Gun sales today...pretty amazing...

[Vulcan]

Useless statement impossible to prove.  Just as silly as saying people that call off often at work save lives due to less car accidents..



Midway

My firearms are in a room (man cave) that has a door lock, a padlock, are in a gun safe, and have trigger locks. The bolts and ammo are stored separately.

If one of my kids ever decides to off himself, or play silly buggers with a firearm it will not be one of mine.

It's only impossible if you have your head a decent way up your rear end.

[Grayeagle]

As has been said in answer to the OP ..it's convenient to have loaded multiple magazines.,
especially at a range where time is money and would rather spend it shootin instead of loading

I used to shoot 2500 rounds in a few hours of target shooting with my .22 semi auto rifle and luger pistol.
-shrug-
It was the effort to do the best I could ..self competition.
Paid off in spades when I joined the USAF
..first time with the M-16 and every time I had to qualify thereafter I shot expert.

Didn't 'like' it as much when they switched to the .22 adapter setup in the M16 ..felt too much like a toy.

Wife and I decided no guns in the house when we had our first child ..never got back into it.
Too many other things kept me busy altho every year I got to go play on the range while I was in the USAF.

Had a friend who used to think anything less than 35,000 rounds was 'getting low' and he had to restock
Also had a friend (Harry Wells) who owned and operated a WW2 vintage .50 cal machine gun.. among others.
Different strokes

Funny story:
Harry decides to shoot his .30 cal machine gun like John Wayne at a 'shoot' one fine day.
Loads a belt up, takes aim ..and lets fly.
Well.
The gun only cycles 3-4 rounds and stops ..and Harry screamed like a schoolgirl.
First ..the recoil was damped too much by Harry not being able to hold the gun steady enough..the reason it stopped firing.
Second.. the barrel traveled upward even in that short a burst to the point where the last round was almost straight up as Harry fell on his butt.

..and last but not even least, and funniest ..and why Harry screamed ..

That way cool belt feed system with the brass clippy dealies ..as it fed the rounds in..
..it yanked hairs right out of Harry's arm.

That whole bare-arm superhero John Wayne stuff just does not work in real life ..yanno?

Harry told me it worked fine when he backed up to a tree and put on a long sleeve denim shirt

-Frank aka GE

[Maverick]

I had an uncle that was a tech Sgt in the Army Air Corps. He told me about getting to fire the Thompson and grease gun when he was in WW2 and doing range quals. He never got sent overseas, spent his time training mechanics on B24's and B17's in Arizona. He passed on some advice about shooting the sub guns. The "school" way was to stand facing the target square on and raise it up like a rifle to shoot. He said it worked better to shoot it at 45 degrees to the target and put the stock in the crook of your elbow and the gun turned sideways instead of vertical. It was easier to control the normal recoil rise that way. I got the chance to try it out with the grease gun more than 20 years later. He was right. The folks ahead of me started dumping rounds into the ground below the target then climbed them up over the berm on a short 4 to 5 round burst. A longer burst and you were an anti aircraft gun. Doing it like he said I was able to chew up the targets then cut the 2x4's holding them up. Had a heck of a time burning up excess ammo on the pistol range like that. I liked the M3A1 better than the M3. The little charging lever was better than trying to pull the bolt back with a finger tip in the cut out notch, especially if the gun was a mite warmish.  

[Gman]

Long, interesting thread. 

One thing I'd like to say regarding some of the points brought up about shootings in general in the USA, and specifically those who say that the large numbers of guns is the primary reason for this.  You closest neighbor, Canada to the north, has a similar number of firearms per household as the state of Texas.  My home province, Alberta, has nearly 3 firearms per household as an average, 2.7 the last time the NFA up here did a research poll using the gun control people's own polling agency.  Yet, in all of Canada, for the last ten years, there is only 800 deaths from firearms per year on average, and 650+ on average are suicides.  Then remove the somali vs somali killings in Toronto, and the gang killings between the Asian gangs, the UN gang, and the Hells Angels (the lower mainland gang war of the last few years), and you're down to well under 100 murders per year in the ENTIRE country.  This, in a country with the same problems, same TV shows, same violent video games, same sports, nearly the same everything except the southern accents as the USA.

How is this explained away?  How can advocates of "less guns, less crime/violence" argue their case when you consider that a country of 35 million people with over 50 million firearms in private hands has under 150 non suicide killings every year including all gang violence?  I saw somebody shoot down the Swiss example by saying they are a rich country, filled with happy content non violent people.  Well, Canada may not be quite as rich, and it has many of the same social problems as America, yet there is less killings with firearms in the entire country of Canada than just Chicago has in a month or two.

Anyone have an answer for the reason why Canada has so many fewer people gunned down every year as compared to the USA, with similar per capita/household firearm ownership numbers?

[ToeTag]

Long, interesting thread. 

One thing I'd like to say regarding some of the points brought up about shootings in general in the USA, and specifically those who say that the large numbers of guns is the primary reason for this.  You closest neighbor, Canada to the north, has a similar number of firearms per household as the state of Texas.  My home province, Alberta, has nearly 3 firearms per household as an average, 2.7 the last time the NFA up here did a research poll using the gun control people's own polling agency.  Yet, in all of Canada, for the last ten years, there is only 800 deaths from firearms per year on average, and 650+ on average are suicides.  Then remove the somali vs somali killings in Toronto, and the gang killings between the Asian gangs, the UN gang, and the Hells Angels (the lower mainland gang war of the last few years), and you're down to well under 100 murders per year in the ENTIRE country.  This, in a country with the same problems, same TV shows, same violent video games, same sports, nearly the same everything except the southern accents as the USA.

How is this explained away?  How can advocates of "less guns, less crime/violence" argue their case when you consider that a country of 35 million people with over 50 million firearms in private hands has under 150 non suicide killings every year including all gang violence?  I saw somebody shoot down the Swiss example by saying they are a rich country, filled with happy content non violent people.  Well, Canada may not be quite as rich, and it has many of the same social problems as America, yet there is less killings with firearms in the entire country of Canada than just Chicago has in a month or two.

Anyone have an answer for the reason why Canada has so many fewer people gunned down every year as compared to the USA, with similar per capita/household firearm ownership numbers?

population per square mile / k.  Also it is so freaking cold nobody wants to go outside.

[guncrasher]

Long, interesting thread. 

One thing I'd like to say regarding some of the points brought up about shootings in general in the USA, and specifically those who say that the large numbers of guns is the primary reason for this.  You closest neighbor, Canada to the north, has a similar number of firearms per household as the state of Texas.  My home province, Alberta, has nearly 3 firearms per household as an average, 2.7 the last time the NFA up here did a research poll using the gun control people's own polling agency.  Yet, in all of Canada, for the last ten years, there is only 800 deaths from firearms per year on average, and 650+ on average are suicides.  Then remove the somali vs somali killings in Toronto, and the gang killings between the Asian gangs, the UN gang, and the Hells Angels (the lower mainland gang war of the last few years), and you're down to well under 100 murders per year in the ENTIRE country.  This, in a country with the same problems, same TV shows, same violent video games, same sports, nearly the same everything except the southern accents as the USA.

How is this explained away?  How can advocates of "less guns, less crime/violence" argue their case when you consider that a country of 35 million people with over 50 million firearms in private hands has under 150 non suicide killings every year including all gang violence?  I saw somebody shoot down the Swiss example by saying they are a rich country, filled with happy content non violent people.  Well, Canada may not be quite as rich, and it has many of the same social problems as America, yet there is less killings with firearms in the entire country of Canada than just Chicago has in a month or two.

Anyone have an answer for the reason why Canada has so many fewer people gunned down every year as compared to the USA, with similar per capita/household firearm ownership numbers?

sure we'll explain about canada as soon as you explain why Japan with almost no guns and 5 times the population has a lower murder rate than canada?

is it possible that it is not how many guns you own but the attitude of the population at large that drives the murder rate?


midway

[Vulcan]

As has been said in answer to the OP ..it's convenient to have loaded multiple magazines.,
especially at a range where time is money and would rather spend it shootin instead of loading

I used to shoot 2500 rounds in a few hours of target shooting with my .22 semi auto rifle and luger pistol.
-shrug-

Funny when I go to the range I don't really worry about loading magazines as I'm letting my barrel cool between loads.

[Tank-Ace]

sure we'll explain about canada as soon as you explain why Japan with almost no guns and 5 times the population has a lower murder rate than canada?

is it possible that it is not how many guns you own but the attitude of the population at large that drives the murder rate?


midway

Thats kind of what he was saying.

In fact, thats exactly what he's implying. Its not the guns, its the people. Fix the people, and you fix the problem.

[Gman]

Semp, from wikipedia's stats from last year on violent crime deaths, Japan is only 10% behind Canada, at 505, and we were at 552.  Canada has 50 million firearms, at least, in the hands on 35 million people, which more than offsets the 4x greater population Japan, as Japan has what, maybe a few thousand, or less in civilian hands.  It may become apparent to anyone who isn't drunk that the firearms may not be the actual issue at all.  How else can the numbers be explained, when, as I said, you have Canada and the USA with very similar laws, similar cultures and influences, and similar large numbers of firearms in private ownership, yet wildly different numbers in terms of violent crime and gun crime.  Then you take Japan, and compare it to Canada, and it has a very similar low violent crime rate, yet has NO guns in private hands.  The number of firearms in private hands obviously isn't the only reason or even the most critical reason there is higher or lower numbers of violent/gun crimes, as the anti gun crowd tries to claim.

[guncrasher]

Semp, from wikipedia's stats from last year on violent crime deaths, Japan is only 10% behind Canada, at 505, and we were at 552.  Canada has 50 million firearms, at least, in the hands on 35 million people, which more than offsets the 4x greater population Japan, as Japan has what, maybe a few thousand, or less in civilian hands.  It may become apparent to anyone who isn't drunk that the firearms may not be the actual issue at all.  How else can the numbers be explained, when, as I said, you have Canada and the USA with very similar laws, similar cultures and influences, and similar large numbers of firearms in private ownership, yet wildly different numbers in terms of violent crime and gun crime.  Then you take Japan, and compare it to Canada, and it has a very similar low violent crime rate, yet has NO guns in private hands.  The number of firearms in private hands obviously isn't the only reason or even the most critical reason there is higher or lower numbers of violent/gun crimes, as the anti gun crowd tries to claim.

there you go, you just answered your own question regarding canada's death rate.  it's not the guns but the people's attitude that drives the murder rate down.  I dont care what the anti-gun/pro-gun people outside of this think. 

so you answered your own question: "Anyone have an answer for the reason why Canada has so many fewer people gunned down every year as compared to the USA, with similar per capita/household firearm ownership numbers?"

you think by now when all the postings that indicate that more guns/lack of guns doesnt drive the murder rate up or down, it's the people's attitude that does that that you would stop asking that question.


midway

[Tank-Ace]

there you go, you just answered your own question regarding canada's death rate.  it's not the guns but the people's attitude that drives the murder rate down.  I dont care what the anti-gun/pro-gun people outside of this think. 

so you answered your own question: "Anyone have an answer for the reason why Canada has so many fewer people gunned down every year as compared to the USA, with similar per capita/household firearm ownership numbers?"

you think by now when all the postings that indicate that more guns/lack of guns doesnt drive the murder rate up or down, it's the people's attitude that does that that you would stop asking that question.


midway

It was a rhetorical question, you moron.