So any gun enthusiasts here

[Alcoremortis]

Originally Posted by Haggis

I understand that shooting must be a part of the curriculum if you're studying to be in law enforcement. But what about the other people who were there? Why did they feel the need to do target practice if they weren't going to use it to serve the public? Were they studying to be cowboys or what? Why not take up archery instead? Seems to me like that's at least as much fun, and a lot less dangerous (taking a bow and arrow onto the streets to shoot people sounds like it's a lot harder than doing the same with firearms).

I don't actually own guns as I haven't found them to be necessary for protection or anything, but I have gone out to the range a few times with a friend of my parents to practice shooting. I view it more as a skill, one that you hope never to use, but an important one to have just in case. I mean, I also sail even though I'm not planning on being a sailor, and play several musical instruments even though I don't plan to be a musician. I think it's important to know how a gun works and be able to use one, but not so important to actually own one.

I think I mentioned already that I think a martial arts based self defense is more practical in most cases. I highly doubt that the transsexual woman who was beaten would have been able to shoot her attacker after they were clear in their intentions. I mean, by that point, they were probably too close and had started a grapple or grab and the gun would have been useless. And of course, a weapon that you don't know how to use just becomes one for your opponent, so there's that to consider as well.

Also @Chyron: I think open-carry is stupid. If the point of carrying a gun is protection, it only works if the attacker doesn't know you have it. Otherwise it's just an advertisement that you own a small valuable object and carry it on your person, right there to be taken away.

[Haggis]

Yes, I think martial arts would probably be more useful in a case like that. Also, I don't mean to imply that people who own guns are all hill-billies or outlaws. I guess the whole thing is just a clash of cultures. Guns are obviously part and parcel of American culture, whereas in Europe we do things a little differently... we just start a humongous war and drag the rest of the world along with us (although lately we've been a bit better in that respect).

[Comrade Pants]

Originally Posted by Haggis

Actually, I'm going to take this seriously and express my amazement. I just find it utterly unfathomable how or why guns are apparently so embedded in American culture. How did that happen? Is it the Wild West or what? I just don't see the appeal of owning a gun at all.

And as for defending oneself against criminals... isn't that what the police is for?

My pistol has a faster response time then the sheriff's department halfway across town. What's the response time like where you live?

Anyway, guns tend to be very important in your country when it was born of a violent revolution. The ability to destroy tyranny is what led to legal guarantees for American gun ownership in the first place.

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

What do you all think about open-carry gun laws?


Having rolled it over in my mind, I don't think seeing a random law-abiding citizen with a holstered handgun would particularly bother me (albeit, given that said citizen doesn't look creepy, suspicious or associated with such as a gang).

I think it would bother me if I went to a location/event/place of business (that was not itself gun-related) where the majority of citizens were to be seen carrying a gun. I admit, however, that such an occurrence may either be more in the realm of the hypothetical or else would probably be a seedy place that I wouldn't visit in the first place.

I'm against them on the principal of keeping the fear that there might be gun owners about as a genuine deterrent.

ALLEGORY: There's a thicket in an environment infested with poisonous snakes. Do you walk through the thicket to your destination or around it, where you can clearly see the ground?

Now imagine that you're a criminal. Do you rob a store near a shooting range, knowing that the people nearby might be CCing on their way back from shooting or do you go rob the store that proudly announces itself to be a "gun-free" zone?

Add to that the fact that, as you said, a lot of innocent people get nervous around guns and you can see why CCing makes the most sense.

By the Nine, I can't believe I agreed with you.

Originally Posted by Haggis

Yes, I think martial arts would probably be more useful in a case like that. Also, I don't mean to imply that people who own guns are all hill-billies or outlaws. I guess the whole thing is just a clash of cultures. Guns are obviously part and parcel of American culture, whereas in Europe we do things a little differently... we just start a humongous war and drag the rest of the world along with us (although lately we've been a bit better in that respect).

Oh, how I do not look forward to seeing how the EU collapses. You can't just eject Greece, they're never going to repay their loans, and they're dragging down Germany, France, and Great Britain.

Also, it's kind of adorable that you think martial arts would be an effective in that situation. Attackers are best dealt with by ensuring they don't get up to attack you again. Guns are kind of great at this. Before you say anything about it, I really don't see why the life of an attacker should be my concern. As far as I'm concerned, they brought it on themselves by attacking an innocent person.

[Haggis]

Originally Posted by Comrade Pants

My pistol has a faster response time then the sheriff's department halfway across town. What's the response time like where you live?

It depends. I think there's a legal limit of, what, 15 minutes or something? Of course a bullet will always be faster, but I'm not sure I'd want to live in a country where people are allowed to execute others without trial.

Anyway, guns tend to be very important in your country when it was born of a violent revolution.

Why? That revolution happened centuries ago. Are you saying time stood still in the US? No progress at all? That's rather sad, actually.

The ability to destroy tyranny is what led to legal guarantees for American gun ownership in the first place.

Okay, so the reason you're allowed to carry guns is so you can kill the President if you don't like them... but ironically, that has nothing to do with shooting criminals.

Also, it's kind of adorable that you think martial arts would be an effective in that situation. Attackers are best dealt with by ensuring they don't get up to attack you again. Guns are kind of great at this.

As is pepper spray, for instance (at least with the majority of the population that isn't immune to it). Also, a well-placed punch or kick can incapacitate anyone. And hey, if it's just about incapacitating an attacker, why not use rubber bullets?

Before you say anything about it, I really don't see why the life of an attacker should be my concern. As far as I'm concerned, they brought it on themselves by attacking an innocent person.

I completely agree with you there. My issue with guns is not that criminals can be harmed, but that it's so easy for innocent people to get hurt, especially when guns aren't kept securely. And yes, that does happen. Not everyone who owns a gun handles it responsibly, so no, I don't trust other people with guns just like that. If they must own a gun, they'd better follow an extensive course on things like gun safety, but also psychology, like, how to read people (how can you be sure an attacker is an attacker before he makes his first move? and by then it might be too late to react). Nobody should ever be able to just walk into a shop and buy a gun, and personally, I think only trained professionals should be able to use one.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Haggis

It depends. I think there's a legal limit of, what, 15 minutes or something? Of course a bullet will always be faster, but I'm not sure I'd want to live in a country where people are allowed to execute others without trial.

Most states do require a trial if someone kills someone in self defense. The only state I'm aware of that doesn't is Florida (other states have stand your ground laws, but Florida is the only state that stipulates "immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force". This is likely to change after the Trayvon Martin case, though, since it put worldwide negative attention on that law).

[Alcoremortis]

Originally Posted by Comrade Pants

Also, it's kind of adorable that you think martial arts would be an effective in that situation. Attackers are best dealt with by ensuring they don't get up to attack you again. Guns are kind of great at this. Before you say anything about it, I really don't see why the life of an attacker should be my concern. As far as I'm concerned, they brought it on themselves by attacking an innocent person.

I think that the idea that guns would help in a self-defense situation is adorable. If someone's going to attack you, they probably aren't going to project their intentions from a distance great enough to get your gun out. If someone grabs you by your shooting arm, it's going to be difficult to get a bead on them. That's what I'm saying

Also, martial arts doesn't mean "nonlethal". There is quite a bit is designed to not instantly kill the opponent (which gives you flexibility to respond to someone trying to steal your purse vs. someone trying to steal your head), but I know people who can crush a man's sternum with a well-placed kick. Or break someone's nose with so much force that the bone fragments penetrate the brain. And a lot of martial arts defenses are designed to make a fight end as quickly as possible with the other person completely incapacitated as well as being able to get out of situations that would otherwise cause your own incapacitation.

[Haggis]

Originally Posted by Alcoremortis

break someone's nose with so much force that the bone fragments penetrate the brain

/thread

[Comrade Pants]

Not really "/thread", considering we were talking about firearm enthusiasm and not the practicality of it. Besides, having the skill to send bone fragments into the brain is a lot less doable for most people - including me, a paraplegic - than defending yourself with a gun is.

[Haggis]

Yeah, sorry, I probably shouldn't have picked this thread for this debate anyway. I'll hand it back to the actual gun enthusiasts now, but not without first leaving you all with something both funny and relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBNd24-0VRQ

[Alcoremortis]

Originally Posted by Comrade Pants

Not really "/thread", considering we were talking about firearm enthusiasm and not the practicality of it. Besides, having the skill to send bone fragments into the brain is a lot less doable for most people - including me, a paraplegic - than defending yourself with a gun is.

No, you could probably just crush their hand into powder or something as you dragged them into face-smashing range.

And while not everyone can do the bone fragment thing, they can instead rely on the fact that an attacker is likely to be male and do the old slap, grab, twist, and pull. If they're not down by the end of that, it's unlikely a bullet would stop them anyways.

[Noname215]

Originally Posted by Comrade Pants

We're thinking about the same model Webley, right? A Webley is many things. Cool looking, it is not. A nice historic piece, though. Vintage Britannia.

Not what I meant. The kid said: “Hey dude, cool looking revolver. Mind if I try it out?” I myself never said it was cool looking, I just got it for the hell of it.

[Comrade Pants]

Th-th-thread necromancy up in this!

[Haggis]

At what point does a man become sufficiently evil that you're allowed to point a gun at him? And how good does a man need to be to earn the right to carry a rifle?

[KingOfZilla]

Just letting the people who visit this forum know that it is unlocked.

[Johro]

Just like Pants' safety.

[Noname215]

I went up to Colorado the other week and a buddy of mine let me fire his AA12. Awesome gun.

[Comrade Pants]

Originally Posted by Haggis

At what point does a man become sufficiently evil that you're allowed to point a gun at him? And how good does a man need to be to earn the right to carry a rifle?

When he's physically threatening you or another innocent person OR when he's trespassing in your home. How good does a man need to be to carry a weapon? Good enough to hit his targets, sane enough to know what his targets should be, and sure enough not to hesitate - lest the aggressor overcome him.

Originally Posted by KingOfZilla

Just letting the people who visit this forum know that it is unlocked.

About time.

Originally Posted by Johro

Just like Pants' safety.

Not until I'm sighted on a target. :P

Originally Posted by Noname215

I went up to Colorado the other week and a buddy of mine let me fire his AA12. Awesome gun.

Awesome! That's gun is like the Desert Eagle though, in that while it's awesome I really don't see the utility or practicality. I mean, in what combat situation would either be relevant? The AA12 seems like a fragile, yet overpowered cudgel whilst the Desert Eagle would be much better as a carbine with its cartridge and bulk.

Neither gun really makes sense.

[Haggis]

Originally Posted by Comrade Pants

When he's physically threatening you or another innocent person OR when he's trespassing in your home. How good does a man need to be to carry a weapon? Good enough to hit his targets, sane enough to know what his targets should be, and sure enough not to hesitate - lest the aggressor overcome him.

Okay, that actually sounds reasonable. The one problem is sanity, which is quite hard to test. Even with very strict rules, some loonies slip through the cracks. The question is, is that a risk we all should take?

I'm inclined to say no, but the solution is not to give any civilian guns, and that's something that probably will never happen.

[Noname215]

Originally Posted by Comrade Pants

Awesome! That's gun is like the Desert Eagle though, in that while it's awesome I really don't see the utility or practicality. I mean, in what combat situation would either be relevant? The AA12 seems like a fragile, yet overpowered cudgel whilst the Desert Eagle would be much better as a carbine with its cartridge and bulk.

Neither gun really makes sense.

In a combat situation, I would prefer to use the AA12. Enemies can be very afraid of loud noises, especially shotguns. Also, with 360 blistering rounds a minute, I would be like freakin’ Rambo.

[Comrade Pants]

Originally Posted by Haggis

Okay, that actually sounds reasonable. The one problem is sanity, which is quite hard to test. Even with very strict rules, some loonies slip through the cracks. The question is, is that a risk we all should take?

I'm inclined to say no, but the solution is not to give any civilian guns, and that's something that probably will never happen.

I would take this risk. The alternative is to allow the police a monopoly on armed firepower and we've all seen how well this can work out. Just ask any group that's been subject to oppression by the powers that be if they'd like to allow the government to be the only armed people.

At the end of the day, that's what the second amendment is all about. Politicians and Internet debaters can go on and on all they like about hunting and self defense, but really, the reason we can own guns in the United States is to make sure that the government can never become more powerful than the people. It's unfortunate that people forget this, as it's a very noble sentiment.

Originally Posted by Noname215

In a combat situation, I would prefer to use the AA12. Enemies can be very afraid of loud noises, especially shotguns. Also, with 360 blistering rounds a minute, I would be like freakin’ Rambo.

True, but there are so many better and more durable shotguns. Hell, a decent pump action will be an order of magnitude more reliable and just as effective at its task.