Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AdmRose on July 11, 2005, 11:39:28 AM
-
Title says it all, any suggestions for a first timer?
-
well..is it for home use?..or out walking?
At Home..SHOTGUN..Short Barrel..18"..make it a pump..FOR NO FAIL LOADING..and that bueatiful sound of the slide..cocking
if you want a Concealed wepaon for outside the house..lot of choices..
MOST REALIBALE>.NEVER FAIL TO LOAD...is a revolver
many many companies make both..so if you want to get paticualr we can go into more detail
but pump shotgun..and revolver..probly the safest fail safe firearms in the WORLD
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
..and that bueatiful sound of the slide..cocking
We are taught in our Naval Security school..that sound is the most effective deterrent aginst armed assailants.
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
well..is it for home use?..or out walking?
At Home..SHOTGUN..Short Barrel..18"..make it a pump..FOR NO FAIL LOADING..and that bueatiful sound of the slide..cocking
if you want a Concealed wepaon for outside the house..lot of choices..
MOST REALIBALE>.NEVER FAIL TO LOAD...is a revolver
many many companies make both..so if you want to get paticualr we can go into more detail
but pump shotgun..and revolver..probly the safest fail safe firearms in the WORLD
Out walking...I was thinking something in the .45 area, but you've piqued my interest in the revolver idea. (With my luck, an auto would fail on me at the moment of truth.) Any suggestions on a revolver?
-
First timer?
Revolver.
38spl or 357mag.
You can get 357mad and shoot 38's out of it for target practice.
Best safty is in your head. But a revolver is and has always been the best way to go for the first timer.
I started off carrying a full size 1911 45acp. Its bigger and heavier than most. You can get compact 1911 style pistols to carry which I have. But for some reason I've gotten use to carrying a full size 1911. I've been around guns all my life, so when I turned 21, I wasnt a first timer to guns, only to carrying them. If I was a first timer though, I would go with a revolver... No question about it.
-
Where do you live that you feel that you have to arm yourself before going outside?
-
Originally posted by BBQ_Bob
Where do you live that you feel that you have to arm yourself before going outside?
Somewhere in the US is my guess. :D
-
I'd like to play devils advocate.
For guard duty, something like a 45 would be perfect, especially since you're at a location that is considered a target for attack.
For just 'walking around', something smaller might be more appropriate. My logic for this is that the bigger the gun, the more likely you are to leave it behind when carrying it is a 'hassle'. For example, if you're wearing shorts and a t-shirt and out for a stroll, you might decide 'This is kinda big... I'd feel kinda awkward with this today, I'll leave it off' or "I just want to go jogging, I don't want this huge this bouncing around, I'll leave it here".
Something that you can carry casually, however, like a .22 (which, despite snorts around the BBS, is quite lethal. While it might not stop a charging truck, it should be more then adequete for 99% of thugs) might be better.
If I do a cost/benefit comparison, here's the chart I come up with:
.45
Pro
Stops anything/anyone
Con
Takes longer to aim
Weighs a lot, significant size
.22
Pro
Small, easy to conceal
Con
Not as much 'stopping power'
Now I look at the probable spread of who I'm protecting myself against. I've never seen the oft-described "300lb ex-football player, hopped up on PCP and charging" character that most heavy caliber folks cite. I'm not a police officer, and I don't intend to become a vigilante and go knock down doors at crack houses.
Next, it's very unlikely I'll ever need to use my gun in self protection, but I realize that and have decided that I'd rather 'have it and not need it then need it and not have it'.
Finally, I'm going to figure that, based on the above, in the unlikely event I DO need the pistol to protect myself, it's 95%+ certain that a .22 will be effective to the threat.
Weigh that against having the pistol on my person at all times instead of selectively, and I think the math shows that for me, a small caliber concealed pistol is more likely to save my life then a .45. It's not as powerful, but it's lethal and more likely to be with me when I need help, and that counts a lot in my book.
Police? Military? Guards? The equations work out very differently for them.
-
Ruger .357 Magnum revolver. A 2" barrel concealed carry model would be an SP101, it is a 5 shot. If you want a 4" barrel, get a Security Six or something of that nature. I carried 125 jacketed hollow point +P in my service weapon.
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
well..is it for home use?..or out walking?
LOL - out walking - and you have to carry a gun??? :lol sad - but funny.
-
jeeze beetle....your sense of humor is oblique to me. sad but funny?
large aggressive dogs are reason enough for me to carry a pistol on my walks, JIC.
-
Originally posted by BBQ_Bob
Where do you live that you feel that you have to arm yourself before going outside?
Reading, Pennsylvania
-
Originally posted by BBQ_Bob
Where do you live that you feel that you have to arm yourself before going outside?
He's a "first timer"...cut him some slack.
"Outside" is quite scary.
-
just keep this in mind.... a .22 is often less than lethal
scarey thing about .22's tho, is they tend to bounce around off bones, so can really make a mess.
that being said .. any bullet will stop most people with one shot.
.22's arn't loud.
loud can help.
lethal can be a mistake, are you really looking to kill someone? no. (at least I hope not)
__________
haveing someone close to me, who got shot point blank in the back with a .22 and had it lukily bounce of his shoulder blade, and exit under his chin, missing any vitals.
I'd say .22 for lack of leathlity, but tho's bullets do tend to bounce around off bones, which can make things worse in some cases.
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
Reading, Pennsylvania
Living just outside Reading, in Fleetwood I can sympathize with him wanting to carry.
I visited the Walmart on 5th street in Reading last week and, while I'm not usually nervous anywhere, that place made me nervous.
-
.357 revolver. If you feel the need to carry a lot then something that you will carry is the best thing to have. Several of the tiny plastic semi autos in 32 or 380 are good for this being very small and flat and weighing 9 or so oz.
the .357 revolver in a samll frame made of lightweight materials is the best overall I would say... not fun to shoot but reliable and good for stopping the problem... they run from 12 oz for the 340 pd on up to about 32 oz for a 4" er.
He may never "need" it... truth is... 99% of cops neve "need" a gun.. I think we are all glad that the cops carry em tho. I for one appreciate it when a law abiding citizen takes the care and hassle to carry a firearm that may someday save me or someone I love from haveing very bad things happen to them.
Thank you all you concealled carry holders.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
Best self-defense firearm?
The one you are comfortable with. For now, ignore the tests on "one shot stops" and technical data on fps of the bullet as it leaves the barrel and all that.
Go to a shooting range (hopefully one that sells guns as well). Tell them what you intend to use it for. The clerks will help you find a gun that is comfortable for you to shoot, comfortable for you to carry (reasonably, no gun is really "comfortable" at first), and will do the job you ask it to do. Ask for their recommendations on ammo, and why. After trying the options on for size, you'll have a good idea of what you want.
Once you gain some experience, keep trying others. Keep researching why one round works in a situation and another doesnt. Keep in mind the biggest two factors affecting your being able to get a gun into play and use it properly is being comfortable using it, and lots of practice. After awhile, if you feel like it, move on to something else. Just make sure it suits you, dont buy it because its popular with someone else.
-
Glock 26. Small, light, easy to carry.
'Nuff said.
Terror
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
The one you are comfortable with.
Agreed. That`s is the most important factor above all else.
Different people have different views and favorites.
Try a little bit of everything that you think might suit you before you decide.
Once you decide and purchase the next thing is to practice with this weapon till it becomes as second nature for you and you become comfortable and confident with it and your abilities. A good combat shooting course with a well known and respected instructor is great for this.
After a while you can become "less intense" with the training. You still need to practice on a regualr bais to keep your "feel" for the weapon and to keep your reaction times down and to maintain a good skill level.
The time may not, and probably will never come ,when you have to use this weapon . If the time does come, second nature reactions and skill will make the difference.
-
best self defense weapon is your mind. that is the ultimate weapon, after that your body. I believe that every free person on earth should study some form of martial arts. the only thing you are sure to have with you until your last breath has been drawn is you. after that you really can't go wrong with a 3" .357 mag. revolver as a side arm.
-
For a 1st timer I'd humbly suggest a .38 Special. Small, light, accurate and it has stopping power. Ammo is relatively inexpensive and readily available. Good, reliable weapon.
-
Try 'em out! The gun that feels good and allows you to put your rounds on target is what will be best.
I have a Ruger MKII with the long bull barrel. I can put 15 shots into a 1 inch group at 7 meters. I got it for fun, I'd rather let someone rob me than kill them.
http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=186&return=Y
(http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/images/Products/98L.gif)
I also really like the Colt 1911. My friend has the "gold cup" edition and it is the most accurate large caliber pistol I have tried. Still not quite as accurate as my Ruger, but close.
http://www.impactguns.com/store/098289041067.html
Of course everyone recommends a revolver for pure self defence. Personally I like the long barrel .44 Magnums. For maximum "shock" effect. Scary looking, LOUD, BIG ball of flame, rediculous stopping power. Plus you get to say "do you feel lucky, punk?" ;)
Personally I don't understand why everyone likes Glocks so much. Every one I have tried has been in-accurate as heck. Rule #1 you got to be able to hit what you're aiming for.
g00b
-
Originally posted by g00b
I got it for fun, I'd rather let someone rob me than kill them.
That sounds rather stupid.
-
One can always aquire more material possessions. One can not re-animate the dead.
I could say it's stupid to kill someone for material possessions (even if they are your own) but I won't, it's your decision, and I respect that.
I just pray you never kill some 15 year old punk because he tried to steal your TV.
g00b
-
Something 45 caliber ,
Has the best stopping power AND YOU WONT GO DEAF SHOOTING IT WITH NO EAR PROTECTION!
-
My problem with your philosophy, g00b, is that you're putting your life in the hands of that punk. What's to stop them from killing you afterwards? Many people are killed in robberies, I often read in the paper that plenty of people who didn't resist their robbery got shot anyhow.
If I'm out with my family and someone who might kill or kidnap my children mugs me while my wife or I are carrying, that person won't mug again. We love our children far too much to put their future in the hands of a stranger, much less one who who is in the process of assaulting us.
-
this another thread about to get hijacked?
-
Originally posted by g00b
I just pray you never kill some 15 year old punk because he tried to steal your TV.
g00b
I just pray you never let a 15 year old punk walk because you thought he was just going to steal your tv then watch while he kills your family.
-
Hijacked, yes :)
I said "I'd rather let someone rob me than kill them".
I did not say I would let someone harm me or anyone else. If I felt that any innocent person, including myself, was in immenent physical danger I would do everything in my power to protect them. Indeed I have been in several such situations and have managed not to have to resort to violence yet. If I had a gun in those situations I might have used it. Then I would have the blood of about 8 people on my hands by now. Even if I was "right" and the law upheld my actions, I would have a hard time dealing with that.
Maybe we simply had a simple mis-understanding. I only meant exactly what I said.
The bottom line; is anything material you own (not including yours or anyone else's well-being) worth someones life?
I fully agree that any innocent should be protected at all cost.
These are not the same things. I hope everyone here realizes that.
g00b
P.S. Martlet, shoot 1st, eh? If you read what I just wrote you'll understand that if I percieve any danger to an innocent I will do everything in my power to prevent it.
-
Originally posted by g00b
Hijacked, yes :)
I said "I'd rather let someone rob me than kill them".
I did not say I would let someone harm me or anyone else. If I felt that any innocent person, including myself, was in immenent physical danger I would do everything in my power to protect them. Indeed I have been in several such situations and have managed not to have to resort to violence yet. If I had a gun in those situations I might have used it. Then I would have the blood of about 8 people on my hands by now. Even if I was "right" and the law upheld my actions, I would have a hard time dealing with that.
Maybe we simply had a simple mis-understanding. I only meant exactly what I said.
The bottom line; is anything material you own (not including yours or anyone else's well-being) worth someones life?
I fully agree that any innocent should be protected at all cost.
These are not the same things. I hope everyone here realizes that.
g00b
P.S. Martlet, shoot 1st, eh?
If you have a gun, you have a choice. If you don't have a gun, you're at the mercy of the criminal's choice.
Like I said......I hope someday you don't have to look back and realize if you'd taken the steps to protect your family, they may be alive.
-
And I hope you never have to deal with the fact that you killed another human. You equate the lack of a gun with helplessness, I don't need a gun to incapacitate an armed criminal. You are incapacitating yourself if you think like that.
A bunch of theoretical what-if's. Whooptie!
I'm done.
g00b
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
Title says it all, any suggestions for a first timer?
Well, this is a sticky one....I've read some good suggestions, and some bad ones. One thing you'd better ask yourself though, are you mentally prepared to take another persons life? Once you display a weapon, your very next move had better be to discharge the firearm, otherwise you run the risk of having it taken from and used on YOU. If you don’t think you could live with someone’s blood on your hands (and everywhere else) then may I suggest a TASER? Not cheap and COULD potentially cause death, but far less likely to than any handgun. I don’t believe you need special permits to carry one concealed, but I'd check local and state laws first. Another option is good old-fashioned pepper spray. Not lethal and will even repel the occasional wayward bear!! ;)
As for me? I carry a 4" .357 w/158 gr. JHPs.:aok
-
"God created man, Sam Colt made them equal."
:rolleyes:
-
"A pit bull had mauled a 3-year-old boy and was biting the youngster's mother when a passing motorist stopped to see what was going on. Corey Kelley said that at first he thought Shonda Busby was playing with the dog in the family's rural yard in Chatom, Ala. He turned his truck around for another look and saw blood. "The closer I got to her, I could see the blood and bite marks on her arms. I pulled up and said, Are you alive?' She said, 'Yes, get this dog off me. He's biting me; he's killing me.'" Kelley quickly drove home, called 911 and grabbed his .22caliber rifle. Unaware that Busby was shielding her 3-year-old, her rescuer said he drove as close as he could, about 8 feet away. From his truck, he aimed at the dog and told Busby to lie as still as she could. "Shoot!" she told him. Kelly's mortal shot hit the animal between the eyes. When Busby sat up, Kelley saw the little boy; his scalp was torn and there were bite marks all over his body. Following the tragedy, the child was treated at Children's Hospital and was in fair condition. His mother required surgery. Kelley said he did not feel like a hero. "I'd do it again in a heartbeat," he said. "I'm just an old country boy. Helping people is just something I like doing."
State: TX
American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/2005
Early one morning, three men forced their way into a Houston, Tex., house and opened fire on the family. The husband raced to the bedroom, retrieved his own gun, and returned fire. One of the intruders was critically wounded, and the other two fled the scene.
State: NC
American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/2004
Paul Ham and his son, Jimmy, entered a mobile home on their property to repair a water leak for tenant Kevin Clark. As they walked in, the Hams encountered a couple staying with Clark, William and Kristina Tuell. William Tuell immediately began shooting at the Hams, hitting the elder Ham in the head and shooting Jimmy Ham in the face. Both Hams then ran for their house, with Tuell and his wife on their heels. The attack continued in the Hams' home as Tuell and his wife attempted to shoot the entire Ham family. Kristina Tuell was wrestled to the ground by Ham's daughter, Sherry, but managed to escape. Though wounded, Jimmy Ham finally managed to secure a gun and kill Tuell with one shot. Kristina Tuell was later arrested after a massive manhunt and faces multiple charges, including attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon.
The stories are endless. It's a good thing you have elite Bruce Lee moves to protect your family from an armed intruder.
Like I said. I hope I'm never proven right.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Like I said......I hope someday you don't have to look back and realize if you'd taken the steps to protect your family, they may be alive.
LOL - talk about paranoia! :lol
-
Originally posted by Martlet
The stories are endless.
They sure are...
The 2002 edition of Injury Facts from the National Safety Council reports the following statistics [ 1 ] :
In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.
This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.
The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:
214 unintentional
1,078 suicides
1,990 homicides
83 for which the intent could not be determined
20 due to legal intervention
Of the total firearms-related deaths:
73 were of children under five years old
416 were children 5-14 years old
2,896 were 15-19 years old
source (http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/guns.htm)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
They sure are...
source (http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/guns.htm)
Yep... they sure are. (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html)
-
...simply endless.
Gun in Home Hikes Gunshot Death Probability
Study confirms what many people already believe
(HealthDay is the new name for HealthScoutNews.)
TUESDAY, June 10 (HealthDayNews) -- At least one statistical study now confirms a popular belief: Keeping a gun in your home greatly increases the likelihood that you'll die from a gunshot wound. a study in the June issue of the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.
The study by the Violence Prevention Research Group at the University of California at Los Angeles appears in the June issue of the journal Annals of Internal Medicine .
It found that people who have guns in their homes were almost twice as likely to die in a gun-related homicide and 16 times more likely to use a gun to commit suicide than people who don't have guns in their homes.
Handguns accounted for 40 per cent of all domestic homicides and a third of all suicides, the study found.
The study compared 1,720 homicide victims and 1,959 suicide victims over age 18 with other American adults.
"Keeping guns at home is dangerous for adults regardless of age, sex, orrace," study author Douglas J. Wiebe says in a news release.
"Our findings suggest that, when violence occurs and a gun is accessible,the gun may be selected for use over a weapon that is less lethal. That is particularly significant in terms of suicide and domestic violence,"Wiebesays.
This study supports widely-debated studies published a decade ago in the New England Journal of Medicine that also linked the presence ofa gun in the home to higher rates of suicide and murder.
The U.S. National Institute of Justice says that there are firearm sin 1 in every 3 households in the U.S., which works out to a total of nearly 200 million guns. In any 24-hour period, more than 160 people are treated for gunshot wounds at U.S. hospital emergency rooms.
source (http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/513540.html)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
LOL - out walking - and you have to carry a gun??? :lol sad - but funny.
#
lol, its the american way :) when i went to vegas i went to a shooting range, and some crackpot told me that he would constantly carry atleast two guns on him at all times since 9/11.
i wish i could get guns over here.ive got crossbows, swords, rifles, shotguns, but handguns are just lost to english law :(
anyway, my advice would definitely be for a .357 revolver. cheap, common ammo type, stopping power, and size. you will likely never use it, and keep it hidden, so there's no need for a fancy expensive gun, and a revolver you can keep loaded for years, without worrying about the gun failing, as is common with auto's.
get a short barrel chrome gun, it looks mean. most places will let you try it out on a range, so give it a go. feel for balance, weight, ease of use, accuracy, and noise. you want something loud as a deterrent, but if its too loud, a lot of people will hear, and if you hit the guy bad, that noise will get you noticed.
and one last thing, aim for arms, mid shoulder on their right side (your left as they look at you), and bottom of legs. a shot to the shoulder will knock a guy down, especially if you go with something .357 or bigger, but if you hit the wrong side, and hit him in the heart, ure boned. never shoot anyone in the thigh, it can kill from nerve shock, bleeding or gangrene.
i hope you never need to use that advice, but there may be times.
people will ask how i know this all at the age of 16, and my answer is americans :)
good luck with finding the right one bud
-
More than two out of every three gun deaths are either suicides or drug-related murders.
Source: Centers For Disease Control - Deaths 1998 (625KB document!) and U.S. Department Of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics
-
AdmRose,
For someone who has little experiance in firearms I always recomend a revolver. For anything that may mean your life on the line a minimum caliber for revolver is .38 in an auto, 9mm.
Go to a range that will allow you to rent a variety of handguns and shoot a selection find one that you are comfortable shooting because you need to practice. Once you are comfortable shooting it make sure you can hit with it.If you can hit reliably with it then it is a good one for you. If you cannot hit the target reliably then you aren't doing yourself any good.
Once you find a weapon that peforms in that manner I strongly suggest you take a concealed weapon course. Even if you never intend to carry concealed. They will teach you some good info including when to shoot and even more important most of the time, when not to shoot.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Go to a range that will allow you to rent a variety of handguns and shoot a selection find one that you are comfortable shooting because you need to practice.
That's the best advice someone can give. As you can see, if you ask 50 people which weapon is best, you'll get 50 answers. Find one that you're comfortable with. If it doesn't become second nature, then it does you no good when you need it.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
...simply endless.
source (http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/513540.html)
AND.................Owning a car greatly increases the risk that you'll die in an auto accident. Go figure.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I just pray you never let a 15 year old punk walk because you thought he was just going to steal your tv then watch while he kills your family.
Once a person has illegally entered my home they have waived the right to live and walk away. Armed or unarmed they are in the killing zone.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Once a person has illegally entered my home they have waived the right to live and walk away. Armed or unarmed they are in the killing zone.
I agree, however killing someone would be a last resort for me. That said, my safety and that of my family comes before any punk wanting my tv.
-
None of the guys claiming "paranoia" have ever been in a situation where a firearm might have proven useful, have they?
Pretending the problem doesnt exist does make it really go away.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I agree, however killing someone would be a last resort for me. That said, my safety and that of my family comes before any punk wanting my tv.
I have been awakened by an intruder while in bed. Jealous ex-husband didn't like the fact I was banging his ex-wife. The only reason he lived was because we were at her house and I didn't bring a gun. I always keep one within arms legnth in my bedroom. I'm just glad he didn't bring a gun either.
Point being, you have no idea what they want or how they are armed when they wake you up in the middle of the night.
-
Well I've caused quite a controversy here, but maybe a few facts about the glorious city I live in will help you understand my desire for a weapon. Reading is a major drug distribution hub between the south and New York. Many of the shooting deaths in Reading are New Yorkers doing a pickup. Last Friday, a lightweight boxer considered one of the front runners for the world title was gunned down in Reading. Police managed to wound one of the assialents, but this is a rarity - usually the police just clean up the mess. Earlier this year a 15 year old girl was caught in the crossfire between two rival drug dealers and mortally wounded in front of her own home. Her family watched her die on the sidewalk. As far as I know nobody has been arrested in that case yet. Last year, a police officer was killed during a drug deal gone bad. He was shot in the back of the head by his partner who mistook him for the shooter due to the fact he was in plain clothes. The person who started the shootout in which he was killed has been arrested and possibly faces the death penalty. Hardly a week goes by that I don't read something in the paper about another shootout. One of our dishwashers at work has been mugged in the city twice in the past year. Fortunately the muggers just ruffed him up a bit, sometimes they just shoot the person dead and then rob them. I even hear gunshots from my 9th floor apartment some nights, and I don't even live in the "bad" section of the city, though really the whole city is bad. I hope that sheds some light on my mentality. I also realize maybe I was a bit vague with the term "first timer." For handguns yes, but I've been around rifles my whole life and I'm comfortable with them.
P.S. If I could get away with it, the weapon in my avatar would be my personal choice for a concealed weapon. (Probably too many mafia movies on my part ;) )
-
Adm, I still say a .38 Special is exactly what you are looking for. A snubnosed .38 is easily conceiled, light, accurate, reliable and deadly. You don't need a big, heavy, long barrelled pistol for close personal protection. You can get a chrome or nickle plated one if you want to be sure they can see it in your hand.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Adm, I still say a .38 Special is exactly what you are looking for. A snubnosed .38 is easily conceiled, light, accurate, reliable and deadly. You don't need a big, heavy, long barrelled pistol for close personal protection. You can get a chrome or nickle plated one if you want to be sure they can see it in your hand.
Yea thats what I'm leaning towards.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Adm, I still say a .38 Special is exactly what you are looking for. A snubnosed .38 is easily conceiled, light, accurate, reliable and deadly. You don't need a big, heavy, long barrelled pistol for close personal protection. You can get a chrome or nickle plated one if you want to be sure they can see it in your hand.
My father, an avid hunter with a safe full of guns, recently picked up a .38 snub for carry.
I prefer my P220 chambered in .45, or SW9VE because as David Dyer-Bennet once said..
"Worse, semi-autos have more failure modes........You have to know the clearance drill for all this stuff, and you have to be able to execute that clearance drill rapidly and correctly under the stress of a deadly attack. Revolvers have their own failure modes. But don't worry about it during the attack. If your revolver locks up on you, you're not going to fix it before the attack is over. You've just found yourself armed with a short club."
-
You guys are freaking NUTS if you are suggesting a .22 for a noob for self defense.
#1, it has LOW penetration, only the LR version has any hope of killing first shot.
#2, (someone) already touched this, the sound alone is too low, and sounds like a far off shot, so no help there.
I think someone suggested a snub .357, or a .38 special for a good all around first time revolver self defense weapon, and I have to agree.
If you are experienced with lots of loot, don't **** around, buy a damn H+K USP .40, if you really want some 'splainin to do, get a H+K MP5 :D
But in all seriousness to AdmRose's question, I say this:
I carry a Taurus .45 in my truck, loaded with Hydrashoc ammo. Between my matresses, there is a Beretta 92F (9mm) loaded alternating with HP (hollowpoint) and standard slugs. By the night stand is a 12 guage Beretta alternating Standard Slug, Buckshot.
As for running, I have a snub .38, and it conceals great.
As for those joking about carrying, I say, grow up. Your country is not better, we can atleast defend ourselves.
Ohh, and for the knucklehead advocating not shooting to kill... get real, a wounded perpp is most likely to sue your arse into destitution as opposed to a dead perp. Remember the simple rule that the dead do not talk.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Ohh, and for the knucklehead advocating not shooting to kill... get real, a wounded perpp is most likely to sue your arse into destitution as opposed to a dead perp. Remember the simple rule that the dead do not talk.
i presume ure talking about me?
this is precisely the american view (and im not talking about you), that you have to kill the guy. have you no compassion. would you just kill a man for no reason other than your thoughts. he may have a good reason for doing what he's doing, like some guy will kill his daughter if he doesnt get something for some guy, or worse, if you misunderstand the situation, say some guy walks into your house coz u left the door open. he walks in to check if your ok, and you shoot him. you must be an idiot if you just want to kill someone. if you shoot him in the leg, he aint runnin at ya, he down on the floor screamin. then you run and call the police. nothing wrong with carrting a gun for protection, but there is with a guy who trigger happy and uninformed.
then the next american thing of suing. wtf is that all about??? if you have a legitimate claim, eg some restaurant was deliberately selling poor quality food, and you get seriously ill, then thats ok. but suing a microwave company coz you put ure dog in a microwave to dry!!!, or worse, youre a burglar, and you screw up. you hit ure head on a table, and sue the people you were robbing!!!
ill make clear that this isnt pointing the finger at you or americans, but world culture. america, being the worlds most developed country, leads the way. these trends of getting out of something easy are sreading throughout the world. if people dont start to pull theyre own weight soo, and belt up, we're gonna be looking at one really crappy century:(
never shoot to kill, but to incapitate. if you shoot to kill the guy, you are lower than the thief, and just a plain savage salamander
-
Originally posted by Pooface
never shoot to kill, but to incapitate. if you shoot to kill the guy, you are lower than the thief, and just a plain savage salamander
Big negative here.
No one shoots to incapacitate outside of a Hollywood movie set. Most people, when faced with this situation will be pulling the trigger until the clicking starts. Youre not pretending youre Neo and "aiming for the knee cap" or some such crap.
Pulling a gun means you intend to use it to kill - nothing else.
-
Have to agree. My grandfather was a christian man and would never hurt a soul intentionally. But he understood that there are times when a man needs to use force to protect himself, his family, or those around him. He taught his sons, and his grandsons the same thing.
Just having a gun is a responsibility. It has a use. Owning one has nothing to do with fear, it has everything to do with being prepared. If you carry one in public, your responsibility is even greater. You think before you act, because if you pull that gun out you damn well better be prepared to use it, and take responsibility for your choice. It doesnt come out so you can threaten people, pulling a gun doesnt give you more options. It takes away every option but one. Use it, or have someone else use theirs on you. You dont pull a gun out unless every other option available to you has been used and there is no other alternative. When you pull it out, you use it and you shoot to kill. If that other person is enough of a threat to warrant pulling a gun, he's enough of a threat to warrant taking his life. Thats the responsibility you are granted when they give you a license to carry a gun, thats the choice you have to make. If you arent ready to make it, dont carry a gun.
Words to live by. My family produced 3 police officers in 3 generations, and 2 more in the extended families. I do security. Most of us have guns, a few of us carry. I choose not to anymore, although I used to. I decided I cant be sure of that choice in public. For anyone who does, these guys are right Pooface. If you feel there is enough of a threat to pull a gun, there is no such thing as "shoot to wound". There is nothing in this world more dangerous than a wounded animal, and Man is the most dangerous of animals. Remember that.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Big negative here.
No one shoots to incapacitate outside of a Hollywood movie set. Most people, when faced with this situation will be pulling the trigger until the clicking starts. Youre not pretending youre Neo and "aiming for the knee cap" or some such crap.
Pulling a gun means you intend to use it to kill - nothing else.
I think you may need to read the shall issue law carefully in your state. you are allowed to shoot until you deem the threat to be over. a double tap center of mass followed by a head shot = manslaughter charges at the very least. I guy who works at a shop next to ours was assaulted at gunpoint at an ATM the dingdong perp had a 1911 .45 with the hammer down the "victim" saw this and took the gun away from the guy killing him with three shots, he served five years for manslaughter and in my opinion rightly so. an asswhooping would have been sufficient.
-
Originally posted by storch
I think you may need to read the shall issue law carefully in your state. you are allowed to shoot until you deem the threat to be over. a double tap center of mass followed by a head shot = manslaughter charges at the very least. I guy who works at a shop next to ours was assaulted at gunpoint at an ATM the dingdong perp had a 1911 .45 with the hammer down the "victim" saw this and took the gun away from the guy killing him with three shots, he served five years for manslaughter and in my opinion rightly so. an asswhooping would have been sufficient.
That's injustice.
-
Im very familiar with the laws in my state. The general rule of thumb is that a firearm has but one purpose.
In the situation you are describing, perhaps deadly force was not necessary - thats the issue there - not whether or not he should have shot him once in the stomach and them kept a gun on him.
...if Im understanding you correctly.
Pulling a gun and using it means you perceive your life to be in danger and youve reached the last resort.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Im very familiar with the laws in my state. The general rule of thumb is that a firearm has but one purpose.
In the situation you are describing, perhaps deadly force was not necessary - thats the issue there - not whether or not he should have shot him once in the stomach and them kept a gun on him.
...if Im understanding you correctly.
Pulling a gun and using it means you perceive your life to be in danger and youve reached the last resort.
It probably wasn't the deadly force. There was probably more to the story, like the third shot to the back of the skull. Only an insane jury would convict a man for wrestling the gun from an armed robber and shooting him.
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
Title says it all, any suggestions for a first timer?
FN P90
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
FN P90
"Counter-Terrorists win."
-
If you are shooting it is to protect your life or the life of another in the imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm at the hands of an assailant. In this case you shoot to remove the threat. You shoot to hit center of mass. You never say you were shooting to kill and you never say you were trying for a head shot unless you can explain hitting center mass with no effect. Something like the bad guy has a vest on. Saying you were shooting to kill or trying a head shot places you in a very bad light and hints of premeditation. This may open you up for prosecution on one of the levels of homicide or manslaughter.
If you think I'm kidding think about a Police involved shooting and all the allegations from the "community" about "street justice" or excessive force even with a suspect that is clearly armed and committing a violent felony. Those Officers will likely have resources to defend themselves with (like the FOP or union legal fund) that you as a private citizen will not have.
In short, you NEVER shoot to kill. You are shooting to stop a threat. If the threat happens to die that is regretable but was the result of a situation that the suspect forced on you and you had no other resort other than deadly force to STOP him.
If it takes the entire magazine to stop the threat so be it but be able to explain why you kept shooting.
Example; the suspect continued to reach for a weapon after being shot. He continued to advance after being shot. He continued to swing a weapon (knife, bludgeon) at you while you were shooting. Once he dropped the weapon and hit the ground you STOPPED shooting. Remember you will be required to explain why you did something more than once so be clear on why you did what you did and why it was your only recourse. Everything you did will be second guessed from the comfort of an airconditioned office by folks who are under no threat and may never have been so they do not understand what it is to be in fear of your life.
-
The best home defense weapon is a good dog that barks. Back that up with a good 45 and your ready to go.
Odds are you will never need the gun, hell the dog lowers the chance of a house brake in by tons.
Now for CCW, that is a whole other issue and it should be a combo of A: what your confortable shooting and b: What you will carry, all the time.
Pooface, you are what is wrong with the world, you have to much compassion for those who pray on others and not enough for the victems of these criminals.
I would rather see 50 dead scumbag criminals then one good normal person die. I dont give a crap what drives them to crime. Being poor does not give you a right to take from others.
-
Originally posted by Pooface
never shoot to kill, but to incapitate. if you shoot to kill the guy, you are lower than the thief, and just a plain savage salamander
Well then, I guess I am a plain savage salamander, lower than the thief who broke into my home and my ex-wifes on May the 3rd 1998.
Because, after he smashed my ex-wifes head against the ground repeatedly, while trying to get her to subdue to a rape, I shot the thief / rapist. I shot him four times. I killed him.
Yep, guess I am worse than he was.
Guess what, I am willing to take that chance before my maker...
-
I was always told to "never point a gun at something you do not intend to shoot" and seveal of the wise men told me through the years if you do shoot, shoot to kill, not to maim or injure.
If there is no need to kill a man, there is no need to maim him.
post edit: I am now reminded of my Uncle Vern who was riding his kawasaki motorcycle through Idaho back in the early 70s when he was surrounded by a bunch of biker gangers on HarDavs. One of those guys tried kicking my uncles Bike out from under him when my uncle managed to pull out a .45 and shot the guy trying to kick his bike in the kneecap. Apparently it removed the guys leg below the knee and saved my uncle from falling off his bike at freeway speed. the gangers stopped pursuing my uncle and Vern was never charged with a crime for shooting the guy. I understand the bad dude survived so I guess there are times when one might not shoot to kill but rather shoot to stop a attack directly. Vern could have just shot the guy in the center of mass but for whatever reason just blew his lower leg clean off.
-
Originally posted by FBBone
AND.................Owning a car greatly increases the risk that you'll die in an auto accident. Go figure.
Owning a car is relatively safe. Driving it is something else. ;)
-
The sucks Bodhi, but atleast you were able to do something about it.
Pooface is wrong, and you did the right thing, you are not lower then the criminal, anyone who would say such a foolish thing is living in a sad dream world.
-
You did the right thing, Bodhi.
-
Originally posted by Pooface
lol, its the american way :) when i went to vegas i went to a shooting range, and some crackpot told me that he would constantly carry at least two guns on him at all times since 9/11.
- and that's the paranoid part. That, and the belief that a gun is the solution to any and all perceived threats. Does AQ have a record of breaking and entering? I wonder how much good a gun would have been to anyone in New York against the 911 outrages. I wonder how much good a gun would have done me in London last Thursday. Bugger all, is my best guess to both...
-
Originally posted by beet1e
- and that's the paranoid part. That, and the belief that a gun is the solution to any and all perceived threats. Does AQ have a record of breaking and entering? I wonder how much good a gun would have been to anyone in New York against the 911 outrages. I wonder how much good a gun would have done me in London last Thursday. Bugger all, is my best guess to both...
I wonder what the outcome would have been had I NOT had a gun May 3rd 1998.
You can justify the federalisation of firearms all you like, but keep in mind this simple thing.
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
But then again, you've got bobbies with billyclubs to protect you, right?!?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
It probably wasn't the deadly force. There was probably more to the story, like the third shot to the back of the skull. Only an insane jury would convict a man for wrestling the gun from an armed robber and shooting him.
according to the guy the third shot put him in jail. it's basically how you said I suppose. in any event once you have the weapon you are no longer in imminent danger or fearing for your life unless the other guy still struggles.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Well then, I guess I am a plain savage salamander, lower than the thief who broke into my home and my ex-wifes on May the 3rd 1998.
Because, after he smashed my ex-wifes head against the ground repeatedly, while trying to get her to subdue to a rape, I shot the thief / rapist. I shot him four times. I killed him.
Yep, guess I am worse than he was.
Guess what, I am willing to take that chance before my maker...
ok, well i didnt know that. personally i still woulda given him a shot in the leg, then kicked him in the balls repeatedly, then poured salt in his eyes if he did that shiz in my house, but huh, dead in that situation is faster. in extreme circumstances, it will be necessary, but it most it wont. and theres no need to pour the lead into him. as TK said, state laws differ, dont over do it because it could land you in trouble. think before you act and ure good
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
But then again, you've got bobbies with billyclubs to protect you, right?!?
actually its a well known fact that british police are one of the best forces in the world, because they dont carry guns. they are trained specially, and are taught to think with their heads. of course we have so19, which are the guys with m4's and bullet proof stuff all over them, for extreme circumstances.
anyone see bowling for columbine?
im not saying its bad to have guns, i love them, but its the attitude of some, that think it is their divine right to own a gun and shoot what and who they like, thats the problem.
you said that once people cant get guns, only the outlaws have them. this may be true, but once theyre illegal, noone owns them, and the outlaws are jailed if caught with them.
apparently 4000% more gun deaths in the us per thousand people each year than in the uk, or even canada. why? because sale is restricted. the range i went to in vegas, all the guy asked for before he handed me a loaded m9 was $15 and my passport. now that is just stupid. nothing wrong with guns, after all, theyre just machines. they do as theyre told. its the peole who use them. THAT is the problem. im not talking about people in your situation, for home defense. in the us, it is almost a requirement. it is the easy sale of guns to people who could easily be criminals that is costing many innocent lives each day.
maybe your government should just tell people to do a quick scan of the guys records first. it may take you 20 minutes longer to buy a gun, so what?? it means there are fewer guys out there who have the same as you, a deadly killing weapon.
-
Originally posted by Pooface
maybe your government should just tell people to do a quick scan of the guys records first. it may take you 20 minutes longer to buy a gun, so what?? it means there are fewer guys out there who have the same as you, a deadly killing weapon.
Last I checked, background checks were mandatory for gun sales anywhere in the U.S.
Gun Control Information (http://www.newsbatch.com/guncontrol.htm)
-
The gun ban caused gun crime to rise (http://www.tsra.com/Lott112.htm) in the UK. Why? Because now all the victims are unarmed.
Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.
The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.
-
Yes, if a man is trying to KILL you, by all means, just "wing" him.:rolleyes: That way he can go to prison, where the rest of the inmates will further educate him and he'll do a better job on you, or someone else, the next time.:eek:
This is REALLY simple. If you are forced to draw your weapon, it is because there is an imminent threat to your LIFE. There are any number of reasons that you are taught to fire at the K5 zone, center of mass. It is the largest and easiest area to hit, it is the area most likely to stop the threat, and on and on, ad infinitum.
ANYONE stupid enough to think, in the middle of a gunfight, "I'll just shoot him in the leg, or better yet, in the arm, and make him drop his weapon'', is going to get killed. It's that simple. The real world ain't Hollywood, and you ain't John Wayne, Tom Mix, Samn Elliot, or Steve McQueen.
-
Originally posted by Pooface
ok, well i didnt know that. personally i still woulda given him a shot in the leg, then kicked him in the balls repeatedly, then poured salt in his eyes if he did that shiz in my house, but huh, dead in that situation is faster. in extreme circumstances, it will be necessary, but it most it wont. and theres no need to pour the lead into him. as TK said, state laws differ, dont over do it because it could land you in trouble. think before you act and ure good
Are you REALLY stupid enough to think that in a life or death situation, with adrenaline coursing through your veins, and the life of someone you love at stake, that you are good enough to hit someone in the leg? About 99% of all people who fire a weapon in such a situation, while aiming at the center of mass K5 zone, miss dead center by 6" to 10". How big do you think the guys leg is? How many shots do you think you're going to get at his leg? How much time do you think you have before he kills someone?
IF you were to be issued a CCW permit, you'd be taught to fire two rounds center of mass K5, and if that didn't stop the perp, fire two more, same place. If you told them you'd shoot the guy in the leg, they'd laugh you right out of class and your application would be denied.
-
If you are going to purchase a weapon for self defense, you should also immediately join both the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation. They WILL help with your defense should you be charged with a crime after using your weapon in defense of your life or someone elses.
-
Sorry for the hijack...but I have a question for Martlett:
Martlett,
Recently we had laws passed that imposed severe penalties for carrying knives and machetes without a valid reason. Defensive purposes are not considered a valid reason. 3 years imprisonment for first offense.
This is effectively a "ban" on carrying knives in public for anything other than a valid work purpose.
Now, using yours, and lazs logic, this has effectively rendered me defenseless.
Do you consider this a serious infringment of my rights?
A week ago I could carry a machete in public. Now I can't, without facing jail time.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Sorry for the hijack...but I have a question for Martlett:
Martlett,
Recently we had laws passed that imposed severe penalties for carrying knives and machetes without a valid reason. Defensive purposes are not considered a valid reason. 3 years imprisonment for first offense.
This is effectively a "ban" on carrying knives in public for anything other than a valid work purpose.
Now, using yours, and lazs logic, this has effectively rendered me defenseless.
Do you consider this a serious infringment of my rights?
A week ago I could carry a machete in public. Now I can't, without facing jail time.
It hasn't made you defenseless, but it is a serious infringement of your rights. Here in MA we have similar laws. They started a petition to take it to the voters, but the liberals laughed them out of town. Unfortunately, there isn't a huge "knife lobby" to support their cause.
The government has no business taking anything from you unless you've shown you can't have it without trampling the rights of another.
Go get a concealed weapons permit and carry a .45 instead.
-
you guys should listen to maverick on this one.. he is telling the straight scoop.
pooface... If we are talking about going to some "sensible" gun legeslation (gun control) and modeling it after some other country that has guns but low homicide and accident rates... then why pick england?
Why not switzerland? full auto in every closet. low crime and homicide rates.. you can buy any type of gun or ammo there and shooting is a normal pastime. Any swiss would laugh his butt off at hearing a limey tell about shooting people in the arms to keep from killing them in a gunfight... Why would I care what brits, who know nothing about guns, have to say? Why wouldn't I listen to swiss or israilie's have to say instead?
martlet... you really need to go to any gunsmith and ask em how many semi autos they get that it takes them hours to fix the "jam" broken extractor... split case... etc. the semi auto has one chamber... if something bad happens to it then the gun is useless. If it's a plastic one... it isn't even a good short club.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you guys should listen to maverick on this one.. he is telling the straight scoop.
pooface... If we are talking about going to some "sensible" gun legeslation (gun control) and modeling it after some other country that has guns but low homicide and accident rates... then why pick england?
Why not switzerland? full auto in every closet. low crime and homicide rates.. you can buy any type of gun or ammo there and shooting is a normal pastime. Any swiss would laugh his butt off at hearing a limey tell about shooting people in the arms to keep from killing them in a gunfight... Why would I care what brits, who know nothing about guns, have to say? Why wouldn't I listen to swiss or israilie's have to say instead?
martlet... you really need to go to any gunsmith and ask em how many semi autos they get that it takes them hours to fix the "jam" broken extractor... split case... etc. the semi auto has one chamber... if something bad happens to it then the gun is useless. If it's a plastic one... it isn't even a good short club.
lazs
I've been firing autos for 30 years. I've never had a problem that I can remember that I haven't been able to fix in seconds.
-
Any double action big bore revolver. Autos are only as reliable as their ammo, and if it's for self defense, split seconds are kind of important when someone is coming at you.
But a 12 guage with buck shot is even better, especially if you're defending yourself from something much bigger and faster than a man.
A good weapon to have slung on your chest if you're hiking in territory shared by man eating animals is one of those "little" 12 gauge pump action pistols.
(http://www.precisionweaponscorp.com/images/Shotgun2.JPG)
-
When it comes down to it get what you can afford, if that is a little stink .22 then make sure you empty the clip.
And remember guns don't kill people, bullets do.
-
martlett... broken extractors are common... what is your drill for fixing the problem? Mine is... take the gun apart and drive the case out with whatever is at the range... usually a pistol rod... if that won't get it I take it home and use a brass drift.... these things take more than a few seconds for me to do so I would appreciate your giving me a better method.
I have had revolvers lock up after a shot because of a pierced or protruding primer... this is extremely rare and I still got off a shot... I have in some cases turned the cyl by hand while pulling on the trigger so that I could open the cyl and eject the load... with full moon clips this would be a quick clear.
most people will shoot a revolver for a lifetime without a problem... autos?.... maybe.. 22's? you won't shoot 22's very long before you will have a jam that will incapacitate the gtun for at least a few minutes or hours or... a trip to the gunsmith.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Martlet
It hasn't made you defenseless, but it is a serious infringement of your rights. Here in MA we have similar laws. They started a petition to take it to the voters, but the liberals laughed them out of town. Unfortunately, there isn't a huge "knife lobby" to support their cause.
The government has no business taking anything from you unless you've shown you can't have it without trampling the rights of another.
Go get a concealed weapons permit and carry a .45 instead.
Maybe you have forgotten, but I live in a country that banned guns in 1971 or 1972.
So...my right to carry a gun was removed long ago.
With this in mind maybe look at my question again.
-
well then curval... how could you have anthing useful to add to this thread?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Curval
Maybe you have forgotten, but I live in a country that banned guns in 1971 or 1972.
So...my right to carry a gun was removed long ago.
With this in mind maybe look at my question again.
How am I supposed to know where you live?
I don't know what rights you have as a citizen of whatever country you're from.
Ask someone who does.
-
Holy defensive.
Fine.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
he gun ban caused gun crime to rise in the UK. Why? Because now all the victims are unarmed.
Martlet, I don't think you know much about Britain. I'd guess you've never been here, as your statement implies a belief that we were an armed society before the gun "ban" of 1997. We were not.
And I see from your link that John R Lott is using the classic NRA statistics distortion technique of analysing UK homicides by noting percentage changes. The number of homicides in Britain is too small for percentage changes to have any real bearing. Another factor you might want to consider with regard to homicides in Britain is that there was a large increase in the number of recorded homicides for 2002, as this was the year when the case was closed on around 200 homicides committed by the doctor and serial killer, Dr. Harold Shipman.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Holy defensive.
Well, he does have a point, seeing as how you don't have a location set in your profile. Most of us do (see beneath my picture).
Might help avoid confusion in the future.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Martlet, I don't think you know much about Britain. I'd guess you've never been here, as your statement implies a belief that we were an armed society before the gun "ban" of 1997. We were not.
And I see from your link that John R Lott is using the classic NRA statistics distortion technique of analysing UK homicides by noting percentage changes. The number of homicides in Britain is too small for percentage changes to have any real bearing. Another factor you might want to consider with regard to homicides in Britain is that there was a large increase in the number of recorded homicides for 2002, as this was the year when the case was closed on around 200 homicides committed by the doctor and serial killer, Dr. Harold Shipman.
Nice spin. You don't have to visit Britian to see that prior to the gun ban, some violent gun crime rates had dropped by as much as 50%. After the ban, they went up.
-
He may have a point about not knowing where I live...but then he hasn't paid much attention in the gun threads in the past. But regardless, he got all snitty because I suggested he forgot where I was from....and then used that as a springboard to tell me "I don't know what rights you have as a citizen of whatever country you're from. Ask someone who does."
I was asking for his opinion...not facts.
He wants to be a richard about it......so be it.
My point is that lazs' and most gun advocates would say that banning guns leave a person defenseless and at the mercy of crimminals with guns. Well...we have no guns and now knives and machetes (used for defensive purposes) have been effectively banned.
I was wondering if the law banning the carrying of these weapons (knives and machetes) means I am defenseless against crimminals in his/their opinion. It is just an extension of the gun ban logic surely?
Except that I would never carry a knife or machete for defensive purposes...and nor would anyone I know.
In this case the only ones who do are gang members or those intent on some sort of crimminal activity.
So...this ban appears to be targeting THEM and not the law abiding citizens.
It is an interesting twist in the age-old gun debate...that's all.
-
No, you asked if that infringed upon your rights. Maybe you don't know much about the US. When we talk about our "rights" here, we refer to the rights we are guaranteed by the Constitution/Bill of Rights. I have no idea where you're from. I have no idea what rights you are guaranteed. If you are from Iran, you have far different rights than I.
If you want an accurate answer, provide accurate information.
If due to the illegality of knives/guns in your country only the gangs have them (as you state), that makes the teams a little unfair.
Sounds like you guys just walk around at the mercy of thugs better armed than yourself. That sounds stupid to me.
-
Of course Curve now you know that those gang members and criminals will certainly give up their knives and such now that they are illegal. They absolutely wouldn't want to be breaking the law while engaging in their livelyhood of...... breaking the law. Yep the new law will really show them and I'm certain will totally eliminate bad people from your nation.
As far as being defenselyess is concerned. Nope the ban didn't make you defenseless any more than you were before since you don't intend or expect to have to defend yourself anyhow. In that case you made yourself defenseless long before the govt. in this case did it for you.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Nice spin. You don't have to visit Britian to see that prior to the gun ban, some violent gun crime rates had dropped by as much as 50%. After the ban, they went up.
I don't think so. Gun homicides have stayed fairly constant for quite a number of years. Remember, in some years we may well have had a "25% increase" - but the actual value of that 25% increase could be a number as low as 15. As you can see, such variations are year on year fluctuations, so it makes no sense to take an increase of 15 gun homicides one year, and blow it out of all proportion by noting it as a 25% increase. The numbers go down as well as up. There is no overall trend.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I don't think so. Gun homicides have stayed fairly constant for quite a number of years. Remember, in some years we may well have had a "25% increase" - but the actual value of that 25% increase could be a number as low as 15. As you can see, such variations are year on year fluctuations, so it makes no sense to take an increase of 15 gun homicides one year, and blow it out of all proportion by noting it as a 25% increase. The numbers go down as well as up. There is no overall trend.
So your claim then, is that the gun ban had no noticable impact on gun crime?
That position alone validates my point, even if I'm wrong in relying on my percentages.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Of course Curve now you know that those gang members and criminals will certainly give up their knives and such now that they are illegal. They absolutely wouldn't want to be breaking the law while engaging in their livelyhood of...... breaking the law. Yep the new law will really show them and I'm certain will totally eliminate bad people from your nation.
As far as being defenselyess is concerned. Nope the ban didn't make you defenseless any more than you were before since you don't intend or expect to have to defend yourself anyhow. In that case you made yourself defenseless long before the govt. in this case did it for you.
So I have been defenseless since 1971/2 Mav?
Since that date there has been one death as a result of gunplay, that I am aware of, and one or two incidents of wounding.
If you want to use Lott's methods for calculating the effect of the gun ban it has been a resounding success....prior to the ban the governor, his aide de Camp and his dog were all gunned down. Before that the perpetrator of that same crime murdered two employees by tying them up and shooting them.
So...pre-ban at least 4 human deaths by gun-fire (don't know how many previously, but I'm sure there were a few), since the ban ONE.
I feel safer.
As to your first point....the crimminals don't "have to give up" anything...but they face HUGE penalties for being caught carrying the knives and machetes. This will hopefully discourage them.
I wouldn't want to use a knife or machete to defend myself against another person with the same, or similar weapons. A bit too close and personal...and I'm not trained in how to do so properly.
So, this legislation changes NOTHING for me. It does make the carriers of weapns a bit nervous now though, I imagine.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
No, you asked if that infringed upon your rights. Maybe you don't know much about the US. When we talk about our "rights" here, we refer to the rights we are guaranteed by the Constitution/Bill of Rights. I have no idea where you're from. I have no idea what rights you are guaranteed. If you are from Iran, you have far different rights than I.
If you want an accurate answer, provide accurate information.
If due to the illegality of knives/guns in your country only the gangs have them (as you state), that makes the teams a little unfair.
Sounds like you guys just walk around at the mercy of thugs better armed than yourself. That sounds stupid to me.
I asked for your opinion by posing this question:
"Do you consider this a serious infringment of my rights?
So...either give it or don't. I don't care anymore.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I asked for your opinion by posing this question:
"Do you consider this a serious infringment of my rights?
So...either give it or don't. I don't care anymore.
What are your rights?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
So your claim then, is that the gun ban had no noticable impact on gun crime?
That position alone validates my point, even if I'm wrong in relying on my percentages.
The problem is that you keep referring to it as a gun "ban". Even before the 1997 legislation, it was all but impossible to buy a handgun in a shop - not that I ever tried. You had to have a police permit, and to get one of those you had to have a very good reason, which had to be more than the desire to go plinking. IIRC, the 1997 "ban" put the last stitches into our firearms control tapestry by banning certain small calibre weapons which might have been used by pistol shooting enthusiasts in their chosen sport.
As for our gun legislation having no noticeable impact on crime, I think our overall firearms control package has played an important part in keeping our annual gun homicide tally to below 100 in any calendar year. I can't prove it, but I personally believe that gun homicide and the overall homicide tally in Britain would skyrocket if guns were freely available.
-
So Curve,
There were no "HUGE" penalties for robbery, rape, mudrer in your country to dissuade the criminals? But now they will be persuaded to not do those things because the possession of knives and machetes is banned. Right? I see then the possession of these "bad things" would be far worse a crime than the others listed above. Why you must not have had any criminals at all then before the ban. But if there were no criminals, why do you need a ban of these evil items? I'm confused.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Martlet, I don't think you know much about Britain. I'd guess you've never been here, as your statement implies a belief that we were an armed society before the gun "ban" of 1997. We were not.
And I see from your link that John R Lott is using the classic NRA statistics distortion technique of analysing UK homicides by noting percentage changes. The number of homicides in Britain is too small for percentage changes to have any real bearing. Another factor you might want to consider with regard to homicides in Britain is that there was a large increase in the number of recorded homicides for 2002, as this was the year when the case was closed on around 200 homicides committed by the doctor and serial killer, Dr. Harold Shipman.
So, I have still not seen your recomendation for best self defense weapon as the thread starter asked.
You see, Beet, not everyone lives a dull, Ho Hum existence in Pleasantville such as yourself. Most here wouldn`t and couldn`t thrive on such a low pulse rate existence such as this I expect. As stated before , on different occasions, I have a feeling that one day, when your area get out of the dark ages, there may be some "color" come to Happy Town.
There is a real world out there. It includes real threats on a day to day basis for those in the mainstream. It is accepted and dealt with or ignored by sticking your head in the sand and wishing it away. The ones that have their head buried are, on a lot of occasions, singled out as "easy targets" for robbery, rape, etc, etc. Them`s the facts Jim.
There was at least was one Brit gentleman who had fine taste in self defense weapons as I stated in the coachgun thread. That being W.W. Greener. His pieces still make great home defense weapons and or great collectibles and shining examples of pride in workmanship.
I`d love to have one of his coachguns. Not to hang on the wall as an art piece but for home defense.
On the street, as stated before, I`d go with what ever each individual becomes comfortable and efficient with.
-
Reading, Pennsylvania
LMAO! That's a perfect reason to carry a gun when on a walk.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The problem is that you keep referring to it as a gun "ban". Even before the 1997 legislation, it was all but impossible to buy a handgun in a shop - not that I ever tried. You had to have a police permit, and to get one of those you had to have a very good reason, which had to be more than the desire to go plinking. IIRC, the 1997 "ban" put the last stitches into our firearms control tapestry by banning certain small calibre weapons which might have been used by pistol shooting enthusiasts in their chosen sport.
As for our gun legislation having no noticeable impact on crime, I think our overall firearms control package has played an important part in keeping our annual gun homicide tally to below 100 in any calendar year. I can't prove it, but I personally believe that gun homicide and the overall homicide tally in Britain would skyrocket if guns were freely available.
You yourself referred to it as a ban. Why can't I?
If you could get a gun before the legislation with proper permitting, then that is gun control. If you can't get a gun for any reason after the legislation that is a gun ban. Big difference.
Furthermore, your entire previous argument revolved around the fact that your gun crime numbers are so low percentages don't count. Now you claim the same low numbers suggest the ban works. How can you claim gun control is working when violent crime involving guns has increased every year since the ban went into affect?
The only thing that has changed is criminals no longer have to fear being shot by law abiding citizens.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
You see, Beet, not everyone lives a dull, Ho Hum existence in Pleasantville such as yourself. Most here wouldn`t and couldn`t thrive on such a low pulse rate existence such as this I expect.
I don't know what you're talking about, Jack. I do plenty of travelling. I've already been to three different countries in 2005 (Holland for the Eurocon, France, and Austria, and next week I'll be going to Italy for 2 weeks. Then in October, I'm looking forward to meeting up with Nexx/Swoop et al in Germany. I have no complaints about my life, and enjoy it fully.
How does this compare with the average American? Well most of 'em don't even have passports, and are so busy working those 40 hour weeks for 50 weeks of the year that they don't get a chance to travel. I worked in IL, where a "vacation" was something like 4 days in Green Bay, Wis. :lol
Sure - it would be exciting to be shot at, but I'll settle for the low pulse rate option! :aok
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You yourself referred to it as a ban. Why can't I?
If you could get a gun before the legislation with proper permitting, then that is gun control. If you can't get a gun for any reason after the legislation that is a gun ban. Big difference.
I referred to it as a "ban", not a ban - subtle difference, designed to indicate that I do not consider the 1997 legislation to be a transformation from an armed society into an unarmed one. Furthermore, your entire previous argument revolved around the fact that your gun crime numbers are so low percentages don't count. Now you claim the same low numbers suggest the ban works.
No, I said that noting the changes by percentage is misleading, and gives a false impression. In a typical year, there are around 60 gun homicides in Britain. But in some years there have been more, and in some years less. So let's suppose that one year there are 75 gun homicides: What your NRA is fond of doing is telling its readership that Britain's gun homicide has risen by 25%!! Sure, 15 is 25% of 60. But you have to remember that there will always be small fluctuations. Because our actual totals have always been very small, year on year fluctuations expressed as percentages can seem huge to American readers of the NRA website, because they're used to an annual gun homicide tally of 10,000, and not 60 - or 68, as it was in 2003.How can you claim gun control is working when violent crime involving guns has increased every year since the ban went into affect?
Because as I said before, I believe that gun homicide and therefore the overall number of homicides would skyrocket if guns were made freely available. The very fact that so many criminals resort to carrying replica weapons - despite the fact that the penalties for having them are just as harsh, and associated crimes are still known as "gun crimes" - goes a long way to demonstrate that our criminals are being thwarted in their attempts to acquire real guns. Now, I never said the laws we have are perfect, and in Ripsnort's book, for example, a law has to be 100% effective, or else it should be repealed. But with guns freely available in our society, I firmly believe we would see an annual gun homicide tally of 3000+ after a few years. Right now it's ~60. So the laws are 98% effective. It's not perfect, but it's the best we can do for now.
Just remember the BfC quote - "if more guns made a safer society, America would be the safest society on Earth. It isn't".
-
So let's suppose that one year there are 75 gun homicides: What your NRA is fond of doing is telling its readership that Britain's gun homicide has risen by 25%!! Sure, 15 is 25% of 60. But you have to remember that there will always be small fluctuations. Because our actual totals have always been very small, year on year fluctuations expressed as percentages can seem huge to American readers of the NRA website, because they're used to an annual gun homicide tally of 10,000, and not 60 - or 68, as it was in 2003.
Any way you want to portray it, the numbers have gone up. Not down. Not stayed the same. Gone up.
Removing guns as a means of protection or a deterrent has done nothing to lower gun crime or make people safer. Since the numbers are going up, it appears to be doing the opposite.
Your "beliefs" aren't substantiated by fact. If you click your heels, maybe you can stop crime all together.
-
Colt Officers model in .45 is what I carry, big wallop in a small package, easy to shoot.
btw...I'm not a good enough shot anymore to try and "wing" someone, two to the center of mass if i fear for my life.
shamus
-
HO everyone let god sort them
:rolleyes::aok
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Any way you want to portray it, the numbers have gone up. Not down. Not stayed the same. Gone up.
Let's try this again - I think this is the third time. :rolleyes: The number of firearms offences has indeed risen every year since 1997. But what you're still not taking into account is the sheer volume of offences committed by replica weapons. In these cases, the criminals had been unable to acquire real weapons.
Crime in England and Wales 2003/2004
The following is a quote from page 79 of the above Home Office publication. - There were 68 homicides involving firearms in 2003/04, 12 fewer (15%) than the previous year. Eight percent of all homicides in 2003/04 involved firearms.
- The number of firearm robberies in 2003/04 was 4,030, four percent of all robbery offences in 2003/04, and a reduction of 13 percent from the previous year.[/b]
Your "beliefs" aren't substantiated by fact. If you click your heels, maybe you can stop crime all together.
Refer to the above report from the Home Office. Seems like you wouldn't recognise a fact if one got up and bit you in the arse.
-
44 mag desert eagle they run about $1000-1500 dollars for the base model... will shoot through an engine block on a car, in case you have to stop a car for some reason... you never know :) I personally have 2, one I take to the range and fire and 1 in a case that was really expensive... I LUV GUNS, COOLEST THING IN THE WORLD UNTIL THEY BUILD A LITESABER, THEN I"LL HAVE A DOUBLE BLADED RED ONE
If you have ever watched lonesome dove, theres a scene where Tommy Lee Jones is handing a pistol to one of the younger cowboys and the cowboy says no I dont need it... Tommy Lee Jones says, better to have it and need it then to need it and not have it...
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Let's try this again - I think this is the third time. :rolleyes: The number of firearms offences has indeed risen every year since 1997. But what you're still not taking into account is the sheer volume of offences committed by replica weapons. In these cases, the criminals had been unable to acquire real weapons.
Crime in England and Wales 2003/2004
The following is a quote from page 79 of the above Home Office publication. Refer to the above report from the Home Office. Seems like you wouldn't recognise a fact if one got up and bit you in the arse.
Let's cut through your selective copying and take the last line from the very site you hack quote:
Even so, we have seen an unacceptable rise in gun crime over recent years, and are doing everything we can to tackle it.
Here are some more fun facts from the site:
The following statistics are taken from the latest Crime in England and Wales 2003-04 Report.
There has overall been an increase in the level of gun crime by less than one percent. The number of offences has risen each year since 1997-98, but the 2003-04 rise is the smallest.
The latest figures, which do not include air weapons, are heavily dominated by the use of handguns, either fired or used to threaten in nearly 60 per cent of cases.
Injuries inflicted by handguns also more than doubled, from 317 in 1997/1998 to 648 last year.
The number of firearms homicides has more than doubled since 1998-1999, while non-firearms killings rose by only 21 per cent.
Yep. Looks like that "ban" is working well.
-
Any way you want to portray it, the numbers have gone up. Not down. Not stayed the same. Gone up.
They haven't.
If you take the most serious firearms offence, murder, the figure in 1995, the last full year before the "ban", the figures for E&W were 70 homicides involving firearms.
The figure for 2003/04 was 68.
That's not a rise, it's a very slight decrease. That's despite a huge rise in illegal immigration and drug dealing.
If you look at robberies with firearms, in 1995 there were 4,206 in E&W, in 2003/04 there were 4,117.
Again, not a rise. (Britain's population has increased as well in the time period, so it's a greater fall per head)
If you look at the proportion of robberies that involve a firearm, it's declined from 6.2% in 1995 to 4.1% in 2003/04
In homicides, 9.4% involved a firearm in 1995, 8.0% in 2003/04
What has really gone up are the number of replicas and air weapons used in "crime", and especially the reporting of such "crimes".
Ten years ago, a kid trespassing on someone's land with an air rifle would have been ignored, now they aqre reported to the police, who react to every such report as if it were a madman on a rampage. As a result, things like that, or children shooting an air rifle at a road sign, are not recorded as "firearms" crimes.
In 1992, there were about 6,000 air weapon crimes recorded. In 2003/04 there were over 14,000.
The other thing that's usually claimed is that "violent crime" has risen in Britain since the mid 90s, but the truth is that much tighter standards for recording minor crimes was introduced at the same time, and that's responsible for the reported increase.
Most countries have an alternative set of crime figures, that's much more comprehensive than the police recorded figures (the police tend to record more serious incidents, minor ones are frequently not reported).
In the US, such figures are recorded by the DoJ in their victimisation surveys, in the UK it's the British Crime Survey. The BCS shows that 1995 was the peak year for violent crime in E&W, with about 4.2 million "violent" incidents. That's fallen every year since, and now stands at about 2.7 million "violent" incidents per year.
(Note I'm not claiming the changes to the firearms laws since the mid 90s have caused this, the truth is the laws in place before that (licencing, registration, safe storage etc) were strict enough to remove legal weapons as a major factor in crime)
-
Injuries inflicted by handguns also more than doubled, from 317 in 1997/1998 to 648 last year.
Injury under the police recording standards includes shock or being hit with the "firearm".
As the report notes:
"It is not always possible to categorise the type of weapon used in an offence. For example, one cannot
always be certain if a crime involved a real firearm. Unless a weapon is either fired or recovered after a
crime, there is no way of knowing if it was real or an imitation (or whether it was loaded or unloaded). The
categorisation of firearms will often depend on descriptions by victims or witnesses."
You can get an idea of how many "handguns" used in crimes are real guns by the number that are fired.
Rifles are fired in about half of the crimes they are used in, shotguns in about 35%, handguns in only 11%
The number of firearms homicides has more than doubled since 1998-1999, while non-firearms killings rose by only 21 per cent.
Um, 19988/1999 was a couple of years after the "ban", so how can a rise from after the "ban" to even more after the "ban" be evidence the "ban" is making things worse?
And the figure in 1998/99 was 49 fatalities with firearms, the figure for 2003/04 was 68, how is that "more than doubled"?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Yep. Looks like that "ban" is working well.
Yes, it certainly is.
I think you must be Ripsnort in disguise. Seems like you don't believe in laws that are not 100% effective. And the fact is that no law is or ever can be. I never said the British situation is perfect, but it's a whole lot better than if REAL guns were freely available.
Nashwan covered all your other points.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I don't know what you're talking about, Jack. I do plenty of travelling. I've already been to three different countries in 2005 (Holland for the Eurocon, France, and Austria, and next week I'll be going to Italy for 2 weeks. Then in October, I'm looking forward to meeting up with Nexx/Swoop et al in Germany. I have no complaints about my life, and enjoy it fully.
How does this compare with the average American? Well most of 'em don't even have passports, and are so busy working those 40 hour weeks for 50 weeks of the year that they don't get a chance to travel. I worked in IL, where a "vacation" was something like 4 days in Green Bay, Wis. :lol
Yep, seems you do a lot of traveling to get away from the boredom of where you live.
The average American doesn`t need a passport for the big part. We have it all right here in our country and don`t have to go on masonary safaris for a l`il break in the hum drum. It`s all right here.
Now do you have a recomendation pertaining to the subject matter or not?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Yes, it certainly is.
I think you must be Ripsnort in disguise. Seems like you don't believe in laws that are not 100% effective. And the fact is that no law is or ever can be. I never said the British situation is perfect, but it's a whole lot better than if REAL guns were freely available.
Nashwan covered all your other points.
I don't believe in laws that take away an effective means to defend myself and my family, particularly when it has done nothing to affect the problem, except making me more vulnerable, of course.
There were 1,205,576 recorded offences of criminal damage in 2003/04, this represents an increase of nine per cent from the previous year.
# In 2003/04, there were a total of 52,070 recorded sexual offences in England and Wales, this represents an increase of seven per cent from the previous year.
In 2003/04 there were a total of 26,709 recorded offences of indecent assault on a female, this represents an increase of eight per cent from the previous year.
In 2003/04, there were a total of 13,007 recorded offences in the other sexual offences category, this represents an increase of five per cent from the previous year.
In 2003/04 there were a total of 12,354 recorded offences of rape of a female, this represents an increase of eight per cent from the previous year.
There were a total of 955,752 offences of violence against the person recorded by the police in 2003/04. This represents an increase of 14 per cent from the previous year.
There were a total of 43,850 offences of more serious violence recorded by the police in 2003/04, this represents an increase of 15 per cent from the previous year.
The number of offences in this classification has risen every year since 1995. There were 19,358 offences recorded in 2003/04, this represents an increase of eight per cent from the previous year.
The total number of other offences against the person in 2003/04 was 911,902, this represents an increase of 14 per cent from the previous year.
There were 1,109,017 recorded violent crimes in 2003/04, an increase of 12 per cent.
-
Vehicle - Sig Saur P229 in .357 Sig. On my person I carry a Glock 31 in .357 sig. Home defence - Ruger Blackhawk .44 magnum and an Ithaca 12 ga. pump shotgun. Various other high powered rifles in .303, .308, .223, 7.62 x 39, 7.62 x 54, .270, .243, and .22-250 calibers. Various other handguns ranging from .25 cal to .50 cal black powder.
They can have my guns when they pry em from my cold dead finga's:aok
-
Martlet - None of those crimes could be solved by having a guns for all situation. You seem to think that "more guns" is the panacea to all social ills. It isn't.
Originally posted by Jackal1
Yep, seems you do a lot of traveling to get away from the boredom of where you live. The average American doesn`t need a passport for the big part. We have it all right here in our country and don`t have to go on masonary safaris for a l`il break in the hum drum. It`s all right here.
Now do you have a recomendation pertaining to the subject matter or not?
LOL - you don't know where I live. And I was waiting for the Dago-style "we have everything we need right here in the US" mantra. And that's understandable, in a country which has a whole 229 years of history. :lol
I could begin to explain about different cultures, languages, history (more than 300 years) but that would be wasted on someone who has never set foot outside his own country in Cod knows how many decades. But be joyful - You have everything you want where you live - the three Gs - Gasguzzlers, Guns, and Grits! How could things be any better!
-
hey u frikn hoglegged HOLY Crusaders..go start another thread
here is my hand gun safe next to my bed ..2 button push combo and its open..this is my favorite hand gun safe out there
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/842_1121189739_safe.jpg)
this is my Ruger sp101..357. mag..also shoots 38. specials...its a concealed carry speical..thsi holds 5 rounds
the other is the first handgun i bought when i turned 21..Ruger p95DC (Decocker)..there is no safty on it...Love the gun..but there is defnlty bettr firing 9mmms out there..I bought it for $315$ brand new..Iit holds 15 rounds...+1 in chamber..RARELY fails to feed..but i said RAREly..not100%..id say 98%..I also have a 30 round mag for it..dam fun shooting
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/842_1121189328_osafe.jpg)
size comparison
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/842_1121189476_revol.jpg)
my hand id say is average size..fits well..im thinkn about getting Crimson Trace for the sp101..notice the yellow arrows..that is a concealed speacil..hammer has been cut off..and barrle tip is rounded and smooth..as to not cacth on any closed when pulling out
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/842_1121189601_hanrevoe.jpg)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Martlet - None of those crimes could be solved by having a guns for all situation. You seem to think that "more guns" is the panacea to all social ills. It isn't.
Really? Are you suggesting raping, robbing, assaulting, or murdering an armed person is just as easy as if the person was unarmed?
-
Umm...guys? The thread was about what firearm would be the best for self defense. Not about whether anti-gun laws work or not.
Beetle has embraced his country's decision to ban guns, right or wrong. Thats fine, as he lives there. He isnt trying to have their laws passed here, so there's no reason to keep arguing over it. If the rate of violent crime in Britain keeps increasing, as has been suggested, then eventually it must hit a point of critical mass where a change occurs. Let them deal with it, its their problem.
As for you facts and figures guys, anyone who cant recognize that "official" figures put out by groups on both sides of the argument have a vested interest in convincing people they are the ones who are right, is just blind. Both advocacy groups and anti-gun groups try to twist statistics to support their claims and distort the truth. Only people with an interest in the subject one way or the other are going to bother collecting data on the subjects at hand. So I'm not sure objective and unbiased data is even available. Given that, can we maybe get a little less acrimony in these arguments, at the least?
And Beetle, while I respect your right to disagree with the American POV on guns, a thread on what firearm makes the best self defense weapon really has no place for your posts trying to stir up trouble. I'm surprised our wonderful new MP's cant or havent done anything to stop this runaway monstrosity. Please desist from hijacking threads about perfectly reasonable subject material, m'kay? Thanks
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Umm...guys? The thread was about what firearm would be the best for self defense. Not about whether anti-gun laws work or not.
Beetle has embraced his country's decision to ban guns, right or wrong. Thats fine, as he lives there. He isnt trying to have their laws passed here, so there's no reason to keep arguing over it. If the rate of violent crime in Britain keeps increasing, as has been suggested, then eventually it must hit a point of critical mass where a change occurs. Let them deal with it, its their problem.
As for you facts and figures guys, anyone who cant recognize that "official" figures put out by groups on both sides of the argument have a vested interest in convincing people they are the ones who are right, is just blind. Both advocacy groups and anti-gun groups try to twist statistics to support their claims and distort the truth. Only people with an interest in the subject one way or the other are going to bother collecting data on the subjects at hand. So I'm not sure objective and unbiased data is even available. Given that, can we maybe get a little less acrimony in these arguments, at the least?
And Beetle, while I respect your right to disagree with the American POV on guns, a thread on what firearm makes the best self defense weapon really has no place for your posts trying to stir up trouble. I'm surprised our wonderful new MP's cant or havent done anything to stop this runaway monstrosity. Please desist from hijacking threads about perfectly reasonable subject material, m'kay? Thanks
sorry.
-
OK Beet....I`ll take that as answer to the question which we allready knew to begin with. You have no input on the subject matter being discussed what so ever. How could you? You have no knowledge or experience pertaining to it.
AdmRose, as I stated earlier, you can now see that there are many different opinions and favorites with different folks. It just a matter of gleaning a little from all, then making a decision on what you are the most comfortable with.
-
beet1e
you are right buddy the 3 G's
but you forgot about the drugs and alcohol
I for 1 never go shooting while I'm sober
It steadies my aim and helps me not to think about what I'm about to do ;)
you know what the sad thing is, we have only been around for 300 years you are right, but in that 300 years we have come out as the strongest nation in the world. I don't care what your response is, apart from all the Michael Moore anti US bullcrap thats floating around this room, theres not 1 person in the US that would switch with anybody else, and theres no other nation in the world that has soo many people waiting for citizenship. Its ok Beet1e even though you don't like America, we will still protect you from your enemy's because your country can't do it. We understand that you are jealous of our country and that you really want to live here. In short this is America's world now, not the UN's we really don't care about your country's very much, but we will do whatever it takes to maintain the "AMERICAN WAY" of life. If that means killing everybody then we will do it. After all we are the American Infidels aren't we hahahahahahahahaha
-
Martlet - I'm saying that simply flooding our country with guns would not make those social ills you described go away. It would solve some problems maybe, but would create a whole load of others. Many people would not want to have to carry a gun, and criminals would be able to get them easily.
Jackal! I don't remember what your original question was. As for my area being Dullesville, and as for you knowing so much about where I live, can you name the small town 5 miles North of me which has just hosted a world famous sporting event which attracted teams from all over the world, including the USA?
Africa - come on, it's a gun thread - anything goes! ;)
Iceman24! Its ok Beet1e even though you don't like America, we will still protect you from your enemy's because your country can't do it. We understand that you are jealous of our country and that you really want to live here.
I HAVE lived there. I had two separate work assignments there. One was long (1979-82) and the other was just a few months in 1997. I was married to an American, and could have stayed. It was OK, and I had a good time.
As for people wanting citizenship - Britain surely beats the US with regard to immigrant applications per sq. mile. :eek:
-
yep... thread was about best gun.. the brits and women chimed in about how frightened they were of firearms and then proved how banning them was a good thing because at worst... it only increased crime slightly and at best it..... well... it did nothing but disarm citizens who might never need to defend themselves anyway...
shouldn't you gun phobic guys get on a womens thread somewhere that asks what is the best cell phone for getting the police to come and rescue you or the easiest phone for bystanders calling the ambulannce to use?
lazs
-
Greencloud you need to tidy up yourside of the bed mate! Its looking a bit rank :lol:lol :D
-
I couldnt have said it better! :rofl :rofl :aok
Originally posted by lazs2
yep... thread was about best gun.. the brits and women chimed in about how frightened they were of firearms and then proved how banning them was a good thing because at worst... it only increased crime slightly and at best it..... well... it did nothing but disarm citizens who might never need to defend themselves anyway...
shouldn't you gun phobic guys get on a womens thread somewhere that asks what is the best cell phone for getting the police to come and rescue you or the easiest phone for bystanders calling the ambulannce to use?
lazs
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Phobic my a
We r just know s were better e off and like to point it out now and again:aok
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Phobic my a
We r just know s were better e off and like to point it out now and again:aok
I think I am getting your humor now, cause that is just laughable.
-
skyprancer... I can't imagine an area that you are better off than we are here in the states...
If I were going to envy a country based on their firearms laws it would probly be switzerland.
lazs
-
If the US closed its borders and stopped all its trade with the outside world and basically disappeared. Just about every country would starve to death in a couple of months and someone else would step up and take over and you would really hate it. Not saying we have the exact right ideas, but if any other country would like to step up and lead a little bit, do something, get a military, become a world power.. At least country's like Afghanistan and Iraq have enough guts to step up to the plate, its country's like england, and france, most euro country's that won't do anything, you guys won't do anything to get a real economy. establish a market and trade system with the rest of the world, basically get some money then an army.. I mean you guys did have a 300 year start considering we are only 300 years old. OK we had 300 years, but in those 300 years we made more progress and did more to create better ways to live than in the whole history of the world... I'll be the 1st to admit I think America will not last very long and that's because I think you have to rule with an iron fist, you have to do it like the romans did. They tried having a democratic society and they tried it for a lil bit, but they were smart enough to know that wouldn't work, you have to rule like a king, sure they had a bunch of F-ups but they were around for 10,000 years. Basically I don't think people can rule themselves because they get greedy and always want more. If I were in charge it would be the republic of the US and if you werent in the US then you would be the enemy just like the romans did. Eventually the rest of the world would join up or die, you then have no more enemy's. Being nice to everybody doesn't ( hasn't ever ) worked, people just take advantage of it. And everybody may hate George Bush and think he's a sleazy oil baron, but I will compare him with any politician in any country and I bet he's not any worse than they are. All leaders and all politicians are scum bags, that is the only way to get into that position. Beet1e you may be right buddy, who knows I may be right, the only problem is me or you can't do anything about it except gripe about it hahaha
-
iceman... and that is exactly why a revolver in .357 with a 1 3/4 to 4" barrel is the best self defense handgun....
thank you for getting us back on subject.
lazs
-
"There is no way of dealing with the Frenchman but to knock him down - to be civil to them is to be laughed at."
I luv that man
:aok
-
lazs2
I prefer the .44 mag desert eagle that I have... I luv that gun... it gets soo much attention when I go to the range to shoot it... no prob gettin us back on topic... speakin of handguns why hasn't anybody said a beretta 9mm or a glock 9mm... the 9mm round is the most amazing bullet in the world ballistics anyways... it is small for the most part but ballistic wise has more knockdown than a .357 or a .38, not sure can't remember which I always get em backwards, somebody will correct me. But for the size, no bullet is better than a 9mm
for home defense I have a smith & wesson .410 revolver.. shoots 6 standard .410 shotgun shells and is a revolver... the thing is bigger than my desert eagle, we used to use em in south tx to shoot rattlesnakes
would like to shoot a barret .50 cal sniper rifle, I have a Weatherby .300 mag right now thats as close as I can get for the $$ hahaha
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yep... thread was about best gun.. the brits and women chimed in about how frightened they were of firearms and then proved how banning them was a good thing because at worst... it only increased crime slightly and at best it..... well... it did nothing but disarm citizens who might never need to defend themselves anyway...
Well lazs, sorry if the thread wandered. I think I started it because when you guys talk about needing a gun for defence, my first question is - defence against what? Then someone said about carrying a gun ever since 911, and I pondered over how guns could have prevented 911, and how a gun might have protected me against the bombs in London last week. That is all.
-
Originally posted by Iceman24
lazs2
speakin of handguns why hasn't anybody said a beretta 9mm or a glock 9mm... the 9mm round is the most amazing bullet in the world ballistics anyways... it is small for the most part but ballistic wise has more knockdown than a .357 or a .38
A 380 yes, definitely not a 357.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Well lazs, sorry if the thread wandered. I think I started it because when you guys talk about needing a gun for defence, my first question is - defence against what? Then someone said about carrying a gun ever since 911, and I pondered over how guns could have prevented 911, and how a gun might have protected me against the bombs in London last week. That is all.
Beetle, I will only make one remark in response to your comments, since you would like to make all gun threads (regardless of specific points) to be your soapbox. Actually, this isnt even my remark. Just a quote.
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Adolph Hitler, 1933
If thats the way you want to live, I respect that. I just ask that you respect my choices as well, since we live in different countries with different laws and neither one of us has a snowball's chance in hell of imposing our rules on the other (even if we wanted to).
And as for my personal home defense picks.......
12 ga. pump shotgun in riot-gun format, 8 shell magazine, pistol grip, 18 in. barrel, loaded with 00 Buckshot; and a .357 Magnum loaded with Glaser tip rounds.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Well lazs, sorry if the thread wandered. I think I started it because when you guys talk about needing a gun for defence, my first question is - defence against what? Then someone said about carrying a gun ever since 911, and I pondered over how guns could have prevented 911, and how a gun might have protected me against the bombs in London last week. That is all.
Thats just plain silly beetle, who said that guns in private hands would stop those types of attacks?
shamus
-
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Adolph Hitler, 1933
You are aware tha quote is a complete fabrication, aren't you?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
You are aware tha quote is a complete fabrication, aren't you?
It's true, it's true! I saw it on the internet.
-
Glock 27 in 40 S&W with night sights. I've been thinking about an 18 inch barrel pump 12ga. recently. Flechett rounds in the midsection will incapacitate the diaphram and bleed the perp out rapidly.
How come if you read world history, roughly the last 90 years, we gun nutty cowboy neaderthals have saved the butts of our esteemed, highly civllized, educated and cultured allies over and over again from the intercen pissing matches they have managed to place them selves in. But for some reason after each time we got sucked into it, saved the day, provided funds, materials, and manpower for reconstruction, we get derided for the very cultural traits that saved their collective butts?
But who cares? By 2050 we may not have enough of us WASP cowboys left to do it again when Islam breeds the EU out of existance, and Mexico City's northern suburbs are in Toronto.
Beet, take potshots at us while time remains in our lives. I worry our collective cultures will be gone and our age forgotten on a different tide of humanity...........
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
You are aware tha quote is a complete fabrication, aren't you?
Ive seen people say it is, and I've seen people swear it isnt. How should I know? I wasnt born yet in 1933. The info you and Beetle keep firing back and forth at each other has just as much credibility. Someone said it so it must be true. Provide me with proof (other than you say so) that its an absolute fabrication, and I'll gladly delete it from my post. Until then, it has as much backing as it does detraction. But I appreciate your pointing it out without quoting me stats as to how often someone has posted it in various BBS around the internet.
-
I did get your email on this Mauser, and thanks. Unfortunately I cant get my email to send right now so I couldnt reply. If you have links, feel free to email them. I'm signed on with several different bulletin boards.
-
(http://www.middlepeg.com/images/bradgold.jpg)
Nuff said:D :lol
-
hey u frikn hoglegged HOLY Crusaders..go start another thread
hehe..you said it green:) my buddy has that same ruger revolver you have..he gots the longer barrel one too..he swears by them..both are 357..but he target shoots with 38 special alot...but heck..they hardly kick with regular 357 anyways..lol
i got a black powder revolver dragoon..loaded with 50 grains of powder in my locked bed room...thats were the saying light'em up came from..guess when you shoot close range they would catch on fire..hehe heck with a rail light..just light them up.hehe..its a little big to carry in public thou..lol,,i take it camping with me..i pack a tiny little astra cub 22 short in town
i hear s&w are nice revolvers...i love there new 500 s&w..what a monster..i know your lookin for somthing compact..so im sure its a little big to carry..magnum bfg are dang good..but too big to carry too,,.lol..little peace maker colt 45..charles daliy or uberti are not half bad either..there shorties are very easy to hide:)
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Thats just plain silly beetle, who said that guns in private hands would stop those types of attacks?
It was pooface - a UK guy - talking about some crackpot he met. Poohface said lol, its the american way when i went to vegas i went to a shooting range, and some crackpot told me that he would constantly carry atleast two guns on him at all times since 9/11.
And I remember hearing in the news that sales of guns and/or ammo in the US had risen 70% in the immediate aftermath of 911. That tells me that a great many Americans cling to the perception that a firearm as the panacea to every danger that life might present.
I know you like your guns, and I know that carrying one makes you feel more manly, but few civilised countries outside of the US would like to adopt the US guns-4-all model. In 2004, I asked the following question on this BBS: "Would you like to see guns and gun ownership introduced to your country, guns to be made freely available at retail outlets, and for gun ownership by private citizens to be all but unrestricted, and guaranteed by contitutional right?" And guys from the following countries said NO.
* Bermuda
* France
* England (and Wales)
* Finland
* Spain
* Poland
* The Netherlands
* Italy
* Iceland
* Germany
* New Zealand
* Norway
* Argentina
* Australia
* Belgium
It seems pretty clear to me that people in the rest of the world are not convinced by the American example, and based on that example do not want to see a US-style proliferation of privately held firearms. I think most people realise that such a policy would create far more problems than it would solve.
-
At least we've come to the root of beets thinking. A handful of people on a video game bulletin board now constitute "the rest of the world".
I wonder if I can get elected King?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
At least we've come to the root of beets thinking. A handful of people on a video game bulletin board now constitute "the rest of the world".
I wonder if I can get elected King?
didn't you guys in boston kick out the last king we had? they did it with personal firearms too IIRC. :aok
-
Nice list beet.. I thought NZ still had pretty easy gun ownership?
seems like it's not much of a list in any case... no important countries on it for instance.
Do you have fire insurance? do you ever think you will have a fire in your home? It is unlikely in the extreme sooo... haveing the insurance could be construed as paranoid.... same for, and maybe a better analodgy... smoke alarms or fire extinguishers. does haveing fire insurance and smoke alarms mean that you are living in fear every single day of your life?
iceman... I reload and shoot a lot... the desert eagle is a not so accurate gun that destroys brass and works only with certain loads. You were kidding about the 9mm tho right? It is a very poor round for the type of action (weight and complexity) that is required to shoot it.... not worth the trouble... certainly nothing like a .357
-
for a concieled firearm you should probably go with a walter PPK. compact, enuf firepower for what you need and best of all: no need to **** it before pulling the trigger like on the colt 1911. many might say that you need "nockdown power" but i am a fan of accuracy. anyone who you would need to defend yourself against will be taken down by a 9mm pistol round unless it is someone hopped up on PCP or somethin, in that case you could fire a friggin nepolion with tripple canister into him and it wouldnt stop him. but if that happens, shoot to kill (head shot).
(http://www.pistoletchik.ru/library/gallery/psm0001.jpg)
-
I have a PPK and it is fairly accurate.. not as accurate as a J frame smith tho.
It is fairly light but not as light as a J frame smith in scandium..
It is fairly powerful but not near as powerful as a J frame smith in .357 tho.
It is fairly easy to get into operation if the safety isn't on and you have rememebered to put one in the spout but... not near as easy as a shrouded hammer J frame smith.
it can probly be fired from the pocket once but the J frame shrouded hammer can be fired several or 5 times from inside the pocket...
it is fairly smooth with not too many things sticking out to catch on clothing for that embarassing was of clothes and gun when all you want is gun but... the J frame smith is very smooth with no chance of that.
lazs
-
Wow nice canoe paddle! :rofl
Originally posted by Skydancer
(http://www.middlepeg.com/images/bradgold.jpg)
Nuff said:D :lol
-
And I remember hearing in the news that sales of guns and/or ammo in the US had risen 70% in the immediate aftermath of 911.
beet..i dont think it has that much to do with 9-11.{but you never know..fear does cause people to think}..i think its mostly because of the preban laws going away and gun prices dropping really low..auto's have never been cheaper...before the preban..a regular romanian ak-47 would cost you about 700 bucks..after the preban they dropped to 250$..big drop and good reason for the increase of gun buyers..they have never been cheaper in the us..thats better than 50% off guns that were out of touch from most people..most guns that sell are 200 dollar guns..now that some 700 or 800 dollar guns are in that range..people are scooping them up because they never had a chance to buy them befoore..i would say that would be the best reason for the gun increse...if a car company came out and said..heck think we will sell are 12,000 dollar cars for 6 or 5,000 brand new..dont ya think there would be a big increase in there sales?
same increase in gun sales happend in 1994 ..because of the brady gun bill passing..and big increase after the bill ran out..lol
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
I did get your email on this Mauser, and thanks. Unfortunately I cant get my email to send right now so I couldnt reply. If you have links, feel free to email them. I'm signed on with several different bulletin boards.
Hi SA2,
I'll post them here in case anyone wants to research their questions elsewhere, or just hang with others with similar interests. To anyone who's looking for another place to discuss firearms for self-defense, for a hobby, for hunting The High Road (http://www.thehighroad.org ) is a great general place to visit. The owner of the board, Oleg Volk is an avid photographer and a self-defense advocate:
http://www.olegvolk.net
http://www.a-human-right.com
THR is well moderated, people are encouraged to "take the high road" when discussing things and those on the other side of the fence are encouraged to discuss there also. So as long as you're willing to discuss topics instead of troll, or listen to the other side rather than love to hear the sound of your own voice, you should be fine. It's his house with his rules, just like this is HTC's house with their rules. I don't know him personally but I appreciate his work and the community there.
The Tactical Forums (http://www.tacticalforums.com/ ), is a dead serious place where "I heard it on the internets" doesn't fly at all. Their purpose is to provide a place where professionals (Law Enforcement, Military) can trade some types of information on a public forum. You can find ballistic gellatin results and recommended off-the shelf loads in the Terminal Effects forum. Search for posts by DocGKR and the caliber and/or loading you're interested in. However, there's more information there for police/military calibers like .45ACP, 9x19mm, or .38 Spl as opposed to other calibers. Searching for information before posting is strongly recommended.
mauser
-
Originally posted by SarinGas
Wow nice canoe paddle! :rofl
i hope you are kidding, but just in case.
that is a cricket bat you silly sod. they are about the length of a baseball bat and a bit hevier.
-
WHERE THE F ARE THE MODERATORS!!??
Isnt this a effing HIJACK!??
disgusting....nice job beetle..and btw you look like a fool....I like how you cant answer my questions..but have to quote some rule about self moderating..nice side step..BUT..when you try to moderate me with your htcs'rules"..you are guilty again..
AGAIN..get rid of any insurance you have..Your are so two faced I dont even laff at you anymore...Go stab your self now please,,,,virtually
Your arguments are so weak i think you are just joking
WHERE ARE THE POLICE!?????
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
disgusting....nice job beetle..and btw you look like a fool....
ROFL! That is at least better than being a fool! :lol;)
-
Nice GeenCloud, call for the moderators then proceed with personal attacks.
Be carefull what you wish for...
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I know you like your guns, and I know that carrying one makes you feel more manly, but few civilised countries outside of the US would like to adopt the US guns-4-all model. In 2004, I asked the following question on this BBS: "Would you like to see guns and gun ownership introduced to your country, guns to be made freely available at retail outlets, and for gun ownership by private citizens to be all but unrestricted, and guaranteed by contitutional right?" And guys from the following countries said NO.
* Bermuda
* France
* England (and Wales)
* Finland
* Spain
* Poland
* The Netherlands
* Italy
* Iceland
* Germany
* New Zealand
* Norway
* Argentina
* Australia
* Belgium
It seems pretty clear to me that people in the rest of the world are not convinced by the American example, and based on that example do not want to see a US-style proliferation of privately held firearms. I think most people realise that such a policy would create far more problems than it would solve.
I'll let my mother know that carrying a gun should make her feel more manly. According to a man in a country that wouldnt let him have one if he wanted it. :)
Oh and Beetle, when did we ever ask any one of those countries on your list to adopt American private gun-ownership standards? Never would be the right answer. We arent trying to force our views on anyone else, why do you insist on bashing ours?
-
It's funny to see him include Poland in that list, though, after the persisting liberal argument that they are so insignificant they shouldn't be mentioned as part of the "Coalition of the Willing".
-
Ohh, and for the knucklehead advocating not shooting to kill... get real, a wounded perp is most likely to sue your arse into destitution as opposed to a dead perp. Remember the simple rule that the dead do not talk.
Exactly.If your gonna shoot someone shoot to kill.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Oh and Beetle, when did we ever ask any one of those countries on your list to adopt American private gun-ownership standards? Never would be the right answer.
When did I ever say you had? Never would be the right answer.
Oh, and Martlet - my question was posed to those people outside the US. As far as you're concerned, that IS the rest of the world. Just thought I'd clear that up. :D
-
Beet?No more guns on your planes.From now on your gonna have to ram folks :D
-
If some concealed carry guy comes to the rescue of me or mine...
I don't care what he is carrying.... I will be grateful... If he is willing to learn how to use and carry a big ol HK 45 or Kimber... so much the better..
If he burns the bad guys face of and knocks him down and deafens all the other bad guys with a j frame smith in .357 that was no more trouble for him to carry than his cell phone...
That is fine with me too.
If I gotta carry... 90% of the time it will be the 12 oz shrouded hammer gun.
lazs
-
since the early days of my life i use advanced water pistols for effective self defense, and i can absolutely recommend them, they also works very good against agressive dogs, fire at there nose and they will surrender (its proved)
(http://www.teckels.org/successes/dogs/testimonials/kali/bath.jpg)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Nice list beet.. I thought NZ still had pretty easy gun ownership?
seems like it's not much of a list in any case... no important countries on it for instance.
Do you have fire insurance? do you ever think you will have a fire in your home? It is unlikely in the extreme sooo... haveing the insurance could be construed as paranoid.... same for, and maybe a better analodgy... smoke alarms or fire extinguishers. does haveing fire insurance and smoke alarms mean that you are living in fear every single day of your life?
Lazs - I tried to cancel my fire insurance today, in accordance with your advice, but because my property has a mortgage on it, the mortgage lender insists on buildings insurance.
-
yep... even the mortage co is paranoid. if you own the home free and clear tho you can drop the fire insurance and stop living in terror.
lazs