was the ability to track and hunt criminals and bring them to justice.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Apr 16, 2007)

sunshyne said:
			
		

> I agree with your sentiments almost entirely, and you make a good point, that mandatory registration and tracking would be very hard. But unfortunately there are politicians that use that argument as a reason not to try in the first place. As though a society where a gun is as easy to buy as a pack of cigarettes would be in some way SAFER than one where mandatory registration were enforced, but skirted by some criminals. THAT doesn't register with me.



WHOA WHOA WHOA. Back up there. It is WAY harder to get a gun than you think it is. At legitimate stores you have to undergo a background check, not to mention get a gun license, before you can buy a gun.

Our gun laws may not be as rigorous as they need to be, but it is much more than a matter of just walking in and buying a gun.


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 16, 2007)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> Spirit Wolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You do get shot in the back of the head, thinking you won't is foolish. You will rethink your opinion on chest armor when you get shot point blank by someone and blood is pouring down your chest:-| (I play in a place with many fields. Some of them are large and open, some are woods areas, others are small towns.) I'd like to paintball with the people you seem to play against. Around here, there is no "surrender" if they get close to you the pricks will light you up and not think twice. :?


----------



## sunshyne (Apr 16, 2007)

capthavoc123 said:
			
		

> sunshyne said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I didn't mean to imply that it was, just that at times it seems as though that's what some in the gun lobby desire.


----------



## imnohbody (Apr 16, 2007)

sunshyne said:
			
		

> 22 (at least) dead this morning in a campus shooting at Virginia Tech.
> 
> On one hand, it obviously wasn't an issue for this psycho to get his hands on a gun and massive amounts of ammo. On the other hand, if more people who weren't crazies had guns, maybe they could have stopped this guy earlier... Just a very sad situation all around.
> 
> Discuss.



Out of curiosity, why did you decide to bring the VT shooting discussion into this thread, when there is several other threads on the subject? Topic drift, like the paintball discussion, is one thing, but this is just plain-old hijacking the thread.


----------



## sunshyne (Apr 16, 2007)

imnohbody said:
			
		

> sunshyne said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Um, maybe because the thread was already headed that way, and this news story was extremely pertinent to the discussion already at hand??? Check two posts prior to mine, I believe, and you'll find the tail end of some talk about gun control and school shootings.


----------



## Bokracroc (Apr 17, 2007)

Spirit Wolf said:
			
		

> [size=x-small]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have been shot in the back of the head ('friendly' fire). He shot me twice actually (in the same round to boot).
Sounds like you have a large influx of dickheads where you play. Follow this thing I was taught (The guy that runs the Indoor one tells people this).
If someone has the guts to shoot you at point blank in the chest, return the favour. If they're smart they'll think twice before shooting someone point-blank in the chest and hopefully go for a leg shot next time.
Of course if they purposely shoot you in the face point-blank feel free to bash them with your gun-butt (where hopefully the cansiter might be).


----------



## Bokracroc (Apr 17, 2007)




----------



## DavidN (Apr 17, 2007)

I think I'm beginning to see the problem here.


----------



## CaptainSaicin (Apr 17, 2007)

Winchester .308 lever-action with rotary magazine
12-guage pump-action shotgun
.22 Caliber bolt-action pneumatic rifle with scope

Gun control laws are bullshit. They don't protect anyone. VTech is a case-in-point, since gun restrictions were in place that strictly forbid students or faculty from carrying firearms even with a concealed carry permit. When will people learn that the Shooter and people like him ARE NOT law-abiding citizens, and simply don't give a flying fsk if it's illegal to carry a weapon there, they're going to do it anyway! The only people affected by gun-control laws are the responsible citizens who deserve the right to defend themselves.


----------



## Bokracroc (Apr 17, 2007)

Gun Control Laws are in place for the stupid. Do you want Mr. Immature or Mr. Mental Problem arming themselves up? No, but they always seem to get them anyway (meaning there's a problem somewhere).
Why would you need to carry a concealed pistol on you at all times? Unless you're a farmer or a collector (as in Glass Case/ Display collector) there's not much a bat shouldn't be able to fix if someone comes busting into your house.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Apr 18, 2007)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> Why would you need to carry a concealed pistol on you at all times? Unless you're a farmer or a collector (as in Glass Case/ Display collector) there's not much a bat shouldn't be able to fix if someone comes busting into your house.



Unless, of course, someone breaks into your house and they have a gun.


----------



## CaptainSaicin (Apr 18, 2007)

There are two kinds of gun control laws.

There are those that restrict purchases and carry permits to legal residents who pass background checks and wait periods, etc. These are the laws designed to minimize the availability of firearms to criminals and instable/immature individuals. These laws do a lot of good, and there are very few if any people not in support of them, including gun enthusiasts such as myself. 

Then there are the laws that restrict even sane, law-abiding citizens from posessing or carrying guns. These laws do not work, ever. They only create situations in which the innocent are unable to defend themselves, and the malicious are free to kill.

With or without laws, criminals will get guns, and with or without laws, they will take them places they shouldn't. That's what a criminal is -- someone who disregards the law. If you make it illegal for ANYONE to carry a weapon, then the only people who will carry weapons are the criminals, and suddenly the criminals won't have any opposition to fear.

Virginia Tech was a gun-free zone. It was illegal for even permit-carrying law-abiding citizens to have weapons on the campus. AS A RESULT of these very laws that were designed to PROTECT the students, they were defenseless when a lawbreaker came in and murdered 32 people with guns. If that kind of gun control worked, then this would never have happened.


----------



## WHPellic (Apr 18, 2007)

CaptainSaicin said:
			
		

> Virginia Tech was a gun-free zone. It was illegal for even permit-carrying law-abiding citizens to have weapons on the campus. AS A RESULT of these very laws that were designed to PROTECT the students, they were defenseless when a lawbreaker came in and murdered 32 people with guns. If that kind of gun control worked, then this would never have happened.



How can you be so sure? Even if it wasn't a gun-free zone, the same outcome could have happened.


----------



## starla (Apr 18, 2007)

TheSkunkCat said:
			
		

> Well... I am still trying to build my 'death lazor 3000 satellite of utter doom.' does that qualify as a gun?



Snigger.



			
				WHPellic said:
			
		

> How can you be so sure? Even if it wasn't a gun-free zone, the same outcome could have happened.



I heard that there are people saying that it would have been better if the students had been armed at the time... Great, then what? It'd make a warzone, that's what. And it'd be a warzone infinitely more tragic than anything overseas.

Sorry America, and to those affected. I feel for you all.


----------



## Xan_vega (Apr 18, 2007)

I no longer own a gun, back when I lived in the country, I had your run of the mill shot gun. It was really old but it got the job done. When I moved to the city, I left it to my youngest brother who is now a crack shot with it. I rarely used it, only when I had to go hunting for our dinner. It was meant for self defense but for self defense, I prefer my pitchfork.


----------



## CaptainSaicin (Apr 18, 2007)

WHPellic said:
			
		

> CaptainSaicin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How can I be sure? Would I even be saying it if I wasn't sure?
Well for one, I know all about the gun legislation surrounding areas such as schools and colleges.
Secondly, I know about this, which happened a little over a year ago.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658

and yes, the same outcome _could_ have happened, although it would have been much less likely. Every major shooting in U.S. history has occured in a gun-free zone. Coincidence? I doubt it. Like anyone else, the criminals and shooters KNOW that there will be nobody to oppose them, and they can cause much more havoc in a gun-free zone, and that is why they go there to kill. 
Columbine: Gun-free zone.
VTech: Gun-free zone.
Post Office Massacre: Gun-free zone
Lubby's Massacre: Gun-free zone
Uni of Texas Shootings: Gun-free zone
Port Arthur Massacre (Australia): Gun-free zone
the list goes on....



			
				starla said:
			
		

> I heard that there are people saying that it would have been better if the students had been armed at the time... Great, then what? It'd make a warzone, that's what. And it'd be a warzone infinitely more tragic than anything overseas.


That's BS. To quote a Texas HS teacher several years after gun legislation was passed to allow concealed carry of handguns:
"Before we passed concealed carry in this state, we heard _all_ the talk about how it was going to be a shootout at he OK Corral, that it was going to be Dodge City, it was going to be a blood bath, and fender benders were going to be turned into shootouts, and it simply _hasn't happened_"

In fact statistically, you see drops in violent crimes the more people are allowed to cary handguns. An armed society is a polite society. Nobody wants to be shot, so nobody commits them, and those shootings _just don't happen_. That's proven fact. 

Texas had the right idea when they introduced this gun legislation. Before that, there were a number of fatal shootings including the infamous University of Texas shooting and the Luby's Massacre. At many of these shootings there were citizens who owned handguns, but were forced to leave them at home or in their cars because gun laws forbid them from carrying them on their person. As a result, many people died. After the Luby's Massacre, gun legislation was passed that allowed for concealed carry, and there hasn't been a major shooting in Texas since. Crime rates have dropped, there are fewer killings, and it's overall a safer place to be, unless you're a criminal intent on shooting someone.

So people will say "Oh, but it'll be a warzone," but history has proven otherwise, and arguments like that are just wishful thinking and fear tactics on the part of gun-control advocates.


----------



## Rhainor (Apr 19, 2007)

I forget who originally said it, but...

_"An armed society is a polite society."_


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 19, 2007)

lol that quote makes me think of ancient japan. the society expected complete politeness to the point that it was completely unacceptable to raise your voice at someone. if you did you often found yourself trying to keep your head on your shoulders....

truth be told the concealed weapons permits have deterred violent crimes but its pretty darn rare to hear of any crime that has been stopped in progress by a man with a concealed weapon permit(and the weapon).


----------



## WHPellic (Apr 19, 2007)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> truth be told the concealed weapons permits have deterred violent crimes but its pretty darn rare to hear of any crime that has been stopped in progress by a man with a concealed weapon permit(and the weapon).



That's the thing people are forgetting about. As ChaoticJack said in another thread, shooting rampages are completely random. You can't prepare for them. Look at the places they've happened in:

Shopping malls
Cafeterias (Luby's Massacre)
Campuses (UofTexas; Virginia Tech)
Office buildings
Gymnasiums (Dublaine)
Restaurants (Port Arthur; The McDonalds Massacre in San Ysidro)
Post Offices

Most of those places don't sound like the kind of places you should arm yourself before going into.


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 19, 2007)

i know of a few perfectly sane people who carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE save where they are told they cannot, but such people are few and far between.... its kinda funny because one such person i know of is married to a COMPLETE pacafist...


----------



## Bokracroc (Apr 19, 2007)

CaptainSaicin said:
			
		

> starla said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you have a whole town/city/country in a MAD-like situation?
If someone does shoot, so does everyone esle.
Living on a knife's edge isn't relaxing, calm, happy. Someone could snap at the slightest thing and suddenly you have a shootout.

E.g.: We have a fender bender acccident.
One of them gets agro at it (as most do) and the other guy snaps and pulls out his gun. The first guy responds by pulling his out. The other responds by shooting him fearing he'll get shot. 
Someone hears the gun shot and comes to look, they see a guy standing over a dead man on the ground.
Viewing this they assume this guy has snapped and is going around shooting people so they shoot him and a shootout starts drawing more people.....


----------



## Xenofur (Apr 19, 2007)

CaptainSaicin said:
			
		

> Gun control laws are bullshit. They don't protect anyone.


You think so?

Let me pull out a few numbers.

First, population:

Official estimate for the USA in 2007: *301535000*
Official number for Germany in 2006: *82310000*

That means that Germany has roughly *27.3%* the population of the USA.

Additionally Germany has a population density of *231* people / kmÂ², while the USA has a density of only *31* people / kmÂ². The population density in the USA is only *15%* of that of Germany.

However, now the murder numbers:

In 2005 there were *14860* murders in the USA.
In the same year Germany had only *387* murders.

That means that in 2005 there was a murder rate of *4.7* murders per million people in Germany, while there was a murder rate of *49.28* people in the USA.

You are *ten* times as likely to get murdered in the USA than you are in Germany, even though there are are *four* times as many people in the USA who could be targets.

Now, let's look at the weapon use:

In 2005 there were *119* murders out of the *387* where the assaultee carried a gun. In the USA however there were *10100* murders out of the *14860* where the assaultee carried a gun.

In percent: *30.75%* gun murders in Germany, *67.97%* gun murders in the usa. Or: You are over *twice* as likely to get killed with a gun while being in the USA than you are in Germany.



The difference? Germany has very strict gun laws that allow citizens to only carry guns in VERY rare cases and under tight control and assurance of the trustability of the person.

<sarcasm> Yes, we could surely make Germany MUCH more safer by allowing ANYONE to carry a gun, since gun laws are only bullshit. :roll: </sarcasm>


Sorry guys, when you say that gun laws do not protect anyone and that you, with zero actual combat experience, armed with a little pistol can save anyone, then you are simply deluding yourself.

There is only one concession i have to make: Yes, if the US government were to make TIGHT gun laws, there would be a certain period where indeed criminals would be the only ones to have guns.
However, the length and the impact of that period relies SOLELY one one single thing: The ability and willingness of your police force to adapt to and enforce such a new law.

The long term effect would be very positive, but who cares about the future, eh?


----------



## Bokracroc (Apr 19, 2007)

BUT THEY WANT IT TO BE 'FIXED' NOW! NOT NEXT MONTH, NOT NEXT YEAR! *NOW!*


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 19, 2007)

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm said:
			
		

> Murder rate (per 100,000 people):
> 
> United StatesÂ Â  8.40
> CanadaÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 5.45
> ...



germany has less than a third of our population but has half our murder rate. its not as nice there as you think. oh germany is THAT much better.... woo! 

lets look at another bit of data from that same page...


			
				http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm said:
			
		

> Percent of households with a handgun:
> 
> United StatesÂ Â  29%
> FinlandÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 7
> ...



now canada has alot of guns but germany has more HANDGUNS per household. this throws a wrench in the equation. handguns are generally attributed to the vast majority of gun related crimes including murder. now, if guns particuarly guns most assosiated the crime equate more crime then why is it that canada has a higher murder rate? i mean germany has more "violent" weapons per household but canada has the higher murder rate. quite honestly this little bit of data just shows clearly that guns do not nessisarily mean violent crimes are going to happen.


----------



## facek (Apr 19, 2007)

Ceacar99, you left out the countries with 4x the murder per capita rate of the US and less than 1/3 the guns per capita.


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 19, 2007)

unfortunately those countries werent on the list. the list was northern european countries(and sometimes canada) compared to the united states. if you want i can compare countries like south africa to the us though...


----------



## Xenofur (Apr 19, 2007)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> germany has less than a third of our population but has half our murder rate. its not as nice there as you think. oh germany is THAT much better.... woo!


First off, it's asinine to compare murder rates while factoring in the population size. Why? Because murder rates are based on population size. They tell you how many murders happen per citizen. And as that number is REALLY small, it's simply scaled up to make it mre readable. It's value in comparison stays equal, which means yes, germany is a nicer place. 

Just for reference, here's the formula for murder rate:

rate = 100000 * ( number of murders / population )



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> now canada has alot of guns but germany has more HANDGUNS per household. this throws a wrench in the equation. handguns are generally attributed to the vast majority of gun related crimes including murder. now, if guns particuarly guns most assosiated the crime equate more crime then why is it that canada has a higher murder rate? i mean germany has more "violent" weapons per household but canada has the higher murder rate. quite honestly this little bit of data just shows clearly that guns do not nessisarily mean violent crimes are going to happen.


You're overlooking something here:
Relative size of sample.
Yes, when you compare germany and canada it is a bit weird. One might assume that canada has more less guns and more murders per citizen, so less guns = more murders.
However, the variance between the two countries both in murders and gun ownership is relatively small, when you factor in USA. There is only a 2% variation in gun ownership and only a 1.2 variation in murders.
However when you compare it with the USA, then there is a 23% variation to germany/canada in gun ownership and a 3.6 variation to germany/canada in murder rates. Both of these numbers are a lot bigger in comparison than the variations between germany and canada.
As such it is a lot easier to draw conclusions from variances between germany and the USA as they express themselves very strongly, as opposed to germany vs canada, where they still move in the realm of statistical error.

Then there is also the question of other factors. I do not know how the gun laws in canada are, but perhaps it is easier to carry them around there? And how about the weather, canada is closer to the north pole and tends to have significantly worse weather than germany, and weather is a strong modificator of the mood of people. This can and does lead to higher suicide rates and i'd imagine also to higher murder rates.



I'll be honest now and hope i don't insult you: The conclusions you draw do simply stem from a misunderstanding of the data presented and from not enough knowledge about how to conduct statistical analyses. :/


----------



## Leahtaur (Apr 19, 2007)

Xenofur said:
			
		

> Then there is also the question of other factors. I do not know how the gun laws in canada are, but perhaps it is easier to carry them around there? And how about the weather, canada is closer to the north pole and tends to have significantly worse weather than germany, and weather is a strong modificator of the mood of people. This can and does lead to higher suicide rates and i'd imagine also to higher murder rates.



Regarding Canada: you've obviously never been. It's a BIG country, and only a comparatively small percentage of the population lives close enough to the north pole to affect murder/suicide rates. Weather does indeed affect people living up north and suicide rates are higher there, but the vast majority of Canadians live farther south, where the weather is comparable to the US and presumably Germany. Saying Canadians commit murder and suicide more often because their proximity to the north pole makes them depressed is like saying Americans do the same more often because their proximity to the equator makes them hot and irritable. 

As for guns, I believe carrying a concealed weapon is illegal for most people here, although I could be mistaken. I know that it's far less common for the average person to have a gun on their person here than it is in the states.


----------



## Xenofur (Apr 19, 2007)

how about open carrying, is that allowed? i know in germany it is not, unless you're law enforcement and on the job or a hunter and carrying hunting weapons.

about the weather: yea, i've never been there.  i was mostly going by what i hear. i have a bunch of friends who live in canada and their concensus is, that it's fucking cold at the moment and in general. while i, living near the nothern tip of germany spent several days of the last week in the garden, getting some sun, with tempurates going as high as 32Â°C.


----------



## Leahtaur (Apr 19, 2007)

Xenofur said:
			
		

> how about open carrying, is that allowed? i know in germany it is not, unless you're law enforcement and on the job or a hunter and carrying hunting weapons.
> 
> about the weather: yea, i've never been there.  i was mostly going by what i hear. i have a bunch of friends who live in canada and their concensus is, that it's fucking cold at the moment and in general. while i, living near the nothern tip of germany spent several days of the last week in the garden, getting some sun, with tempurates going as high as 32Â°C.



Man, I envy you! It's only 2 degrees C here and snowing a bit. But that's average for April, I'd say. It's going to go up to 15 or so later in the week. Still, not as cold as up in Nunavut or the other territories, and our summers are usually nice and hot. (I'm in southern Alberta btw.)

I'm really not sure about the specifics of our gun laws, I'll have to let someone else field that. But in general I'd say our laws are similar to what you've described. *shrug*


----------



## imnohbody (Apr 19, 2007)

There's an even bigger, IMO, problem with the comparisons between countries: different countries, different cultures (though perhaps not quite as different between Canada and the US as it is between the US and Germany... because as neighbors the US is the guy next door with the stereo cranked to 11, and it kinda bleeds over into Canadian thinking  )


----------



## Sulacoyote (Apr 19, 2007)

When I lived in Southern California with my dad, the road our house was on became a hotspot for coyotes. And I don't mean the cute pointy-snouted bushy tailed kind. The kind who smuggle people across the US/Mexico border. Often tied to organized crime. These people are usually heavily armed - we're talking fully automatic weapons and stuff, things which no amount of legal restriction will keep out of the wrong hands.

The nearest police station was in Escondido or Temecula, both of them 45 minutes away.

One of the few people who lived on the same road as us disappeared, and a few weeks later, his headless corpse was found rotting in the bushes. Taking off someone's head was kind of a calling card for coyotes/smugglers. Usually it was done to people who were part of a deal gone bad, or witnessed something they weren't supposed to.

Additionally, we'd been burglarized three times before. Twice in our house, and another time when our entire gas supply - several hundred gallons worth - was stolen. And we got off pretty easy compared to other people on our road..

Suppose then that we didn't get it so easy. What if I had been home when the house were broken into? Calling the cops would still give the criminals a good half hour or so to do whatever they wanted. 

For this reason, my dad slept with a Colt 45 on his nightstand. It would be simply immoral to the core for the government to deprive us of having that right to defend ourselves where the state authorities can't.


----------



## Xenofur (Apr 19, 2007)

Nothing that sensible gun laws and a hunter's permit, which in your situation shouldn't be difficult to get, couldn't fix. 

However i must also ask: Is it moral for a country to endanger the majority of it's population (which is not hypothetical, but real) only for the benefit of a small number of people who choose to live in a dangerous area?


----------



## capthavoc123 (Apr 19, 2007)

Is it moral for a country to deprive the few irresponsible gun owners to the detriment of the vast majority of responsible ones?


----------



## Xenofur (Apr 19, 2007)

If that means that there will be roughly 90% less gun murders, yes, without a doubt.


----------



## Bokracroc (Apr 19, 2007)

Sulacoyote said:
			
		

> When I lived in Southern California with my dad, the road our house was on became a hotspot for coyotes. And I don't mean the cute pointy-snouted bushy tailed kind. The kind who smuggle people across the US/Mexico border. Often tied to organized crime. *These people are usually heavily armed - we're talking fully automatic weapons and stuff,* things which no amount of legal restriction will keep out of the wrong hands.
> 
> For this reason, my dad slept with a* Colt 45 *on his nightstand.












> _It would be simply immoral to the core for the government to deprive us of having that right to defend ourselves where the state authorities can't._


In an urban area where police _aren't_ 45 minutes away you expect them to respond to threats like that. Things that they have been trained in how to handle.


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 19, 2007)

Xenofur said:
			
		

> If that means that there will be roughly 90% less gun murders, yes, without a doubt.



bah, move to one of the socialist states of europe then. see what a wonderous place it is, with its slowing economy, the government allways taking your money because they think they know better what to do with it than you and oh ya, the hoards of alienated immigrants. you as an immigrant will fit right in. go ahead, move to a nation with no liberty that manipulates taxes to try to get people to be "environmentalist" and go with whatever scheme the government officials have next.

fact is, crime can be controlled without removing guns. for example the vt guy was diagnosed as being a threat to others, if he was simply taken care of then 31 people would still be alive.

FINALLY, when comparing our murders to other countries you also forget one thing. germany has ALOT less ground to cover when trying to patroll and search for criminals. a nation the size of one or two of our states is pretty easy to cover with a police force the size of theirs. its also the reason why our highways pale in comparison to the autoban, the autoban is more expensive per mile but the autoban is shorter.

lets talk china where the chinese government is one of the most strict in the world when it comes to guns. i mean the chinese government wants the people to have NO power, last time the people rebelled they were fighting with rocks and sticks. whats the number of chinese murders? almost as much as us... why is it then that people who dont have guns have such a high ammount of murders? discontent, large nation that is hard to patroll, poor environment.... alot of things could contribute but guns certianly are not!


----------



## Xenofur (Apr 20, 2007)

i live in germany and i am very happy here. 
regarding immigrants: we have two kinds of immigrants here, the ones who adapt to life in germany and become valued members of the community and those who don't even bother to learn german and continue living like they did in their home country. with the state actively giving immigrants the chance to learn german and to learn about germany, that is the state's fault how?
to cut matters short: i could reduce each and every argument about our socialist countries to smoke, but that would make this post a zomghuge wall of text, so i'll break and cut to point.

the reason why i do so strongly feel in this matter is the first post i made here. the fact that a good friend of mine, who lives in an high-density urban area, feels that she cannot take on a certain kind of job because it would endanger her life.
for me the situation is simple: i see a bunch of guys who think it is necessary that they have personal killing devices, and i see a girl who needs money for medical problems, but can't take on a job because of the aforementioned guys.

wanna talk about morality again?


----------



## Sulacoyote (Apr 20, 2007)

Xenofur said:
			
		

> Nothing that sensible gun laws and a hunter's permit, which in your situation shouldn't be difficult to get, couldn't fix.
> 
> However i must also ask: Is it moral for a country to endanger the majority of it's population (which is not hypothetical, but real) only for the benefit of a small number of people who choose to live in a dangerous area?



Uh, we didn't choose to live in a dangerous area. Dangerous people chose that area long after we lived there.


----------



## Sulacoyote (Apr 20, 2007)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> Sulacoyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The police, no matter how well trained, will not always be able to get there immediately when you're in trouble. Until the police are able to psychically predict crimes before they happen, law-abiding citizens should have a right to arm themselves at least somewhat as well as their attackers.


----------



## Xenofur (Apr 20, 2007)

Sulacoyote said:
			
		

> Xenofur said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course you do. You choose to live there every single day. You may talk about pride and such things now, but in the end you are not doing what a sensible human would do: Leave a dangerous area. Every single argument you could possible bring up for not leaving will merely be an excuse.
I do not say this to insult you, but because it is simply a fact.


----------



## Sulacoyote (Apr 20, 2007)

Xenofur said:
			
		

> Sulacoyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, it's not sensible. The property we owned was our only means of income. If you have any suggestions on how to move a 200 acre citrus grove to a nicer location, I'm sure my dad would love to hear them.


----------



## Xenofur (Apr 20, 2007)

It is as i said before, your pride stands in your way, your pride in your land and the pride to keep it at all costs, even your life if necessary. In other words, you think your land has more value than your life because you have convinced yourself that you cannot live without your land.


----------



## Sulacoyote (Apr 20, 2007)

You're a coward if you think you should just hand over what's rightfully yours to people who threaten you.

Obviously if someone holds a gun to you and asks for your wallet, that's a scenario where it makes sense to just give them what they want in order to save trouble. But when it's something you worked your ass off for under the sun for some _30 years_ or so, there is nothing irrational or insensible about stubbornly defending it.


----------



## Xenofur (Apr 20, 2007)

The words stubborn and sensible cannot be combined. It's as i said, you are deluding yourself inte believing that the worth of the land is bigger than the worth of your life and as long as that is true, there will be nothing sensible about your actions.


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 20, 2007)

one interesting thing is that i was recently talked to my friend, officer cucher(yes, i know it sounds dirty). he's the cop who patrolled my school when i was in high school. even he agrees that guns dont cause the violence in this country, when i dsicussed this with him and asked his opinion on people buying firearms for home safety he thought that was a good idea, he did point out that its best if people take all the normal firearms safety courses before/when they buy the weapon.

anyway, running from town is NOT the way to do things. that is not even american tradition. if you broke your back under the sun to create something you work to keep it here, THATS why we are the pre-eminant super power in ecenomics. we dont give up what we built without a fight, be that fight a litteral one, one with words or a duel of marketing techniques.

my family owns a ranch for horses, one of the things we understand is on a farm, ranch or whatever in the country you have two things. 1: a yappy dog, it need not bite, just be noisy whenever something is on the property and 2: a shotgun or rifle. its not often that the rifle or shotgun is needed, however it is the country, the police are a LONG distance away and every now and again someone does start something. might be some punks trying to steal something from you in the night or some jackass kids who think its funny to shoot horses with airsoft guns, either way you watch your property...


----------



## Sulacoyote (Apr 20, 2007)

Xenofur said:
			
		

> The words stubborn and sensible cannot be combined. It's as i said, you are deluding yourself inte believing that the worth of the land is bigger than the worth of your life and as long as that is true, there will be nothing sensible about your actions.



I think we're dealing with a cultural gap here. My nation was founded by a bunch of people who believed that liberty was more important than their lives, and were willing to face death in order to give that liberty to future generations. Many of my European friends don't share this kind of understanding of fighting for personal rights, which is all fine, unless they tell me I should try to live more European. I don't tell my Eurofriends they should wear buy lots of guns and go to monster truck shows, after all 

It isn't just about the personal property, it's about standing up to people who try to get their way with you through force and intimidation. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Obviously there are some things that are too small to be worth risking your life over, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Demand my wallet at gunpoint, and I'll hand it over. Big deal. I'll just whip out my cellphone and have a chat with Visa, cancel my credit card, and the thief will have nothing more than a smelly old leather wallet they can pawn off for maybe 50 cents. But if a day comes where someone threatens my home, my wife, my friends, or tries to force me to convert to their religion, I hope that I'll have the courage to fight them tooth and nail rather than let them walk all over me.

Now I'm waiting for the 300 quotes to pop up...


----------



## Xenofur (Apr 20, 2007)

ok, wasted too much time here already.

last post.

i'll agree you can have your gun, thousand guns if you need them. however, i expect you to get your arse to sam, tell her to get the job at the gas station and then sit there with her every night. just keep your gun on your lap and ready, so she needn't fear being shot by people who have guns just because you need to have yours.

and if that is too much for ya, well guess what, then all you are is an egoistic bastard.

i'm out.


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 20, 2007)

"give me liberty or give me death". the truth about our country...

btw, one of the reasons why states like myne REALY like the concealed weapons permits that you can get is because business owners/workers can be armed on the job at all times without anyone knowing. another thing is that most of the gas stations i know of in rough neighborhoods have bullet proof glass shutters that protect the clerk durring the nigh hours(they only bring them down durring the night). those busninesses take the right view that the worker's life is more inportant than anything the man could steal from the store so they take those precautions. 

if your friend is looking at a risky job(corner store, alcohol store, things of the like) and the business doesnt have security measures in place to protect her then she shouldnt take it, its just fact. that shows that the business doesnt value its enployees and isnt worth working for even if there is never a armed criminal...

finally, china has nearly as many murders a year as us but no guns. if you cannot explain that then well, your gun arguement falls apart. it just seems that its more than a coincidence that the two current most powerfull nations in the world, 2 of the largest nations in the world have the highest ammount of murders of industrialised nations. russia also has HIGH ammount of murders each year(another of the 3 largest), but they arent exactly relivant to this conversation because thier nation is highly unstable right now and there are guns everywhere...


----------



## Arshes Nei (Apr 20, 2007)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> btw, one of the reasons why states like myne REALY like the concealed weapons permits that you can get is because business owners/workers can be armed on the job at all times without anyone knowing.



What state is Myne? I never remember this state in my studies ;;;


----------



## dave hyena (Apr 20, 2007)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> finally, china has nearly as many murders a year as us but no guns.



According to the CIA factbook, China has a population of approx. 1.3 billion people as of July 2007 est. America has approx 301 million people as of July 2007 est.

So China has about 4 times the population of America, but the same murder rate, undoubtedly due to the fact that it has no guns.


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 20, 2007)

arshes, it was pointed out that most states allow people to get concealed weapons permits, but my state(ive stated my state before ) is colorado. we are kinda like the west coast with cowboy hats .

dave, i didnt say same murder rate. i said same number of murders a year. china because of its larger population will have a LOWER murder rate. however people like zeonofur hold that a nation without guns in the hands of people will have almost no murders. in germany about 7% of the households have handguns for example, china doesnt allow any of that, not to mention only a small portion of the population could even afford guns(mafioso, factory owners or people who live in the zones that china has allowed westerners to invest in). chinese officials since before the rise of communism havent tollerated firearms in the hands of the people they think of as "peasants". gun controll has allways been a reality in china...

most of the sources say that the us averages about 20k murders a year, the sources i could find about china said they averaged about 20k a year. russia is about 14k. now here is the question. if guns are the root of why stable industrialised nations have HIGH ammounts of murders a year why is it then that china has so many murders in the absense of civilian firearms?

what im getting at is that the firearms thing doesnt hold water. china doesnt tollerate civilian firearms as a method of maintaining controll over the civilian populus. there arent any guns(unlike germany), and if a complete absense of guns in the hands of civilians means there will be hardly any murders then why does china have so many? it doesnt add up...


----------



## Sulacoyote (Apr 20, 2007)

Xenofur said:
			
		

> ok, wasted too much time here already.
> 
> last post.
> 
> ...



If Sam wants to be protected on her job, then she should carry a gun herself. If she's not permitted to, then she should bitch to her employers about the danger with her occupation and demand the right to have a gun in the store. Your logic is flawed here. 

It's not my job to protect anyone else _(though I certainly hope I'll have the good sense to if I'm ever in a position to protect someone)_, but everyone has a right to protect themselves.


----------



## Iron-Wolf (Apr 20, 2007)

In the end I find all this arguing to be pointless. The debate about outlawing guns in the states can last forever. Each side has valid points, and each side has many flaws. But in the end, I suspect that the Unites States will never ban civilians from owning firearms. True, I believe that in time the laws will be more strict, and actually I'm all for that. But it will never be banned because well, there are too many Americans like myself who own firearms and are also honest law abiding folk. Also I agree with Sulacoyote. My family has worked damn hard to obtain everything it has. It isn't much. A simple house, and a two acre plot of land that's mostly woods anyway. But I will be damned if someone thinks they can drive me from this place by flexing their muscles, they have another thing coming. Yes I wil kill to protect my land. I will die to protect my land. Two hundred years ago, Americans would gladly die with rifle in hand to protect their 10 acres of farm because it was all they had. Is it pride? Yes. But I always grew up knowing that pride is something that can never be taken away. Pride is what makes us fight. Many other think it silly. Well, I find it silly that anyone would lay down and give up everything they have, just because someone gets a little tough. I am a gun-owning American. I am proud to be one, and I will kill, and I will die to keep that right.


----------



## DavidN (Apr 20, 2007)

I would say you're a good counter-example to the gun-owning American stereotype, Iron Wolf - you own a frankly insane amount of guns and yet seem very stable and reasonable. So it's clearly not just having access to guns that makes people violent.


----------



## lone wolf (Jul 22, 2007)

glock 17C
mossberg 500
remington 30-06
accu-tek AT-380
raven arms mp-25


----------



## FreerideFox (Jul 22, 2007)

Hey, hadn't seen this thread.

Smith & Wesson 500 (long barrel)




Some Remington 8 shot short barrel shotgun (was cheap)
really old .22


----------



## lone wolf (Jul 22, 2007)

FreerideFox said:
			
		

> Hey, hadn't seen this thread.
> 
> Smith & Wesson 500 (long barrel)
> 
> ...



you know that is the only revolver i like.


----------



## Oni (Jul 22, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> I dont actually own one myself .b But I pretty much own one of these:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well I own an SpringField Armory XD Sub Compact 9mm.

It is a nice lil self defense gun, and it does have a few perks.
- 15 round magazine (staggered cartridges)
- 3 inch barrel(concealable)
- uses inexpensive 9mm cartridges, which is great for plinking aka target practice

Below is an artistic shot of my gun.





Guns are extremely dangerous I suggest not purchasing them unless necessary.  ...


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 22, 2007)

> you know that is the only revolver i like.



raw power isnt everything.... what you should look at is a good ol classic smith and wesson model3, russian or shofield. good plain reliable revolvers and were some of the first reliable double actions out there...

anyway these days i dont own a firearm for various reasons. ive had my eye on a .50 rifled musket by traditions. its a good old classic flintlock, the only flaw with the thing is the plastic stock. however it would make a nice hunting rifle(rifled muskets are every bit as acurate as a regular rifle if they are kept clean) or it can be fun to shoot at the range. a bit of different pace then all the semi autos out there.

if i got ONE handgun in the world i'd get a original c96.... its basicly a handheld carbine. acurate up to 500 yards even if the round wont do anything past 200. uses the MONSTER .30 mouser(most powerfull pistol round of its era), and downright reliable. the only pistol i can think of that is as reliable is the legendary colt 1911. the only flaw with the original versions is that they did not have a detachable box magazine, they were reloaded via stripper clips like how the k98k in dod is reloaded.


----------



## Oni (Jul 22, 2007)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> > you know that is the only revolver i like.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bah hunting. Takes a real man to shoot a helpless animal eh? Sorry have to give you a guilt trip. ;d

Stainless steel electroplated 1911's are so beautiful, eventually I want to have one of those puppies in my possession, It would make a nice heirloom for my future offspring. They are also .45 Cal, that is a big bullet. ^.^ (For a handgun at least)


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 22, 2007)

lol, there is nothing more tasty then jerky you made yourself(i dont own a firearm but i do like bow hunting). i DO one day want to get a dear with a spear but thats not too likely... my opinion is that we eat things and a deer at 400 yards has A LOT better chance then a cow in a pen facing the hydrolic hammer . 

an ya, a 1911 would be a nice firearm to own. though im not sure about the traditional stainless steel look. how does a copper finish strike you? lol. you can either polish it real good or let it turn green .


----------



## Oni (Jul 22, 2007)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> lol, there is nothing more tasty then jerky you made yourself(i dont own a firearm but i do like bow hunting). i DO one day want to get a dear with a spear but thats not too likely... my opinion is that we eat things and a deer at 400 yards has A LOT better chance then a cow in a pen facing the hydrolic hammer .
> 
> an ya, a 1911 would be a nice firearm to own. though im not sure about the traditional stainless steel look. how does a copper finish strike you? lol. you can either polish it real good or let it turn green .


A copper finish? That is something I have never seen before! I recently learned that "blueing" a firearm is actually chemically rusting it, which, in theory, could weaken the integrity of the weapon?

Still against killing animal for sport here ;d


----------



## lone wolf (Jul 22, 2007)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=U9swX6YPX4w

here they are


----------



## lone wolf (Jul 22, 2007)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> > you know that is the only revolver i like.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i dont like revolvers because they just dont have the mag compacity the automatics do. plus it takes longer to reload the cylender. guss uou could say i like the more modern firearms, the oldes gun i have is a mauser from WWII


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 22, 2007)

Oni said:
			
		

> A copper finish? That is something I have never seen before! I recently learned that "blueing" a firearm is actually chemically rusting it, which, in theory, could weaken the integrity of the weapon?
> 
> Still against killing animal for sport here ;d



honestly i have never seen someone do a copper finish before either, but i think it would look cool. hell, lets go a step further, polished copper finish with crome inlaying . 

also blueing causes no structural damage to the steel. sure, its oxidation but special oxidation, normal rust flakes off remember? blued steel behaves like normal steel. also you should note that oxidation can only happen on the surface of the steel, the rest of the steel is fine.



> i dont like revolvers because they just dont have the mag compacity the automatics do. plus it takes longer to reload the cylender. guss uou could say i like the more modern firearms, the oldes gun i have is a mauser from WWII



so you own a mouser k98k? well anyway, revolvers are nice firearms, especially the ones i mentioned. they are break open revolvers that automaticly eject the rounds. with a speed loader they load just as fast as a mag fed pistol. the advantage of the revolver there is that you know you REALY treated the gun like shit if it wont operate .

these days i dont like many handguns and i especially hate the berreta 92/93 line.... realy the three modern pistols that i like are the usp(like a modern colt 1911), the glock line, and the sig saur. the rest are well.... crap. lol.


----------



## Randy (Jul 22, 2007)

The one gun i would like to own is a Desert Eagle, except in england they aint legal, only guns legal in england (the UK), are shotguns and i THINK hunting rifles.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 22, 2007)

eeeeeeh..... eagle is down there with the berreta 92 in my eyes, lol.


----------



## CaptainSaicin (Jul 23, 2007)

Eagle = Impressive gun, but not reliable.

They have a lot of problems.

and revolvers are nice... the S&W .357 or .44 magnum more than makes up in stopping power what it lacks in magazine size, and speedloaders are always available to cut down your loading time.

There's no real need for a .500 (especially with the recoil), but who's going to argue with someone holding one of those?


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 23, 2007)

i wanna see a smith and wesson .500 use a level III a kevlar vest as target practice.... right now i dont believe a desert eagle can penetrate(even though .50ae is pretty low grainage). the .500 would likely hit like a freight train even if it didnt penetrate though, lol. 

one pistol that has proven that big isnt everything is the five seven. because of its round it is probally the best option against body armor you have if your stuck with pistol ammunition. real light acurate pistol there with almost no recoil. one must question the damage that the 5.7mm round does to flesh though.....

btw, guns like the .500 kind of fit in the area of "survival firearms". its not as big as a rifle and its nice to have with you if your in the back country and you need a meal, or some wild critter is threatening your life. though i'd say something like a c96 would probally fit the job just as well or better....


----------



## KitsuneKit (Jul 23, 2007)

A Nintendo Zapper.

I'm pretty good at Duck Hunt and Hogan's Alley.


----------



## Bokracroc (Jul 23, 2007)

The IMI Desert Eagle has the best FAQ question ever LINK


> The spent case hits me in the forehead, why?


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 23, 2007)

Get-dancing said:
			
		

> I hate it when all the fucking gay emo people are like "OMG! Guns kill people Gavin! Guns only purpose is to kill!"
> I mean sure, guns 'original' purpose was a to kill, but it dosn't mean its its only purpose. What about hammers, knifes, axes, clubs, slingshots and even yo-yos? All their original purpose was to kill.
> Also what about cars? Cars are used in murders far more than guns, not to mention the general deaths in general they cause.
> It seems that these liberals want guns banned because they think they are like "perfect killing machiens in which you can defenetly kill a man from a distance" which they egagurated in film and television to be. But thats far from the truth. You've got to constantly reload them for one thing, its quite hard to aim, the gun can fuck up at ANY time and it takes quite a shot to kill a man. Only a head shot or about 3 shots to the chest has a reliable chance of killing him.
> ...



Where the hell did you get the Idea that it takes three to the chest to kill a man! A Ruger MKII fireing .22 caliber amunition can kill with a shot to the LEGS! People are a hell of alot more fragile than you think. You can take a bullet to the back of the foot and bleed out, and nobody but some druged up freak is getting up after being shot once. Even body armour doesn't allow you to continue fighting. The shear shock to your nerves can kill you if your hit with a big enough round.

Now I'm not saying guns are bad, it's the idiots behind them, But I'm sick of games giving people this Idea that you can take a bullet and still be standing. You may not be getting your Ideas from games but I want this to be for others aswell.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 23, 2007)

> A Ruger MKII fireing .22 caliber amunition can kill with a shot to the LEGS!



erm... in that case the only way you'd die is either shock, or if you let youself bleed out for a long ass time... and i'd say you would have to be pretty sensitive to go in shock over the .22 alone....



> Even body armour doesn't allow you to continue fighting



tell that to the la bank robbers that made the police there decide to carry m4's in thier cars. they robbed a bank wearing complete body covering armor and fought for a VERY long time taking bullet after bullet. one of them wound up shooting himself, the other got shot with a round that penetrated the vest i believe( i think it was a rifle). BODY ARMOR WORKS, GETTING SHOT WITH IT ON HURTS BUT YOU CAN CONTINUE TO FIGHT. hell durring that same la firefight cops hit with 7.62 russian rounds(wich shredded thier armor) were still able to function enough to crawl out of the fight even with severe wounds.

the truth is that if a person gets hit unaware the shock can kick in a lot easier, however if they have adreniline flowing through thier system they can take an incredible beating before going down. plenty of soldiers from or in iraq will tell you that their vest and rifle plate saved thier life. it must have hurt like a fuckin bitch but it stopped the round and prevented enough trauma that they didnt get knocked out of the fight.

movies and games are not right, but people are a hell of a lot more tough then you are stating....


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 23, 2007)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> i wanna see a smith and wesson .500 use a level III a kevlar vest as target practice.... right now i dont believe a desert eagle can penetrate(even though .50ae is pretty low grainage). the .500 would likely hit like a freight train even if it didnt penetrate though, lol.
> 
> one pistol that has proven that big isnt everything is the five seven. because of its round it is probally the best option against body armor you have if your stuck with pistol ammunition. real light acurate pistol there with almost no recoil. one must question the damage that the 5.7mm round does to flesh though.....
> 
> btw, guns like the .500 kind of fit in the area of "survival firearms". its not as big as a rifle and its nice to have with you if your in the back country and you need a meal, or some wild critter is threatening your life. though i'd say something like a c96 would probally fit the job just as well or better....



In the case of the FN FiveseveN it actualy does allot of damage, not many know this but the bullets are desighned to not only penetrate armour but also flip end over end as they travel through a target. The AK 47's ammo does this, and thats what makes it even more lethal than some of the US special forces weapons in 7.62x51 nato, the AK firing the Russian 7.62x39, I'm not sure if it's even purposly desighed to flip but the 5.7mm was. Allot of games incorrectly give this weapon a lower damage value on the premisis that a smaller bullet will indefenantly do less to a person. You seem to know allot about weapons, the bigest tip off being your mentioning of the FiveseveN. So this part is more for those who get there info from games, to think that a weapon is any less deadly just because it fires a smaller round is not a smart thing to do. As I mentioned, the Russian ammo is more deadly because of how it acts. Ammo is as much a factor as the type of gun is.


----------



## Poink (Jul 23, 2007)

Some panzerfaust, panzershreiks, flammenwaffer. Usual stuff.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 23, 2007)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> > A Ruger MKII fireing .22 caliber amunition can kill with a shot to the LEGS!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, them, I heard about those guys. They where pumped up on drugs, which will in fact override your bodies natural defences. When a person is shot, regardless of caliber, thier body will go into shock, even the slightest kind of shock will knock you down. The human body basicly goes into survival mode, "un-nessisary" bodily functions shut down, even your eyes will blur and some people have actauly pissed them selves. Drugs may let you go on without flinching and yes adreniline has been known to keep a man alive, but eventualy your body goes into said "Survival" mode and you become emobile. I have actualy heard of a Japanies solder during World War 2 that ran across a field, machine guns and all, and maneged to lob an American solders head off before going down, BUT he was pumped up on drugs and was one of those fanatics that would die just to kill off a few guys on the other side.

As for the cops that crawled away, they crawled because thats all they could do, more then likely they didn't have the streangth to stand let alone aim a gun around. Also I just remembered something, I was leaving out hard armour, like the interceptor and such, but thats military grade gear. Law informent tends to wear what I call soft armour, kevlar and titanium mesh. Hard armour is a whole different story but I don't see how its relevent in a non-military invironment.

One last thing. You have a major artery running through you leg. That takes a bullet, unless you've got a cell phone and are close enough to a hospital, your screwed. I never said you where F'd regardless, but there is a chance you'll be a very unlucky guy that's just about to be a corpse.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 24, 2007)

north hollywood shootout
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~hmikkola/shootout.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT001bovaHk

the men weren't on any drugs. they had just plain old soft body armor(i assume level III-a kevlar) sewn into a full suit. they were inpervious to all of the pistol munitions that the police had at the beginning of the fight. cops desperate to find something that could actually hurt the walking tanks went to local gunstores to buy hunting rifles.

also, i am a martial artist i know a thing or two about the "survival mode" your talking about. that kind of shock is from very sudden incredibly intense input into the nervious system. this can be pain or pleasure. martial artists often use this knowledge in a fight and use nerve strikes to quite literally shut down the nervious system from too much input. however, if a nerve isnt hit, and the person is hocked up on adreniline its extreemly difficult to cause a nervious breakdown in someone. usually the best bet then is to cause "wiplash" syndrome by hitting thier head REALY hard.... in terms of a gunshot wound it is quite often that shock can induce(sometimes it does sometimes it doesnt, some people have described being hit by an ak47 at 200 yards like a extra painfull bee sting). however if the round doesnt penetrate your armor a 9mm round in damage is basicly like being punched by a well trained(and toned) martial artist. a 7.62 russian against a rifle plate will be more like a back kick wich can quite easily crack(or break) unconditioned ribs and can also easily send you on your ass. extreemly painfull but not something that will easaly induce instantanious shock.

in extended fights the body induces LOTS of its own drugs. soldiers often have trouble recounting battles because they simply cannot remember. thier mind goes to another place and thier body is pumped full of various natural drugs to induce extra energy, strength, and lack of feeling. with the nervious system dulled its less likely that a wound will cause shock or a nervous shutdown.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jul 24, 2007)

On this note I went up to scotland on friday and went shooting with my relatives.

No shit thats me!


----------



## Nollix (Jul 26, 2007)




----------



## garra (Jul 26, 2007)

Guns are pretty hard to get your hands on in Germany, so I stay with swords :q


----------



## PAG (Jan 26, 2010)

got:
ruger .45 lc single action revolver
30-06 remington 710 bolt action
mossberg 12 ga. pump shotgun
M1 Garand 

hope to get more whenever i gets moneyz


----------



## Tycho (Jan 26, 2010)

Get-dancing said:


> I dont actually own one myself .b But I pretty much own one of these:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow.  You start a thread about hand-cannon cockstroking and you don't even really have your own gun?

EDIT: Fuck, a necro.


----------



## ArielMT (Jan 26, 2010)

PAG said:


> got:
> ruger .45 lc single action revolver
> 30-06 remington 710 bolt action
> mossberg 12 ga. pump shotgun
> ...



Welcome to FAF.  Please check the last post date before posting a reply to a thread.  If it's been more than three months since the last post, you're better off starting a new thread.  Thanks.


----------

