Could you maybe elaborate a bit more on why you want a gun? Like, what specifically happened to you that you need one so badly?
Also, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
I've shot a gun before, but I don't own one.
Fittisize Wrote:Could you maybe elaborate a bit more on why you want a gun? Like, what specifically happened to you that you need one so badly?
Also, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
First off, what's so funny? Secondly, the economic situation in this country has caused the crime rate in my state to see an increase. I've noticed more and more police choppers flying around my area on an almost daily basis. A little insurance never hurts.
I wish we had a 2nd amendment in Canada , I also wish I had a M-16 to keep the queen in her place.
Unreadphilosophy Wrote:I have always supported your right to kick the ass of anyone that threatens you or your family. Unfortunately, I question if we're going to have that right for much longer.
You needn't worry, 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere.
As for firearms, I've shot plenty. My father is a gun enthusiast. Not the type with 20 M16s and a basement full of beans preparing for the revolution, but for sport, collecting, refurbishing, and competition (he's got a wall full of plaques from practical shooting competitions he's placed in all over the country), and owns all manner of pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, etc. That said, I don't own a gun myself, aside from the muzzleloader I use to hunt with in the fall, a wholly ineffective self-defense weapon :P
It's funny you should mention that...
I saw 2 drunken idiots outside the pawn show today protesting because they can't buy a semiautomatic weapon. Like pawn shops need some of those --> Points to Virginia tech... Fucking idiots...
That said, I support the second amendment, but I personally don't like guns. If you want to own one, you should be able to, and that's cool with me, provided the transaction is legal, and your not some psychopath or beer chugging redneck.
As for handguns, I support the ban in Virginia.. The is just no viable reason to own one unless your intent is to do harm, their built for killing humans not hunting animals, and you can protect your home just as well with a riffle, in fact I think pointing a fucking double barrel shot got at a robber would probably drive the point home that much better.
Quote:you can protect your home just as well with a riffle
Sure you can. Assuming that you spot him from 200 yards away.
That aside, handguns are optimal for home security. Unless you're packing some kind of hand cannon, a normal handgun gives an experienced user the option of shooting to wound or disable. Using a rifle or shotgun typically gives you the options of "kill" or "mutilate", and neither are useful in close quarters--rifles especially are a liability here because of their size. Having to wield a weapon which might be as much as five feet long is not what you want to be doing if you're indoors.
Weltall Wrote:Sure you can. Assuming that you spot him from 200 yards away.
Besides, a rifle is much likelier to prove deadly than most handguns.
You, don't need to be 200 yards away with a shot gun in the house. A house is such a enclosed area and a shot gun shoot with such destructive force, it's pretty much a certainty that if you shoot it at someone in a house there fucking dead.
Also, because a riffle is such a clunky weapon is precisely why it's
not deadly in a street situation, it's not fast enough in a shooting.
Also, the point of having a riffle as protection, is that it is so intimidating you don't have to wound someone because there afraid of getting mutilated.
Wait. You're against handguns because their only purpose is to be used on people, but rifles make a great home defense tool specifically because of how deadly they are?
Rifles are useful for hunting and distance-shooting. They are far from optimal weapons to use in close quarters. They are large, unwieldy, require several seconds to aim and fire with any accuracy because of the nature of the weapon, and usually have terrific recoil.
And, shotguns are even worse because of their inaccuracy. If you're close enough to get a sure hit, you're probably going to annihilate your target, and that is, quite honestly, not what you want to have happen in a defensive situation. Handguns are the safest bet for both shooter and target. It's not as though you should be trying to kill a home invader.
Guns don't usually work the way you see on TV, you know.
I'm with Weltall here. I mean yeesh, you aren't protecting a lone ranch in the wilderness, you are protecting a single house yards away from two others on a street surrounded by even more. I assume that's the average lifestyle of everyone here. No one's hopping your gates to steal your cattle. They'd be doing a home invasion. A rifle is pointless, not to mention all the dangers of punching through your walls, into your neighbor's walls, and probably killing one of them. Are you really going to reach for a rifle next to your bed? A shotgun certainly has that zombie stopping power, but it's a bit much, and again, you aren't defending a ranch against city slickers here, you're just trying to have some assurance from robbers. Besides, anything big is going to be hard to reach for when you're startled out of bed, and do you really intend to keep that thing loaded and ready right next to you every night? You might as well keep a bow and arrow next to you.
If you're going to do this, be sensible about this. As much as criminals are a threat to you, I get the need for self defense. However, weapons of that caliber aren't meant to defend, they're meant for raw RETRIBUTION. You are not Clint Eastwood. If you have this fantasy in your head that it's you or them, at at long last you get to be judge jury and executioner, you need to stop that power trip right there. We're trying to run a society here, at least TRY not to kill someone unless you think it's necessary. And no, the "possibility of them having the gun you didn't see" is not enough reason to fire the moment you see them. Identify your target, identify their threat. Don't get sloppy just because you think you have the excuse. Try to be better than them. "Gritty police dramas" aren't all there is to life. I remember when ideals weren't laughed at as naive...
etoven Wrote:Also, the point of having a riffle as protection, is that it is so intimidating you don't have to wound someone because there afraid of getting mutilated.
Neither of you read my post very well..
Nobody with half a brain in their head will be afraid of someone stupid enough to think a rifle will be of any use indoors. ;D
Well I'd say that's just a bit of hyperbole, but the idea of using "shock value" as a means of protection is kinda stupid. If you were going to do that, set up a tesla coil and some wired insulated metal gloves so that when they enter the room it looks like you are shooting lightning out of your hands. Now THAT is intimidating.
Well, I don't know about you guys, but if someone put a shotgun to my face, I'd probably piss my self instead of robbing the place.
I agree with Ryan's assessment, Toven. Your logic makes no sense. Yes, rifles are powerful weapons. However, they can be classified as "too extreme" for some situations. If you shoot off a rifle--take an M-16, for example--in your house, you're going to do a lot more than kill the bastard that's trying to rob your home or bang your wife.
A handgun may not be as powerful, but they're more accurate, easier to take care of, and a lot easier to control.
Also, I don't understand how you can support the 2nd Amendment and gun bans. Unless, of course, they're state bans that focus on individuals that have a criminal record.
Unreadphilosophy Wrote:Also, I don't understand how you can support the 2nd Amendment and gun bans. Unless, of course, they're state bans that focus on individuals that have a criminal record.
That's what I meant, I support the second amendment but I also support keeping guns out of companies that cater to criminals such as illegit pawn shows (really all pawn shops) but epically the irresponsible ones that sell hand guns to criminals either by accident or intentionally to criminals or the mentally ill.
Plus, I believe that any redneck who stands drunk off his ass in front of a pawn shop raising hell because he can't buy a semi automatic weapon (like what happened in my town the other day) needs to be made to stay the hell away from any type of fire arm at all times. There's no good reason to own a semiautomatic weapon in the first place, non the less buy it in a pawn shop. Semi autos are designed for murder on a mass scale, there not good for anything else. Unless your going to kill a whole fucking herd of deer or you plan on a civil war breaking out in your house, and you need to protect yourself from 50,000 German troupes you simply don't need one.
I think you're referring to automatic firearms, because most modern firearms are (at least) semi-automatic.
Yunno though, most pawn shops won't sell to criminals and do conduct the required background checks. Meaning, most criminals won't buy their weapons from a pawn shop--they buy it on the streets, where it's almost entirely untraceable.
The Virginia Tech shooter was able to buy his weapon in a pawn shop because he passed a background check. It wasn't the pawn shop proprietor's fault: certain important items regarding Seung-Hui Cho did not show up on the standard check.
Weltall Wrote:certain important items regarding Seung-Hui Cho did not show up on the standard check.
Maybe they should require prospective gun owners to get a psyche check up, Maybe even a EEG scan of the Brain just to be sure.
Unless someone's discovered a series of brainwave patterns which indicate criminal potential, I don't see the point.
Most people with mental illnesses are diagnosed early enough that they should be on the records before they are of legal age to purchase a weapon.
Weltall Wrote:Unless someone's discovered a series of brainwave patterns which indicate criminal potential, I don't see the point.
There is a method to identify sociopaths, They check to see how they react to the emotions of others.
There's no way that kind of thing could possibly have bad consequences!
Weltall Wrote:I think you're referring to automatic firearms, because most modern firearms are (at least) semi-automatic.
No there not, I meant what I said! Look it up... Semiautomatics are highly illegal in Virginia.
And, Jesus Christ everyone stop arguing with everyone for the sake of arguing. Or I'm fucking deleting this thread and setting fire to TC's servers, it's like kindergarten all over again!
![[Image: mad.gif]](http://www.tcforums.com/ubb/mad.gif)
Everyone agree! Or I'm murdering all of you!
![[Image: cussing.gif]](http://www.tcforums.com/forums/ubb/cussing.gif)
I have looked it up.
Apparently, the only types of firearms specifically banned are Striker-style semi-automatic shotguns, sawed-off shotguns and rifles except as kept for historical purposes, and any firearm considered illegal by federal law.
You can even own machine guns, as long as they are properly registerered.
So, to say 'semi-automatic weapons are highly illegal' is wrong on all accounts.
[MOVIE]http://www.tcforums.com/etoven/Video/TendoMovie%20Final.flv[/MOVIE]
I've never touched a gun and think that the second amendment means what it did before the Supreme Court redefined it last year.
Scalia's such a liar, "going by the constitution", hah, when he completely redefines things in it when they don't suit him?
He's just pissed off because I owned him like wal-mart merchandise.
<img src="http://dresdencodak.com/comics/2005-06-22-rupert_and_hubert.jpg">
Dark Jaguar Wrote:<img src="http://dresdencodak.com/comics/2005-06-22-rupert_and_hubert.jpg">
:shake:
You just give further proof of my longstanding view that women make poor comedians Karen.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:No YOU suck!
and you swallow
Hey that comic's hilarious, I'm not just eating it up on popular recomendation. I found it meselfs.
![[Image: guns.gif]](http://www.tcforums.com/forums/ubb/guns.gif)
![[Image: rofl.gif]](http://www.tcforums.com/forums/ubb/rofl.gif)