I am not really a gun person. but I want this!!!

[Code001]

I still never got an answer as to why it's sickening for a person to want to collect things like this, or go out shooting at a range with the above mentioned product.

Nothing. But theres a difference between owning a pistol for the range and an ASSAULT RIFLE, for home protection.

I confess I'll never understand anyones fascination with guns, their pretty boring to look at. It's like collecting hammers.

Um, what's wrong with owning an "assault rifle?" In the end, they're all guns and do roughly the same basic thing. What you said is similar to saying, "There's a difference between owning a strat and a SUHR, for playing guitar."

 

[Code001]

I have no experience with guns

That pretty much disqualifies you from even entering this thread in the first place. What you're doing is similar to going into a musicians thread and talking about guitars, yet having no experience in music what-so-ever. It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

I have no experience with guns

That pretty much disqualifies you from even entering this thread in the first place. What you're doing is similar to going into a musicians thread and talking about guitars, yet having no experience in music what-so-ever. It just doesn't make any sense.

I fail to see how not having handled a gun disqualifies my opinion on their effect on crimerate. I suppose the fact Ive never committed an armed robbery means my opinion that it's bad is similarily idiotic?

 

[CharFace]

Now upgrade those 9mm to .45 and you'll be talking my language.

haha

No worries there, I have a .45 auto that lives in my safe at home next to my favorite handun, my .357 mag revolver

I usually only carry my 9mm, and usually only have hollow points in it.

In fact, I think I may have to take a break, go out back behind our production facility, and kill some gatorade bottles

 

[Odin]

How about this - what's wrong with no committing crimes? Once a person has made the free will choice to victimize me that individual has accepted total responsibility for what may happen to him as a result of his choice.

People who ask "is property worth a human life" need to be asking the criminals who are risking their lives by taking property. Don't ask me, I'm not the one who chose to risk my life for property.

America has more freedom than other countries, and with freedom comes responsibility. Predators will exploit that freedom. That doesn't mean freedom is bad or dangerous, freedom simply allows the predator to expose himself. it's up to the free to defend themselves against predators.

Maybe instead of waiting for someone to inade your home and you kill them you and your community should look to prevent that choice from ever happening. I see no efforts to do this in the slightest. I also think it's extreme overkill to warrant someones death because they take your TV, or threaten to, thats not even close to justice. Your opinion obviously is blatantly different, but honestly thats ridiculous.

I don't "wait for someone to invade inside my home", I just live my life the way I choose, but I do take personal responsibility for my own protection.

It's not my responsibility to prevent people in my community from making the choice to be criminals and there is nothing I can do to that effect. People make choices and I have no influence over their choices. But I will prepare myself for the reality that some people will choose to be criminals and I should be prepared to defend myself against criminals.

The responsibility lies first with parents, and then once a person becomes an adult the responsibility lies with that individual to make good choices and not be a criminal.

I agree with you that it's extreme overkill for a person to risk his own life to steal my TV. But I can't make the choice for them, if they choose to victimize me I will defend myself and my property. The choice is theirs - free will and personal responsibility.

 

[Code001]

I have no experience with guns

That pretty much disqualifies you from even entering this thread in the first place. What you're doing is similar to going into a musicians thread and talking about guitars, yet having no experience in music what-so-ever. It just doesn't make any sense.

I fail to see how not having handled a gun disqualifies my opinion on their effect on crimerate. I suppose the fact Ive never committed an armed robbery means my opinion that it's bad is similarily idiotic?

I never said that. I said the fact that you've never handled a weapon means you have no right whether or not to comment on this thread which was ORIGINALLY about someone wanting a new glock-based weapon invented by Magpul Industries. It's painfully obvious that you just came in this thread to troll and start shit with other people who have a different viewpoint from yourself. You then veered the thread into some political bullshit that it was never meant to go to in the first place.

 

[Odin]

1. What does gun legality have to do with crime prevention? If they don't have guns you don't need them to protect your home, granted it's far from as simple as making them illegal, but thats the ideal situation, the bad dudes don't have them and something as simple as a baseball bat, or a locked door is ample prevention.

It is not possible to completely remove all guns from any society, therefore any arttempt will only disarm the law abiding and leave the criminal element armed. This gives the advantage to the criminal.

Also, your simplistic idea of "adequate protection" is laughable. You think a locked door and a baseball bat will prtect a disabled elderly woman from a 6'6" 250lb criminal who just kicked in her locked door? Not every person is trained and prepared for hand-to-hand combat self defense, and not every person wants to be (or needs to be).

2. The restriction on gun ownership versus the crime rate changes are completely irrelevant in Australia. When your population explodes, as ours has there will be more crimes. My beleif is that if we allowed guns the gang problems we have would become much, much worse, as would our robbery rate. That's Australia, I'm not an expert on any other country. Like I said, we had an issue with gun realted crimes, we banned them, since then there has been ONE shooting, killing ONE person.

If guns cause crime then population shouldn't have any effect on crime once you ban guns. Not until you antigun types comprehend that a gun is an inanimate object that bears no responsibility for anything will you begin to see the rteality of the situation. Criminals will victimize people regardless of the laws, and law abiding citizens are the only ones effected by banning guns.

3. Nice story, I know its true the overwhelming majority of shootings happen in self defence. But can you justify people needing to own the kind of weapons displayed in this thread? A 9mm pistol is a lot different to an assault rifle. You can still use them for recreation and sports, you just can't kill and maim with as much brutal power. I have no experience with guns, they are illegal except under a few circumstances (none of which I qualify for). Theres also the question of whether most of the owners are law abiding, self defencive people, or more are criminals or people of questionable disposition. I don't know, it's hard to tell when it's all bad news.

I don't have to justify firearm ownership, nor do I have to justify the type of gun I own. My country's Constitution protects that inalienable right.

There is no such thing as killing and maiming with "as much brutal power" - maimed is maimed and killed is killed, whether it's done with a gun or a hammer or a hand. There are no degrees to lethality, dead is dead.

You sound as if you presume all people to be criminals unless they prove themselves innocent and worthy of self defense - I feel sorry for any defendant that has you on their jury.

 

[Odin]

I have no experience with guns

That pretty much disqualifies you from even entering this thread in the first place. What you're doing is similar to going into a musicians thread and talking about guitars, yet having no experience in music what-so-ever. It just doesn't make any sense.

I fail to see how not having handled a gun disqualifies my opinion on their effect on crimerate. I suppose the fact Ive never committed an armed robbery means my opinion that it's bad is similarily idiotic?

What, exactly, is guns effect on crime rate? Please enlighten us as to the effect that inanimate objects have on the actions of people. Also, please list all inanimate objects which affect the crime rate, not just guns.

 

[Odin]

Now upgrade those 9mm to .45 and you'll be talking my language.

haha

No worries there, I have a .45 auto that lives in my safe at home next to my favorite handun, my .357 mag revolver

I usually only carry my 9mm, and usually only have hollow points in it.

In fact, I think I may have to take a break, go out back behind our production facility, and kill some gatorade bottles

The .357 Magnum revolver is a work of art.

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

How about this - what's wrong with no committing crimes? Once a person has made the free will choice to victimize me that individual has accepted total responsibility for what may happen to him as a result of his choice.

People who ask "is property worth a human life" need to be asking the criminals who are risking their lives by taking property. Don't ask me, I'm not the one who chose to risk my life for property.

America has more freedom than other countries, and with freedom comes responsibility. Predators will exploit that freedom. That doesn't mean freedom is bad or dangerous, freedom simply allows the predator to expose himself. it's up to the free to defend themselves against predators.

Maybe instead of waiting for someone to inade your home and you kill them you and your community should look to prevent that choice from ever happening. I see no efforts to do this in the slightest. I also think it's extreme overkill to warrant someones death because they take your TV, or threaten to, thats not even close to justice. Your opinion obviously is blatantly different, but honestly thats ridiculous.

I don't "wait for someone to invade inside my home", I just live my life the way I choose, but I do take personal responsibility for my own protection.

It's not my responsibility to prevent people in my community from making the choice to be criminals and there is nothing I can do to that effect. People make choices and I have no influence over their choices. But I will prepare myself for the reality that some people will choose to be criminals and I should be prepared to defend myself against criminals.

The responsibility lies first with parents, and then once a person becomes an adult the responsibility lies with that individual to make good choices and not be a criminal.

I agree with you that it's extreme overkill for a person to risk his own life to steal my TV. But I can't make the choice for them, if they choose to victimize me I will defend myself and my property. The choice is theirs - free will and personal responsibility.

Which while being fair is painfully terrible way to live. Why not try to improve soicial or educational conditions in your community so crime rates are lessened? Works here! You've got such a skewed logic it's amazing, I honestly cannot comprehend someone who thinks taking a human life can possibily be justified when someone takes a tv, thats absurd. I guess all the stereotypes we learnt about Texans were true.

What, exactly, is guns effect on crime rate? Please enlighten us as to the effect that inanimate objects have on the actions of people. Also, please list all inanimate objects which affect the crime rate, not just guns.

Guns ownership on gun related crime, in Australia, correlates pretty well. We took the guns away, the gun related crime rate plumeted without a similar rise in other type of armed robberies. I don't see why providing crinimals with more powerful tools to create crime is seen as a good thing. There are many inanimate objects that could potentially affect crime rate, guns are just the worst of them.

It is not possible to completely remove all guns from any society, therefore any arttempt will only disarm the law abiding and leave the criminal element armed. This gives the advantage to the criminal.

Also, your simplistic idea of "adequate protection" is laughable. You think a locked door and a baseball bat will prtect a disabled elderly woman from a 6'6" 250lb criminal who just kicked in her locked door? Not every person is trained and prepared for hand-to-hand combat self defense, and not every person wants to be (or needs to be).

Maybe not YOUR society, why not aim for a better tomorrow, without armed robberies or Virginia Tech murders? So if that disabled elderly woman had a massive assault rifle, but was the the wrong part of her house, it'd still be effective? We could spend days coming up with potential scenarios where having a gun would work, and having a gun wouldn't, it's a rather mute point.

If guns cause crime then population shouldn't have any effect on crime once you ban guns. Not until you antigun types comprehend that a gun is an inanimate object that bears no responsibility for anything will you begin to see the rteality of the situation. Criminals will victimize people regardless of the laws, and law abiding citizens are the only ones effected by banning guns.

Guns do not cause crime, they provide more options and an esier pathway for criminals to wreak more haoc within a society, whether that actually happens is different for every community. Since America has always toted guns as the next messia you've hardly got an alternative to compare crime rates or deaths with. Population DOES matter, we got many poor immigrants, badly educated, some resorted to crime. Do we legalise assault rifles to blast them to oblivion? No, we give them compassion, a better education, and a new opportunity. Not all respect what they've been given, but enough do to warrant those programs being their, and our crime rate dropped again.

I don't have to justify firearm ownership, nor do I have to justify the type of gun I own. My country's Constitution protects that inalienable right.

There is no such thing as killing and maiming with "as much brutal power" - maimed is maimed and killed is killed, whether it's done with a gun or a hammer or a hand. There are no degrees to lethality, dead is dead.

You sound as if you presume all people to be criminals unless they prove themselves innocent and worthy of self defense - I feel sorry for any defendant that has you on their jury.

That's one of the problems with that right, no justification needed, thats ridiculous. Increased scrutiny towards any law can only be of benefit to a democracy. Further attempting to improve your government and your laws can only be seen as a good thing. I hold the beleif that many of America's guns laws (and plenty of Australia laws) are outdated and need reviewing.

My point was convoluted, I'll try again. If I got caught in the middle of a shooting at a school, or mall, or university I'd rather know the shooter had a 9mm pistol then one of those giants posted earlier in the thread, maybe it's all perception, maybe not. Thats MY preference.

We don't really do jury duty here, I know of ONE person thats ever been called to it, so luckily neither you, not I, nor the defendant will ever likely have a problem with my bias.

 

[Odin]

I agree with you that it's extreme overkill for a person to risk his own life to steal my TV. But I can't make the choice for them, if they choose to victimize me I will defend myself and my property. The choice is theirs - free will and personal responsibility.

Which while being fair is painfully terrible way to live. Why not try to improve soicial or educational conditions in your community so crime rates are lessened? Works here! You've got such a skewed logic it's amazing, I honestly cannot comprehend someone who thinks taking a human life can possibily be justified when someone takes a tv, thats absurd. I guess all the stereotypes we learnt about Texans were true.

I don't live a painfully terrible life, I live a peaceful happy life. But I accept the reality that humans are naturally predators, and that some of them will be criminals regardless of what their family or community or government says or does. And so I have a responsibility to guard against, and be prepared for, the actions of those predatory criminals to ensure that my peaceful happy life is not disrupted by predatory criminals.

If you believe that all predatory criminal behavior in the human species can be somehow eliminated then you are beyond delusional and I must stop debating this with you. If you believe that there is a chance that a predatory criminal may be in my community for any reason then you must agree that I have a responsibility to protect myself and my family (even if we disagree on the method by which I defend myself).

I am not against "improving soicial or educational conditions in your community so crime rates are lessened" but that is not a guarantee against criminals, therefore I will continue to be prepared to defend myself as long as criminals exist.

And I do not think that a human life should be taken for a property crime, which is why I will never risk my life to commit a property crime. But I have already made the decision that if any predator (man or animal) threatens me or my family in any way that i will defend myself and my family and my property vigorously and swiftly, and the entirety of the responsibility for my actions will be held by the person who chose to victimize me. My decision has already been made as to my reaction to an attack on me, so the decision to risk a life lies solely with the criminal. If you want to reduce the loss of human life then please try to convince criminals not to victimize me or my family.

My attitude is prevalent in Texas, and Texans use lethal force almost daily to defend their property and lives against criminals. Nobody here is crying for the criminals who are injured or killed by law abiding citizens. We don't like criminals, we don't want criminals among us, and nearly everyone from kids to little old ladies to district attorneys to juries supports the use of force, including deadly force, againt criminals. And a great many people are armed. This is common knowledge in Texas. Yet knowing all of this thousands of criminals will try their luck every year. You cannot change the will of a stranger intent on victimizing you, but you can defend yourself.

What, exactly, is guns effect on crime rate? Please enlighten us as to the effect that inanimate objects have on the actions of people. Also, please list all inanimate objects which affect the crime rate, not just guns.

Guns ownership on gun related crime, in Australia, correlates pretty well. We took the guns away, the gun related crime rate plumeted without a similar rise in other type of armed robberies. I don't see why providing crinimals with more powerful tools to create crime is seen as a good thing. There are many inanimate objects that could potentially affect crime rate, guns are just the worst of them.

"Gun related crime"? If you take cars away there will be no more "car related crime". If you ban water there will be no more drownings. Yet you still have not addressed the one responsible for the crimes - the criminals. Just a minute ago you were preaching about helping people to stop their criminal ways and better themselves, now you're talking about banning inanimate objects. Which is it, do criminals need the community ot help them or are the guns the problem?

I own a great many guns, and none of them has ever committed a crime, caused a crime, or influenced me to commit a crime. I am wearing 2 guns at this very moment (as I do every day) and I am not feeling the urge to commit a crime, nor am I afraid that my guns will harm me or anyone else.

If guns cause crime then pencils cause misspelled words.

It is not possible to completely remove all guns from any society, therefore any arttempt will only disarm the law abiding and leave the criminal element armed. This gives the advantage to the criminal.

Also, your simplistic idea of "adequate protection" is laughable. You think a locked door and a baseball bat will prtect a disabled elderly woman from a 6'6" 250lb criminal who just kicked in her locked door? Not every person is trained and prepared for hand-to-hand combat self defense, and not every person wants to be (or needs to be).

Maybe not YOUR society, why not aim for a better tomorrow, without armed robberies or Virginia Tech murders? So if that disabled elderly woman had a massive assault rifle, but was the the wrong part of her house, it'd still be effective? We could spend days coming up with potential scenarios where having a gun would work, and having a gun wouldn't, it's a rather mute point.

We can aim for a better tomorrow all you want, in the mean time I won't bury my head in the sand and hope for the best, I'll be armed.

If guns cause crime then population shouldn't have any effect on crime once you ban guns. Not until you antigun types comprehend that a gun is an inanimate object that bears no responsibility for anything will you begin to see the rteality of the situation. Criminals will victimize people regardless of the laws, and law abiding citizens are the only ones effected by banning guns.

Guns do not cause crime, they provide more options and an esier pathway for criminals to wreak more haoc within a society, whether that actually happens is different for every community. Since America has always toted guns as the next messia you've hardly got an alternative to compare crime rates or deaths with. Population DOES matter, we got many poor immigrants, badly educated, some resorted to crime. Do we legalise assault rifles to blast them to oblivion? No, we give them compassion, a better education, and a new opportunity. Not all respect what they've been given, but enough do to warrant those programs being their, and our crime rate dropped again.

Criminals do not deserve "compassion, a better education, and a new opportunity", they deserve to be dealt with swiftly and harshly. If some choose to give them a second chance then that's their choice, but I do not. Don't bother me and I'll not bother you.

Guns are tools. Without guns criminals would find or improvise other tools to create the leverage they require to victimize the innocent. This problem existed before guns and will exist after guns. You can choose to arm yourself with the most effective defense mechanism available or you can hope nothing ever happens to you.

Do you have a spare tire for your car? Do you have insurance? Do you wear seatbelts? These are things that you have and hope to never need. A gun is the same - I carry 2 guns daily and hope to not need them, but in the event I need a gun it is probably the only tool that will save my life at that particular moment. My life is worth saving in my opinion so I take responsibility for protecting it.

I don't have to justify firearm ownership, nor do I have to justify the type of gun I own. My country's Constitution protects that inalienable right.

There is no such thing as killing and maiming with "as much brutal power" - maimed is maimed and killed is killed, whether it's done with a gun or a hammer or a hand. There are no degrees to lethality, dead is dead.

You sound as if you presume all people to be criminals unless they prove themselves innocent and worthy of self defense - I feel sorry for any defendant that has you on their jury.

That's one of the problems with that right, no justification needed, thats ridiculous. Increased scrutiny towards any law can only be of benefit to a democracy. Further attempting to improve your government and your laws can only be seen as a good thing. I hold the beleif that many of America's guns laws (and plenty of Australia laws) are outdated and need reviewing.

My point was convoluted, I'll try again. If I got caught in the middle of a shooting at a school, or mall, or university I'd rather know the shooter had a 9mm pistol then one of those giants posted earlier in the thread, maybe it's all perception, maybe not. Thats MY preference.

We don't really do jury duty here, I know of ONE person thats ever been called to it, so luckily neither you, not I, nor the defendant will ever likely have a problem with my bias.

The right to keep and bear arms in the US is not a law, it is an inalienable right that our founding fathers specifically said that the government was not permitted to infringe upon. In the US, the people have the right to do anything that is not prohibited by law, and the government only has the right to do that which it is specifically permitted to do by law.

 

[White_Van]

^

Longest......Post.....Ever......

I hate guns. Guns kill people. What happened to protecting yourself with an alarm system, and if that fails, a baseball bat?

A lot less permanent than a gun.

 

[Code001]

^

Longest......Post.....Ever......

I hate guns. Guns kill people. What happened to protecting yourself with an alarm system, and if that fails, a baseball bat?

A lot less permanent than a gun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6bbXgUNOws

 

[Odin]

^

Longest......Post.....Ever......

I hate guns. Guns kill people. What happened to protecting yourself with an alarm system, and if that fails, a baseball bat?

A lot less permanent than a gun.

Do you have an alarm on your body? Can you carry a concealed baseball bat, legally and comfortably, everywhere you go? You are naive and/or have lived a very sheltered life. That's not a crime, but it can get you killed.

 

[SeaDog]

For once I think I totally agree with Odin - hehe. Nosebleed, the statistics I've read for both your country and England seem to differ from what you say about crime so who knows what the truth really is (I rarely trust stats). As far as your "population explosion" your country is around 53rd in the world with 21 million or so and the US is 3rd with 303 million so I think it's safe to assume that we can't even realistically compare our environments. Our country has always had a very different set of guns laws and traditions so I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree, so to speak. America was founded on a tradition of self-reliance and much of the population still believes in those values and tools such as guns are part of that history.
It's sad for some of us to see some of our population develop a smug sense of "enlightenment", that shuns the traditional values of self-reliance and personal responsibility of which gun ownership is just a small part. I don't believe I'll ever see the lure of the European socialist attitudes which seem to me to come from the European "subject" mentality that goes as far back as the feudal system. Maybe I'm just too much of an "American" sterotype, but at least we all can freely debate the topic.

 

[Odin]

At least we can freely debate the topic...until the government in Europe or Aus decides that the Internet causes crime and bans the common subjects from using the Internet.

 

[Code001]

At least we can freely debate the topic...until the government in Europe or Aus decides that the Internet causes crime and bans the common subjects from using the Internet.

I wouldn't be surprised if it starts happening in the US. It's already happening in South Korea, China, Japan, and various other places. We even have certain things we can't look up, too.

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

For once I think I totally agree with Odin - hehe. Nosebleed, the statistics I've read for both your country and England seem to differ from what you say about crime so who knows what the truth really is (I rarely trust stats). As far as your "population explosion" your country is around 53rd in the world with 21 million or so and the US is 3rd with 303 million so I think it's safe to assume that we can't even realistically compare our environments. Our country has always had a very different set of guns laws and traditions so I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree, so to speak. America was founded on a tradition of self-reliance and much of the population still believes in those values and tools such as guns are part of that history.
It's sad for some of us to see some of our population develop a smug sense of "enlightenment", that shuns the traditional values of self-reliance and personal responsibility of which gun ownership is just a small part. I don't believe I'll ever see the lure of the European socialist attitudes which seem to me to come from the European "subject" mentality that goes as far back as the feudal system. Maybe I'm just too much of an "American" sterotype, but at least we all can freely debate the topic.

It's different to be sure. I think many people are scared off by being 'ruled' by another country, when it's clearly a lot more complicated than that. I like many ideas about socialism, obviously choice is great, but I'd relish the opportunity to live in a country where I wouldn't have to bother with choice because I can trust the system thats in place. I think thats a better way to operate than the 'free' system Australia has where the governement doesn't do it's job and allows us a greater 'freedom'. I think the idea is more to operate less as individual units and more as a whole, thus allowing a more streamlined and workable country and government. Seems to work for Europe, don't think it'd be quite so good in America. FWIW the Queen cannot actually make a ruling here, she cannot make laws, and she cannot order us to do anything without parliamentary consent. In that respect I personally don't see why we bother having her around, but it does no harm.

Odin and I will just have agree to disagree, he can't understand where I come from, I can't understand where he comes from. If he's happy living in a community where he has to wear 2 guns a day in order to feel safe and in control I pity him, but he seems very happy, so whatever works for him.

 

[Copperhead]

We don't have terrorists blowing up cars here, either, like we've seen in England, Europe and is now commonplace in the Middle East. I have no stats, but I would think that terrorist organisations would think twice before waging an ongoing war of terror against the civilian population in the US. True, 9/11 was pure evil genius, but that was basically a one-time shot.

Do not understimate the sub culture of gun owners in the US. You have no idea how many guns are in private hands, likely hundreds of millions or more, nor do you know what you're about in regards to the type of heavy weaponry us civies own with the proper Class III tax stamps. I've been out in the desert with guys shooting heavy artillery into the mountains. There are great quantities of full auto rifles, large caliber ammo etc. being sold legally. God knows how many illegal weapons there are, but I would not know anything about that.

I know guys who have literally arsenals of legal, full auto rifles and millions of rounds of ammo. I am convinced there are many, many people that I don't know of across this country that have far more. The second amendment is not about duck hunting, it's about the God-given right of the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, and to preserve their God-given freedoms as our forefathers described in the their writings, see Thomas Paines' "Common Sense" , The Declaration of Independance, The US Constitution and Bill of Rights for starters.

Our Founding Fathers wanted to give us the right and the means to preserve our liberty should the government turn tyrannical again and tax us, and regulate us to death. When the revolution comes, we will do some damage, that is for sure.
We just want to remain quiet and under the radar until that time.

 

[CharFace]

^

Longest......Post.....Ever......

I hate guns. Guns kill people. What happened to protecting yourself with an alarm system, and if that fails, a baseball bat?

A lot less permanent than a gun.

on the subject of protecting yourself, I think that the quicker you "subdue" the perp, the better off you will be. 2 rounds, center mass, should subdue the threat quite quickly.