Are you packing heat?

[dorian gray]

Yeah, Charter Arms .44 magnum Bulldog Pug. Why? My friend was selling it and a Glock costs $900. I've never fired it. I'm afraid it'd blow up in my hand. I mean to get a carry license (hand over $150, carry a gun - it's the South) but I'm too lazy.

 

[J.]

im probably the only person in texas who does not own one. honestly, id like one "for protection", but the likelihood of someone breaking into my house in this uppidy white hood is almost nil. besides, black people are afraid of dogs and my pitbull/rottweiler mix would tear them limb from limb. or at least give me enough time to get ready to shove my bowie knife in their heart

 

[MFJ]

yeah, dogs are sweet. i hate my dogs because they freak out and bark whenever anyone (ANYONE, including my family) walks into the house, but if they turn the corner into the kitchen one day and see someone who shouldn't be there.... that fucker is going down.

 

[EricT]

I have a large collection of Air-Soft pistols and rifles, and I like go to the local airsoft arena every once in a while and pwn some n00bl3ts... no real guns.

On the other hand, my brother has a large collection of military weaponry... and likes to play with those. I'd say he is one of the most dangerous people on earth at this moment. Especially considering he is also a nuke tech for the navy. I expect him to take over a country of some sort one day.

 

[cthulufhtagn]

-are you?
-am i what?
-packing?
-only an asshole gets killed for a car.


best movie ever

 

[Lies and Perfidy]

Shooting kicks all kinds of ass.

I won't own a gun.

I'm conflicted.

+1, I hate guns from an aesthetic standpoint and also I'm a pussy.

 

[E-bortion]

By the way, the Desert Eagle is insane. I've fired it. The kick back is just ridiculous. It's an instant concussion.

Zod

agreed, its useless in a real situation. the recoil destroys any follow-up shot accuracy. also, the gun seems to be a statement and nothing more. id rather not trust myself to something a playstation video-game character has. besides, .50 caliber is ridiculous and is nearly impossible to control effectively after 3 or so shots within 5 or so seconds. i myself have a perfect record and have a strong background in hunting/shooting/skeet. i will have my license to conceal within the next year (as well as being a peace officer.) thank you texas + perfect record. ill be carrying a kimber 1911 series and a peace officers license wherever i go. right now i only have a winchester 5 shot, 12g pump-action. i also have a .22 from the korean war (will not discuss brand name as to avert legal issues.) surprisingly enough, the .22 cailber used to be used specifically for sniping. it was quiet and deadly if used with hollow-shell. my grandfather effectively destroyed many a Korean sergeant/whatever the fuck, via this same weapon. i will always defend my right to defend myself and defend my right to protect others. if other people like myself had been at Virginia Tech today, a tragedy would have been less tragic. i won't say I would have been as brave as needed (i'd like to think so, but claiming so is too arrogant.) but I'll say this: if the "bad guy", a "normal" citizen can always potentially be carrying a fiream, a sane man should have the right to carry one in public places. if legality destroys safety, why abide by the law? i will never.

 

[Henrik Main]

agreed, its useless in a real situation. the recoil destroys any follow-up shot accuracy. also, the gun seems to be a statement and nothing more. id rather not trust myself to something a playstation video-game character has. besides, .50 caliber is ridiculous and is nearly impossible to control effectively after 3 or so shots within 5 or so seconds. i myself have a perfect record and have a strong background in hunting/shooting/skeet. i will have my license to conceal within the next year (as well as being a peace officer.) thank you texas + perfect record. ill be carrying a kimber 1911 series and a peace officers license wherever i go. right now i only have a winchester 5 shot, 12g pump-action. i also have a .22 from the korean war (will not discuss brand name as to avert legal issues.) surprisingly enough, the .22 cailber used to be used specifically for sniping. it was quiet and deadly if used with hollow-shell. my grandfather effectively destroyed many a Korean sergeant/whatever the fuck, via this same weapon. i will always defend my right to defend myself and defend my right to protect others. if other people like myself had been at Virginia Tech today, a tragedy would have been less tragic. i won't say I would have been as brave as needed (i'd like to think so, but claiming so is too arrogant.) but I'll say this: if the "bad guy", a "normal" citizen can always potentially be carrying a fiream, a sane man should have the right to carry one in public places. if legality destroys safety, why abide by the law? i will never.

Yeah, thing is, maybe some day the "sane man" turns into the "bad guy"? The Virginia Tech guy (or other killers for that matter) probably wasn't a constant threat and a bad guy his entire life, but something happened to him that made him go completely insane. Perhaps he followed the same flawed "guns for protection" logic that you and a couple of other posters in this thread promote. Then he just tilted, and used his "protection weapons" to attack innocent people. Some people sadly have the ability to just flip and go on killing sprees like this, and weapons bought for "protection" might be used to kill and wound innocents by people who aren't necessarily raving lunatics at the time of the buying of said guns. In reality, you end up buying guns to protect yourself against other people who buy guns to protect themselves. I would guess that only an extreme minority buy guns with the intention of actually using them to kill, but a lot of "sane" persons are potential killers without really knowing it.

In theory, I am pro the whole "guns for protection" thing, but it just won't work in real life. Your grand country is a fine example of that. Liberal weapon policies have to take a lot of the blame for incidents like the Virginia Tech, and most other gunshooting incidents.

 

[Captain Beard]

Lee-Enfield rifle (Can't recall if No.4 Mk I or 2), 3 shot hunting shotgun.

 

[General Zod]

Perhaps he followed the same flawed "guns for protection" logic that you and a couple of other posters in this thread promote.

While I'd prefer to avoid a whole second ammendment debate, I wasn't suggesting guns should be legal for my protection. I was answering a different question; why I own one.

In theory, I am pro the whole "guns for protection" thing, but it just won't work in real life.

Actually, it does work in real life. Read Professor John R. Lott, Jr.'s book, More Guns, Less Crime.

Liberal weapon policies have to take a lot of the blame for incidents like the Virginia Tech, and most other gunshooting incidents.

You're leaping to conclusions. We don't even know if the gun used was a legally owned firearm. If it was purchased illegally, than it could have been purchased that way regardless of whether we had a second ammendment or not. The simple fact of the matter is, making something illegal doesn't prevent it from coming into the country. For instance, it's not exactly difficult to buy drugs in the US.

Zod

 

[Nate The Great]

Keep in mind that I own 2 guns (.223 rifle and a 1911 .45 auto), when I say this. Also keep in mind that I'm fairly conservative when it comes to personal freedoms and so on.

I'm really starting to think that controlling guns is the only answer for slowing down violence like this Virginia Tech thing. I'd rather see all guns banned in any way (which will never happen), then see stricter permits. As things stand right now, if a gun is available legally to anybody, guys like the Korean dude at Virginia Tech are going to be able to get them somewhere. I know people argue that people will still get guns off the black market and so on, but it would still slow down the infiltration of guns in nearly every rural and suburban home in America.

Anyway, it's a stupid argument, because the US is a LOOOOOONG way from any sort of ban, or even strict rules, on guns.

Everytime something like this happens, I can't help but laugh at all the idiots in conservative, Christian areas like where I live that go around fighting to ban condom handouts but will fight to the death for no regulations on guns.

 

[Henrik Main]

@ General Zod: Yes, obviously, people who desperately want to own a gun will get one if they try hard enough, even if owning guns was illegal, but do you think the average Mr. Smith-type of guy would risk making himself a criminal in order to get a weapon for his own protection? I doubt it.

If all kinds of firearms were made illegal, and only a select few shady characters like criminals owned weapons, then chances are you'd get rid of a lot of unnecessary impulse killings - people who just tilt, find the nearest weapon that they have bought for protection, and let rip. Some people might feel insecure or threatened by the fact that criminals may be carrying guns out in the streets, but that's the way it is (more or less) in Europe - guns are, in most cases, illegal, and the weapon policies are strict. We don't have mass shootings like Columbine, Virginia Tech here, and smaller scale shootings are pretty rare. Coincidence? Possibly, but I think not.

Also keep in mind that I'm fairly conservative when it comes to personal freedoms and so on.

Ditto.

 

[Nate The Great]

@ General Zod: Yes, obviously, people who desperately want to own a gun will get one if they try hard enough, even if owning guns was illegal, but do you think the average Mr. Smith-type of guy would risk making himself a criminal in order to get a weapon for his own protection? I doubt it.

If all kinds of firearms were made illegal, and only a select few shady characters like criminals owned weapons, then chances are you'd get rid of a lot of unnecessary impulse killings - people who just tilt, find the nearest weapon that they have bought for protection, and let rip. Some people might feel insecure or threatened by the fact that criminals may be carrying guns out in the streets, but that's the way it is (more or less) in Europe - guns are, in most cases, illegal, and the weapon policies are strict. We don't have mass shootings like Columbine, Virginia Tech here, and smaller scale shootings are pretty rare. Coincidence? Possibly, but I think not.



Ditto.

I pretty much agree with Henrik, but there is one thing missing from his argument. I could be wrong, but the US has a HUGE infatuation with violence. We have since the country was started. Is Europe less like this? As I stated earlier, the US conservatives HATE sex, but love guns. This is a huge problem over here, and it's something that I can't comprehend.

I don't know if a ban on guns would solve short term problems, but I think long term it would help. Of course the government would have to deal with terrorism from within, if a ban was actually passed. I don't even want to think what some of the rednecks/militia/freedom fighers/etc. would do if guns were banned.

 

[Henrik Main]

In Norway, even the Conservative parties are pro strict gun control. I don't think people in Norway or Europe in general are especially big on violence, compared to the US. I don't know if I can back that statement up with cold, hard facts, but it's a feeling I have. We don't have big organizations like the NRAA, and people who are diehard gun fanatics usually just get laughed at. This might sound like a liberal hell to the average American, but I think most people here agree that guns are for hunters, policemen and the millitary exclusively, and therefore it's just not that big of a deal.

 

[Doom]

I totally agree with Nate and Henrik. Good posts.

I pretty much agree with Henrik, but there is one thing missing from his argument. I could be wrong, but the US has a HUGE infatuation with violence. We have since the country was started. Is Europe less like this?

I can only speak about England, but honestly, I have never met a single person in this country who has any desire to own a gun. However, I don't think the US is alone in their "infatuation with violence". There's plenty of people in this country who like going around causing trouble and generally acting violently. The difference is that they'll do it with their fists instead of a gun.

 

[Necro Joe]

I think most people here agree that guns are for hunters, policemen and the millitary exclusively, and therefore it's just not that big of a deal.

Yeah its the same in the UK from what I've seen. The 'guns are awesome!' attitude you sometimes see from Americans is pretty much non-existant over here, I can't ever remember anybody telling me they would prefer it if more guns were legal.

 

[skeptik]

info

 

[J.]

dont european countries have bans on guns in some manner? police arent even allowed to carry them, correct? and dont european countries have less gun-related murders?

dunno, its a tough issue, but yeah, america is backwards on gun laws. the NRA has too much political clout

 

[grazim]

info

Hell, http://www.guncite.com/index.html in general. Bottom line, most anti-gun arguments are based upon appeals to emotion and ignorance/distortion of statistics.

 

[Russell]

I don't think people in Norway or Europe in general are especially big on violence, compared to the US. I don't know if I can back that statement up with cold, hard facts, but it's a feeling I have.

Switzerland is an interesting example - all men under do military service, get taught to use a gun, and keep the gun at home until they hit 32. Something like 50% of the population have a gun in their household. Violent crime involving the guns is fairly rare, and when the laws are broken it tends to be suicide or 'family murder' (i.e. individual shootings, not sprees). Obviously there are strict rules on their use, but by the same rationale as in the US people could 'flip-out' and have easy, quick access to a gun, yet mass-shootings are virtually unheard of there. There must be some difference in culture between the US and Switzerland that causes this difference. Whatever the cause, the relationship between ownership and shootings doesn’t appear to be entirely simple – although that doesn’t mean gun control laws should be scrapped (a lot of the gun lobby in the US use Switzerland to try and rubbish gun control laws).

Yeah its the same in the UK from what I've seen. The 'guns are awesome!' attitude you sometimes see from Americans is pretty much non-existant over here, I can't ever remember anybody telling me they would prefer it if more guns were legal.

In the area where I grew up, anyway, it does exist, most pre-pubescent boys go through a phase of thinking guns are cool, playing with fake ones, and generally showing an interest in weapons. Most grow out of it by the time they hit puberty, however, resulting in general disdain towards the "I love guns" attitude, mostly because it is so linked to young children playing with cap guns that it seems immature in adults. And this is in an area with relatively high gun ownership - I grew up was in the country, so a fair few people had shotguns for shooting pheasants. It tended to be these very people who did have regular access to guns who sneered most at the idolisation of guns - if anyone presented them with that attitude their disdain would be palpable. I'm sure there are sectors of our society - especially in parts of London and other large cities - who do love their guns, where it is considered 'cool' to carry or own one, but the vast majority of the UK public does, as you say, have little more than a wary contempt for them.