Fin the Equalizer!!

[durace]

"I'm confused. If it only has one purpose, how can it be used for sport?"

In every shooting sport the gun does the same thing, it destroys the target.

"I think if you can't trust yourself to control your weapon, you shouldn't have one."

To use a Jackism on this. The next time you go to the track you should leave your leathers and helmet at home. If you don't trust you ability to ride a motorcycle you shouldn't have one.

"Am I the only one to whom the post above seems like a pretentious non-answer? Let me try:"

Were those answers simple enough for you?

Paul

[Jack M]

"I'm confused. If it only has one purpose, how can it be used for sport?"

In every shooting sport the gun does the same thing, it destroys the target.

Seems to me that <i>sport</i> and <i>killing</i> are two different purposes. And I'll add a third: threatening/show of force.

"I think if you can't trust yourself to control your weapon, you shouldn't have one."

To use a Jackism on this. The next time you go to the track you should leave your leathers and helmet at home. If you don't trust you ability to ride a motorcycle you shouldn't have one.

Touché. Not sure that's comparable though. Many factors beyond your control dictate the use of protective moto gear at the track. An unexpected loss of traction or someone else wadding into you, etc, are reasonable risks you accept there. Pulling the trigger of a gun by mistake would seem to me like randomly whacking the throttle wide open in mid corner, spinning the rear wheel. A rookie mistake. If I didn't <i>know</i> I was not going to do that, I wouldn't be on the track.

But I dunno, stealing stuff outdoors is one thing, but if a stranger is in my house, the m-f'er will probably be looking down the barrel of my (for now imaginary) gun. Definitely if he is making threatening/advancing movements. And then if he does anything other than what I tell him to do he's worm food.

On another note, all this Mass bashing reminds me of one of my favorite bumperstickers: "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun." Baahahaha. Is he dead yet?

[durace]

Killing is a "banned" word now days in "shooting sports". I haven't shot at anything with a pulse in a long time, nothing against it I just don't. It gives the Anti- something to point at.

So since what we do is pretend when we shoot at paper I have a question for you Jack.

Here is the scenario. (that is what we call it so we don't feel so stupid shooting $50 worth of ammo into a pile of dirt). You wake up at 2 A.M. to Lassie barking from her crate. She doesn't bark if one of the kids gets up to go potty so yo get up to check. You grab your (now here is where I read the rest of your questions) loaded AR (I'll use the one from your first pic only we'll make it a Bushmaster Made right up the road in ME and we'll put a flashlight on it...good for home defense). It has a round chambered and the safety is off, you step into the hallway hit the pulse button on the light and see Lassie is right. There is a guy with a blue bandanna and three teardrop tattoos 22 feet down the hall. You bring the locked and loaded weapon to the fire position and I'll assume you are a right hand shooter, close your left eye and point it at his chest. Remembering that your POA/POI is off because he is so close. You hear a loud noise and the door to your left flies open right next to him. In the next split second you need to decide if it s his partner with a gun, the wind, your 6 year old. Remember you are locked,loaded,off safe and on target...

I think my way is safer.:D

God I love Kennedy jokes!

[PolyMathMan]

Gee, lots of pro and anti here.

In short, weapons are an option, not a necessity.

When it's 3 am, and something's wrong, I don't want to have to walk down the stairs with nothing but my dick in my hand.

Kinda like "Walk softly, but carry a big stick."

[Jon Dahl]

you step into the hallway hit the pulse button on the light and see Lassie is right. In the next split second you need to decide if it s his partner with a gun, the wind, your 6 year old.

Been there, done that, in these types of scenarios. House clearings, check, neighborhood wanna-be gangsta's threatening my life, check, kicking doors open and not knowing what's on the other side, check. Safety on, check. That is what it is there for. If it is unholstered, I'm ready to use it, the safety is THE last link in the system before applying deadly force. ALWAYS verify what you are shooting at BEFORE hand. ALWAYS.

[Jack M]

Point taken durace, but all I'm saying is I would either leave my finger outside the trigger guard or leave the safety on or both until I was ready to kill, so I don't see a problem with pointing it at someone to threaten them I guess. I agree it's an escalated form of threatening vs. just holding the gun pointed at the sky. I think if I was detaining an attacker who I had ordered to the ground until the police arrived, I'd be holding it against the guy's neck.

[Dr D]

Point taken durace, but all I'm saying is I would either leave my finger outside the trigger guard or leave the safety on or both until I was ready to kill, so I don't see a problem with pointing it at someone to threaten them I guess. I agree it's an escalated form of threatening vs. just holding the gun pointed at the sky. I think if I was detaining an attacker who I had ordered to the ground until the police arrived, I'd be holding it against the guy's neck.

those are both steps in the cycle jack.

safety on finger outside the trigger guard weapon pointed down or up (safe direction) when a valid target presents itself the weapon is aimed and the safety comes off. the trigger finger is applied last. many things can be happening while this is going on. but a well trained shooter will always follow a disciplined checklist from start to finish. how fast it happens depends on the situation and the shooters skill level. get training if you are going to be a gun owner and shooter. An untrained gunowner is a safety hazard

[Jack M]

get training if you are going to be a gun owner and shooter. An untrained gunowner is a safety hazard

Absolutely. But at this point the only way I'm buying a gun is if there is a rash of break-ins or worse in our vicinity.

[durace]

It's funny (OK not funny more sick) a few years ago you never saw any home invasions or armed roberies on the local NH news now there is one or more stories a day. I blame the violent video games! DOWN WITH WII

[Dr D]

I blane a poor economy! people are desperate so more theft.

Jack Jack nothing like closing the barn door after the cows get out!

get the training now when you don't think you need it and it will be there when you do. nobosy says you have to buy and arsenal and start waving it around. one gun and a safe to keep it in is a good start. The training is the most important part tho. even if youdon't buy one go get the training:biggthump

[Helmut Karvlow]

What ever happened to being responsible for your actions???? like my Dad raised me.

If I choose to rob someone and get shot and or killed......it's my fault not the person who shot me, he did'nt wake up that morning and say I'm guna kill somebody today.........but I would have made the decision to rob someone.

would the punishment fit the crime???? who knows, you liberals and conservatives can fight that out. but it would ALL be on me,

the bad guy!!!! this is all the pussifacation of America!!!

[durace]

It's too bad this didn't start a few weeks earlier. There was a very good class up in Augusta ME on the 17th put on as an action pistol/IDPA event with a compatition on the 18th if you wanted to.

[carvedog]

I want one of these

http://www.locksaf.com/biometric-safe-manufacturer/

With one of these inside

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg169-e.htm

[scrapster]

Makes a lot of sense for individuals to weigh the pros and cons of ownership--there are both, certainly.

For me, even carrying pepper spray (when I lived in a rough part of Phoenix) effected how I perceived things, leaning towards the paranoid. It also became the first, and dominant option that I usually thought of in any uncomfortable situation.

As the saying goes, when all you have is a hammer everything starts to look like a nail. (Maybe I should just own more tools ;)) I already know my quiver should be bigger

[philw]

It's interesting how odd some of your views seem to me, coming from another country.

I can't quite remember where the funding came from for those guys mentioned on the first page, but it dried up in the early 2000s for some reason I suspect Fox news will never talk about.

And then... I think Hillary would now have us put all those IRA guys back in jail, or at least that's how I interpret what she's saying. Even the innocent ones.

Hmm.

[Bullwings]

I'll say this first before I present my view/oppinion. Guns are fun to use for hobbies and recreational activities and I go to the target range and also shoot skeet and trap.

However, I think the world would be much better off if all guns were eliminated. Unlike spears and the bow & arrow, which were most likely FIRST invented for hunting purposes, the gun was invented as a tool for war and to be used on people. The penetration capabilities of guns were great at close range against heavily armored knights and infantry, but their inconsistent accuracy made them useless for hunting.

Guns are too easy to use as far as killing something. What's difficult, is training someone to be responsible with them. Bow and arrows (not compound) on the other hand are super difficult to use, especially anything with a draw weight of 50 lbs. or more. The training required to use one and to be able to hit a pie sized plate consistently from 20 yards is pretty tough, thus deterring many from using/becoming proficient with them.

That said, I don't think eliminating guns would reduce crimes (maybe drive by and free way shootings... i live in los angeles), but it would likely reduce the number of accidental shootings. It might however reduce homicides, it's a little bit more difficult to kill someone who is aware with a bat or knife than it is to kill them with a gun. Also, I don't see criminals turning to the bow and arrow as an alternative weapon if guns were eliminated.

Where the hell am I going with this? I don't know... haha. I just recently got into archery about 5 months ago, and it's been a lot more fun than shooting guns. Also, hunting with a bow & arrow is a lot more challenging than with a rifle accurate up to 800 yards away. Most shots with a bow will be at 30 yards or less. Although olympic and some other shooters are accurate up to 80+ yards, it's not realistic to hunt at that range. You really have to have some skill with both the bow and with stalking, concealment, tracking, and ambushing.

So yeah, I like guns, but I think bow and arrows are better and require a TON more skill to use. I also think it would be better if we reverted back to bow and arrow days... the end.

[Dr D]

Helmut my man montana is rubbing off on you:biggthump

people kill peole not inanimate objects. south africa and australia and the uk have already realized more violent crime since banning guns. bad guys will still have guns or just use a bat or a knife or a candlestick in the library with professor ****ing plum.

blaming a hunk of metal for societies ills is retarded

[BlueB]

south africa and australia and the uk have already realized more violent crime since banning guns. bad guys will still have guns...

Shure they would! There are more ilegal firearms in SA then licensed ones. With the stashes left over from "struggle" years and the 3 neighbouring countries that had civil wars in the recent past, there is an arsenal out there! I can go and find myself an AK47 to buy, in a halven day or so.

[Jack M]

Jack Jack nothing like closing the barn door after the cows get out!

Dude I'm right with you.... but "the committee" is too fearful. The foot is down.

Bullwings, the world would also be a better place if box-cutters were eliminated too.

What Helmut said + 1

[Bullwings]

That said, I don't think eliminating guns would reduce crimes (maybe drive by and free way shootings... i live in los angeles), but it would likely reduce the number of accidental shootings. It might however reduce homicides, it's a little bit more difficult to kill someone who is aware with a bat or knife than it is to kill them with a gun. Also, I don't see criminals turning to the bow and arrow as an alternative weapon if guns were eliminated.

Since people don't know how to read, I have to quote myself. And I didn't say banning guns, I said eliminating guns... As in, they didn't exist, anywhere, at all, and no one knew what the hell they were.

Human nature won't change, but it'll make it a lot more difficult for human nature to carry out certain acts, for example:

Human nature is that people like to eat. There weren't too many fat people 500 years+ ago, which is why art epitomized heavier set women - it was hard to become fat. Well, food is everywhere now in modern industrialized nations, and a whole crap load of people are fat because it's easy. If people still had to grow their own food and/or hunt for it, there would a lot less fat people. It still doesn't change the fact that they like to eat though - it's just harder.

Human nature is that there is a certain desire to travel/explore/discover new places (assuming other basic needs have been met). Well, ships, airplanes, cars, and GPS makes all of that easier. If you took all of that away, it would be a lot harder to do. Does it mean that no one would do it? Certainly not, most of the known world was discovered before cars, airplanes, and GPS.

All of this is true of guns. Will there still be crime and acts of violence? Of course, I never said it would eliminate or even reduce any of that, other than maybe the number of homicides. I'm also sure that wars fought with sticks, knives, and bows and arrows would have a much lower casualty rate than those fought with guns, tanks, and bombs. Case in point, the 100 years war between England and France had much less loss of life than WWII fought between ONLY Russian and Germany even though that portion of the war only lasted 4 years (you could probably combine the majority of European wars with the exception of WWI and the number of casualties would still be less). It's a lot harder to kill people with bows and swords than it is with guns and tanks. Human nature, wars will still be fought, but the loss of life will be less.

So I still stand by my point, complete elimination of guns world wide would make this a better place. I'm not talking about banning through stupid legislation and laws either - that's just dumb and doesn't work. Of course this will never happen, but the argument I'm trying to make or refute, rather is this one:

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

True

But guns make it a whole lot easier and efficient. As a whole, they're bad, and the only reason to have them is because other people have them. It's just like nukes. They're bad, but the only reason to keep them around is because other nations have them. It's really circular reasoning as to arguing how having guns at all is a good thing.

[Fastskiguy]

Human nature won't change, but it'll make it a lot more difficult for human nature to carry out certain acts, for example:

I guess I'm pro-gun but I don't live around crazy people. If 99% of people are responsible and some goof ball opens fire and kills somebody for spitting on the sidewalk or something, well, that's a bad deal. I'm sure nobody on this board would think of shooting at someone because they look differently or act differently but there's a few nut cases that would, they're just looking for the chance to screw with people. So I think it's a valid argument...make them harder to get and you lessen these types of situations. Of course, disarming your law abiding people is a bad deal too. Thus the controversy!

[Jack M]

Bullwings, I read and understood your silly argument. No need to quote yourself.

[Kimo]

Reminds of a bumper sticker that I think applies here.

"Guns kill people the way Rosie O'Donnel's spoon made her fat."

[pcABQ]

fin, i hope you're still skimming this wacky thread

this story put a huge smile on my face

nice going!

[balboajeff]

The guy is in the backyard throwing bags of chips over the fence, what are you doing to do ? , mince on down there and say " hey man that's totally uncool, I need you to respect my boundries ."

The guy set the playing field , way to play Fin.