Myth #3 - Guns are bad

[Kennedy 0]

I have to tell you, your posts in this thread have lead me to question you. From not knowing the M9 and how to spell Garand, to your...strange...way of supporting guns, and now this post.

You're telling me you were a Marine, but what, you never knew any of them to live off base? And you seem to question every offer from John. That, plus you bash the NRA fairly often for no reason. It makes me wonder.

I recall a scenario like John's first example, but from the late nineties. A wife had called the cops and gotten a restraining order and the whole nine yards. Went to a dealer to buy a gun but was told there was a waiting period. The abusive husband called and said he was coming over to kill her. She called the cops and they said they couldn't respond because nothing was happening. The guy broke down the front door [yes, it was locked] and she ran upstairs into the bedroom slammed the door. He broke through the door and went at her. The only reason she's still alive is that she borrowed a gun from a friend.

You going to tell me there something she could have done other than shoot the mother fucker? That reminds me of an antigun position that seems to state that a beaten and battered woman giving a description is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining how a scumbag got three half inch holes in him.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

It seems to me that if that's the justification for waiting periods, then anyone who already owns a gun should be exempt from them. After all, if a person already owns a gun, no waiting period is going to stop him/her from shooting someone in the heat of the moment. There's no logical reason on the basis you present to prevent someone from purchasing a second or subsequent firearm with no waiting period whatsoever.

GOOD POINT! Ok I agree. Only a waiting period for first time gun buyers is necessary. It does seem that in a round about way you do agree that a waiting period will prevent a first time buyer from shooting someone in a fit of anger. Is that right?

You don't agree. John wasn't stating that a waiting period is right for non gun owners, just that your own reasoning does not support waiting periods for gun owners. And like he said, waiting periods prevent potential victims from arming themselves against threats. Since we all know criminals can acquire weapons illegally, someone please tell me why we are making it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

* Los Angeles riots -- USA Today reported that many of the people rushing to gun stores during the 1992 riots were "lifelong gun-control advocates, running to buy an item they thought they'd never need." Ironically, they were outraged to discover they had to wait 15 days to buy a gun for self-defense.
- Jonathan T. Lovitt, "Survival for the armed," USA Today, 4 May 1992.

Now that IS ironic! Again I'd like to know more including the locations and what types of businesses they owned. I am not satisfied with small excerpts when we all know there is a much larger story behind it. I am not trusting enough to take excerpts such as these at face value.

Who says they were business owners at all? They were people suddenly fearful of possible physical attacks. They had reason to believe danger was coming to them, so they decided to arms themselves. But oh, sorry, you have to wait through the "cooling off" period. What a bunch of crap.

Quote

Get these off the NRA website?

So you automatically discount any information related in anyway to the NRA website? Riiiiiiiiiiight. Even I don't ignore things from antigun sites. I read it and then sift through the lobbying and any lies, and see if there is anything worth thinking about. You on the other hand seem to just say, eh, the possibility of learning is not worth the effort, so I'm comfortable with ignorance.

Are you feeling the bliss?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Douva 0]

Quote

Yeah, we're done.

Probably a good plan--We weren't really accomplishing much. Maybe we each gained a better understanding of the other side's point of view, but I doubt it. Politics and religion will kill you every time.

No hard feelings,

Douva

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I totally understand your thoughts. No further elaboration is required, but consider that for most other devices that have the potential for the instant lethality that guns do, we regulate them fairly heavily -- often requiring education and licensing. Cars, motorcycles, airplanes . . . just to name a few.

Would you support that?

If not, then why not?

I can not for the life of me understand why anyone would be against this -- Winsor included. In fact, since he made such a big deal out of the education issues earlier, I'd be very interested in his comments.

The top three mass-murders I've ever heard about in the U.S. were all accomplished by people who did not have, nor need, licenses to use the means they used to take many lives. They are the steering of airplanes into the World Trade Center, the demolition of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City using ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, and the Happyland Social Club fire in which a spurned club-goer torched the place with gasoline and matches.

Do you want to license the right to purchase gasoline and matches?

You ask, "Would you support that?" when it comes to guns. My answer? FUCK NO. The power to license is the power to DENY. In New York City, the law does not say you may not have a gun. The law says you may not have a gun without a license. Then, what do they do? They make it impossibly hard to qualify for a license! So even though the guns are not banned, you can't get the prerequisite license to own them (and forget about carrying them!) because they police simply rubber-stamp denials by the thousands!

So FUCK NO, I don't support licensing or mandatory training or whatever. The next thing you know, they'll make the "training" so impossibly hard to pass that no one will be deemed "qualified" to be licensed. This is not a matter of "would they ever do that?" They fuckin' HAVE done that!

When you consider that over 80,000,000 people own over 250,000,000 guns in the United States, and we have as FEW gun-related deaths as we have, you have to realize that the vast vast majority of gun owners already know what they need to about gun safety. To be honest, it ain't that hard to be safe with a gun. Any unsafety is more likely due to hubris, or disregard for rules. In such a case, when someone does something stupid (Uh, like RUSSIAN ROULETTE) that's not necessarily because he needed to undergo forced training and licensure -- he was gonna be a reckless idiot no matter what anyone told him. Are you telling me that your friend who blew his OWN brains out on a 1-in-6 chance had never come across the rule of gun safety that says, "Never let the muzzle cover anything you would not wish destroyed"? So don't give me licensure bullshit. Stupid is stupid, license or not. People drive like little old grannies to pass their fuckin' test, and then they are moments later screaming down the highway, cutting people off, blowing red lights, etc. Why are you so naive that you think it would be any different with gun licenses? The guy in England who precipitated their gun ban by killing 16 kids and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland was licensed by their police to own guns. He had been fully vetted by the police. Certain things simply cannot and will not be foreseen nor prevented. That's life. And it's not a reason to take away the rights of 99.99% of everybody.

---Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Yes I do in fact support education and licensing for those who own firearms. Also I would support currency. Not to mention the 5 day waiting period because this IMO prevents anyone from purchasing a firearm during a fit of anger. Seriously...anyone who can't wait 5 whole days should have planned further ahead.

What I don't want to see is what happened in the UK, Canada and Australia.

Well, Spiral, what happened in the UK, Canada and Australia happened bit-by-bit, starting with mandatory training and licensing for those who own firearms. This is a case of a frog will jump out of a pot of boiling water if thrown right in, but he will simmer and cook to death if the heat is turned up gradually. The anti-gun people may be stupid, but they're not dumb. They know full well that an outright ban will be fully opposed. So they sneak in "reasonable" restriction after "reasonable" restriction. Soon whole classes of guns are banned for no other reason than they have a bayonet lug or a pistol grip and "look" menacing -- even though they don't function in any way differently from other guns that are NOT banned.

If you want to keep the right to bear arms, you can't support letting the camel get its nose into the tent. At this point, the nose is in, the head is in, and we're doing our best to bash the face of the camel right back the fuck outta the tent. Wishywashiness does not help in that regard. Do YOU like being told that you're not a menace to society simply because your gun now may hold only 10 rounds instead of 13-15? Can you believe that this is the kind of "logic" the anti-gunners subscribe to?

More to the point: CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL EVER BE CONTENT TO STOP [I]THERE[/I]??

---Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

. . . because it is simply a tool to effect prohibition. . . .

I realize a certain portion of the population feels this way. I'm at a loss to understand why. I'm not sure I understand the logic of the conspiracy theory to license them first only to have them prohibited at some later date.

Before I go ahead and call you a thick-headed, ignorant idiot, I feel it's only right to give you a chance to answer the following question:

WHAT FUCKIN' PART OF "THEY ALREADY DID THAT IN NEW YORK, D.C., ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA" DO YOU NOT FUCKIN' UNDERSTAND?!

How do you keep fuckin' ignoring that reality?!

---Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

I suppose you support a two-week waiting period to buy gasoline. How about a 5-gallon limit?

Perhaps a better logical argument for you would have been steak knives.

Quote

Ignorance and cowardice are powerful forces.

Insulting the opposition isn't really an effective way to get them to agree with you.

Do you honestly think that we expect to change the mind of someone who could have EVER believed the crap you believe regarding gun rights? This is not about changing YOUR mind, quade, this is about letting everyone else who views this thread see how pathetically weak your arguments are in a logical sense. Poking the holes in your anti-gun tripe is its own reward. No rational person can leave this discussion convinced that what you've said holds any water.
And the way you evade questions is pretty lame, too. He asked you about gasoline, which killed what, 180-some-odd people in the Happyland Social Club fire (torched by some illegal immigrant psycho who had been thrown out). What did you do? You asked some stupid question about steak knives. Lots of domestic violence murders are committed with ordinary kitchen knives. Why not license those too?

---Jeffrey
---Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[winsor 187]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Rated sharpshooter on the 9mm (I forget the designation)

Wouldn't that be the Beretta "M9"?

Trivia: the Italian gun manufacturer Beretta, is the oldest continually operational business in the entire world.

Quote

Annualy go to the firing range to fire a 7.62 mm M1 Gurant

What's that? Do you mean the M1 Garand, the WWII service rifle?

Gen. Patton called the Garand "the greatest battlefield implement ever devised." When all the other armies of WWII were still using bolt-action rifles for their standard issue, only the Americans had a semi-auto - the M1 Garand.

yup the Beretta M9

and yup again. it is the garand. the damn thing has such a kick that i refuse to fire more than 10 rounds with the thing because i don't want to risk a dislocated shoulder.

You should try a range session with my .460 Weatherby (the .458 Ruger No. 1 Tropical is also none too shabby in the recoil department).

I have a Browning BPS 10 gauge that I use for skeet and trap upon occasion. 2 1/4 oz. of shot really powders targets.

Any of these make my Garand seem like a popgun. 200 rounds of .30-06 through the M-1 in a range session is no big deal by comparison.

With a National Match barrel, the M-1 is a joy to shoot. Shooting apples at 100 meters is no challenge at all.

Yeah, it does kick, but it's easy to put into perspective.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[bmcd308 0]

>> 'Cause, I'm thinking for self defense a rifle like this doesn't make too much sense. <<

Why not?

It is a military rifle that soldiers rely on to defend themselves. It is a capable platform for mounting a good light and CQB optics. It has been shown to be very reliable in a variety of conditions. It fires a fairly low velocity round of roughly .30 caliber dimensions.

All in all, I think it would be a pretty good CQB gun except that it does not have the kewl factor of the Stoner platform.

But it is important to remember that just because a design is not as technically sophisticated or as expensive as the Stoner platform, it still might be just as effective.

>>Do any of you actually own (or maybe owned and had it confiscated) this weapon and why did you purchase it? <<

I do not own an SKS. I have owned an AK, but I sold it. I have a good friend who owns an SKS. It is set up as I described above, as a CQB rifle. It is not the coolest CQB rifle out there, but I think it would be effective if it were pressed into service. I would not feel unarmed with it. And it cost about $600 less than my AR set up as above.

Brent

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[winsor 187]

Quote

Yeah, we're done.

Would that you had maintained your silence before completely obliterating your credibility.

I wish I was left with some basis for respect, but I can think of none.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[quade 3]

Winsor --

I had hoped you'd provide some rational explanations as opposed to simple sophistries.

I’ve allowed you and others to take the cheap shots at me that I would not have allowed had you done so at other users of this web site. I have tried to show you respect for what limited insight you have offered in this thread.

I see now it was folly.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

Mercury fulminate (primer for modern firearm cartridges) is ridiculously easy to make. Please see "The Big Book of Mischief".

I have personal experience of this, and it is NOT "easy". The process is actually rather nasty and dangerous.

If it's so tough, how come it was harnessed and applied to firearms by a preacher in early 19th-Century England?

I never said anything about the danger involved; I implied that the manufacturing process was simple. Mercury fulminate is extremely unstable, yet it can be mixed up in a school chem lab.

I remember an anectdotal story about the solution being placed on doorhandles. When it dried...

The point I was trying to make (although nowhere near as eloquently as Mr. Naugler) was that human nature being what it is, agression will always find an outlet. It's our job as citizens to be prepared to defend ourselves. Firearms have been around since shortly after a guy named Polo returned to Genoa, bringing with him the gunpowder Genie, and prohibition isn't going to make firearms magically go away - even thick-headed amateurs can fabricate one.

It's this same kind of misguided, wishful thinking that gave rise to large-scale organized crime in this country in the 1920s, and made lawbreakers out of ordinary citizens. Some people will never learn, especially fucking liberals.

Respectfully,

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[AggieDave 6]

You never even responded to my couple of posts either... *shrug* Ignore me, I guess, and I might go away.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Kennedy 0]

quade, just wanted to put my last comments in, then it's all yours, and hopefully clear up some things if not agree on them.

Quote

Ever actually see the aftermath of an LA gang shoot up with AK-47s and other such weapons being used? I have, first person and with my own eyes. It ain't pretty.

In the hollywood bank incident, those were AK rilfes in full auto configuration. Those have been regulated/illegal since 1934. The SKS is just a semi auto rifle that happens to accept similar magazines. [for anyone with questions, semi auto means you sqeeze the trigger once and get one bullet; full auto means you sqeeze the trigger and get repeated shots as long as you hold the trigger and don't run out of ammo] Drive-bys are ugly no matter what, but they are generally done with full auto. Irrelevant to the SKS.

Just so we're on the same page, the assault weapons ban has nothing to do with full auto firearms. It affects semi auto rifles with certain cosmetic features, like bayonet lugs and pistol grips. That is why you hear gun control adds bemoaning how manufacturers have gone around the ban and made the same gun. They just removed the features and produced the same item. Any rifle on the list is no more powerful than any off the list. [also, as a side note, these are the firearms least likely to be used in crimes, except for firearms over 10lbs] Some will ask what about drive-bys? Again, those are normally done with full auto firearms, not covered by the assault weapons ban because they are already covered.

Quote

Certainly there can be some middle ground. A place where street sweeper weapons are out of general circulation and a place where a person can reasonably use weapons for their entertainment value as well as protect his family.

If you can't understand the concept of compromise, I guess there really is nothing further to talk about.

How about this for middle ground. I am not trying to tell you we should have full autos running around the streets. [that is a whole other, much longer discussion] I am just talking about a rifle that looks similar to actual military assault weapons. I'm not asking anyone for full auto shotguns [yes, they make those] or heavy machine guns [though they are fun to shoot]. Those are covered by other federal and state law, and not subject to the assault weapons ban.

I'm not going to argue the full auto legislation with you. But the assault weapons ban has nothing to do with full auto. I hope hope I've helped anyone who was unclear about the Assault Weapons ban. If there are any questions, I'd be more than happy to pull a copy of the legislation and go over it with anyone who's interested.

quade, do you still feel the ban is necessary?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

I have to tell you, your posts in this thread have lead me to question you. From not knowing the M9 and how to spell Garand, to your...strange...way of supporting guns, and now this post.

What's that suppose to mean?

Quote

You're telling me you were a Marine, but what, you never knew any of them to live off base?

I lived off base myself. I was pointing out that I found it interesting that Marines, although highly educated in the use of firearms, are subjected to gun control laws if living on base.

Quote

That, plus you bash the NRA fairly often for no reason.

When did I do that? By comparing the NRA's desire to prevent gun-control with the gun-control advocates desire to control guns?

Quote

You going to tell me there something she could have done other than shoot the mother fucker? That reminds me of an antigun position that seems to state that a beaten and battered woman giving a description is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining how a scumbag got three half inch holes in him.

I simply believe that the use of a firearm should be a last resort and by not knowing the whole story I cannot be sure that the use of a firearm was the only option for survival.

Further more, you should try not to be so patronizing. Especially when I stated that I am open minded and interested in learning more. Guess you missed that. I ask questions because I see holes in people's arguments and want to know why those holes are there.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[quade 3]

Sorry Dave.

I gotta pick my battles. I can't pick a fight with -everyone-.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AggieDave 6]

Paul...thems fight'n words!

Hey, when we finally meet, you know I'm going to have to buy you a beer and we'll have to have some good chats.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[downwardspiral 0]

Wow nice post and point very well taken. Consider me further enlightened.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Mercury fulminate (primer for modern firearm cartridges) is ridiculously easy to make. Please see "The Big Book of Mischief".

I have personal experience of this, and it is NOT "easy". The process is actually rather nasty and dangerous.

If it's so tough, how come it was harnessed and applied to firearms by a preacher in early 19th-Century England?

I never said anything about the danger involved; I implied that the manufacturing process was simple. Mercury fulminate is extremely unstable, yet it can be mixed up in a school chem lab.

I remember an anectdotal story about the solution being placed on doorhandles. When it dried...



mh

I suspect the solution you are thinking of is nitrogen tri-iodide which is trivially easy to make (iodine crystals and concentrated ammonia, filter and dry) and when dry goes off at the slightest touch. Made a lot of that too, for doorknobs, bike saddles, etc.. However, it is way too unstable for a detonator.

Mercury fulminate, however, takes hot concentrated nitric and sulfuric acids and is a really nasty process. 19th century preachers did lots of amazing things!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Some of the other arguments posted in this thread are, well, silly, to me at least. I especially like the one that suggest that spite for Bill Clinton was a good motive for purchasing the weapon.

That was said in jest. The real motive was because Clinton was about to ban all new purchases of those types of rifles. Therefore, I wanted to ensure that I purchased one which would still be legal, prior to the ban going into effect.

The way these gun bans work is that they cut off new purchases as of a certain date. However, they aren't so bold as to demand that all previous owners of those types of rifles turn them in, or go to jail, and send confiscation police squads out into the neighborhoods. The politicians know that Americans wouldn't stand for that kind of response. So they "grandfather" all previous owners as legal, and only ban new purchases. Therefore, when a ban is about to be enacted, many people rush to the gun stores to buy up the last of the kind, before they disappear. They become valuable collector items, that increase in value remarkably over time.

[winsor 187]

Quote

Winsor --

I had hoped you'd provide some rational explanations as opposed to simple sophistries.

I’ve allowed you and others to take the cheap shots at me that I would not have allowed had you done so at other users of this web site. I have tried to show you respect for what limited insight you have offered in this thread.

I see now it was folly.

Based on the stance you took and your explanation for why you did so, it seemed a waste of time trying to convince you of anything.

I have given you the benefit of the doubt in that your misconceptions were the result of ignorance,which is correctable with education, instead of stupidity, which is inherent.

It is not my job to set you straight for free. As I said, if you want to attend the course you are welcome to do so. If you do, check everything you think you know at the door, since it is all wrong.

You somehow expected to be taken seriously after demonstrating repeatedly that you know less than nothing about the subject. I can't bring myself to humor you in that wish.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

What exactly is it about an SKS that you are so worried about? They are no more dangerous to the public than any other type of rifle.

Ever actually see the aftermath of an LA gang shoot up with AK-47s and other such weapons being used? I have, first person and with my own eyes. It ain't pretty.

First of all, the news media has come to call nearly everything an "AK47", just for the sensationalism that it has come to represent. However, there are few of those actually around anymore. And the more modern versions which people now own are rarely of the machinegun type, but rather are semi-auto. Nevertheless, the news folks like to conjure up images of machineguns spraying bullets wildly, with their pet term "AK47".

Next, the AK-type rifles actually shoot a rather small cartridge, compared to average hunting rifles. I've attached a photo of three common cartridges. From left to right is: 1) the 7.62x39 used by the AK and SKS rifles; 2) .308, and; 3) .30-06.

Just by looking at them, you can tell that the 7.62x39 has less gunpowder, and therefore less velocity and less long-distance capability. It also has a lighter weight bullet, with less kinetic energy for wounding. It's actually only a medium-power cartridge - better than a handgun, but worse than just about any other rifle cartridge. And yet the news media dub these "powerful", helping to incite unrealistic fear. It's like calling a Volkswagon Beetle a "powerful" automobile.

So, the same gang shootings done with any other type of firearms, would be just as bad, or worse. The fact that they choose so-called AK47's for this purpose does not make the results particularly bad, compared to other firearms.

And so, there is no reason to fear AK or SKS type rifles. The fear which the news media has instilled in the public about these firearms is unfounded. They have no more capacity to wound and kill than any other firearms. It's all hype and sensationalism.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I fully support the assault weapons ban and nothing you can say will disuade me from that position

I have a feeling that you misunderstand what that law actually banned.

It banned cosmetic features on rifles like a bayonet lug, a pistol grip stock, a folding stock, and a flash suppressor.

No one has ever been killed by any of those features.

The law bans things that the anti-gun crowd thinks are "scary-looking". Now there's a great objective criteria by which to regulate guns!

The same guns are still being made without those features, and they possess the same capabilities for power, accuracy, rate of fire and so on. Nothing about the actual killing potential of the firearms has been diminished.

The American public was hoodwinked into thinking this law was about machineguns. It ain't.

And it is set to expire in September, when it should die and be forgotten.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

it is the garand. the damn thing has such a kick that i refuse to fire more than 10 rounds with the thing because i don't want to risk a dislocated shoulder.

It doesn't kick that bad - it's a heavy rifle, and the weight of the rifle alone, absorbs much of the recoil. If you wear a padded shooting jacket, and hold the stock tightly against your shoulder, it's quite bearable.

I regularly shoot my M1's in local "Garand" matches, where 50 shots are fired from 200 yards, in offhand, sitting and prone positions. I loan the extras in my collection to new shooters who come out to try it for the first time. Many of them like the Garand so much that they go on to purchase their own.