planetf1.com

Closest I've come to firing one is a BB assault rifle at an adventure course place...

Gotta admit i'll never understand why an average, everyday American needs an assault rifle... I can understand people having a handgun or a shotgun or even someone in a more remote area with a rifle to handle hostile critters.... but an Assault Rifle?

To those assuming I was bashing pokerman: - this is a fallacy, my purpose with this thread was intended to point out the improper use of the English language, IMHO - not unlike a former POTUS's comment from the past, "It depends on what the use if "IS" is......", applies to those proposing one should "guess" at the meaning of words - especially a red-neck that says what he means such as myself.

The comment was - "never even seen" - grab a dictionary, look up the word "seen" - (why should I assume that pokerman was unaware of the meaning of "seen" vs all the other appropriate words like handled, held, fired, used, etc.... - would that not have been more insulting?). I found that to be a sad thing, poor guy never even "seen" a firearm, show the poor guy some. I also found that to be a disingenuous statement; especially after recalling the fact that English gamekeepers (called game wardens here), around since the 18th century "do" carry firearms and even AFO "bobbies" are ever increasing in number, given the terrorist situation and ALL police carry in Northern Ireland, IIRC.

To those talking "militias" - Don B. Kates, one of our leading Second Amendment scholars, observes:

"The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes."

To those - who claim that the only purpose of the right to arms is to enable citizens to resist a military takeover of our government sometimes argue that the Second Amendment is obsolete since a populace armed with only small arms cannot defeat a modern army. That is doubly wrong. Even if overthrowing tyranny were the amendment's only purpose, the claim that an armed populace cannot successfully resist assault stems from an unproved theory.

To those claiming "NO CHANCE" - The twentieth century provides no example of a determined populace with access to small arms having been defeated by a modern army. The Russians lost in Afghanistan, the United States lost in Vietnam, and the French lost in Indo-China. In each case, it was the poorly armed populace that beat the "modern" army. In China, Cuba, and Nicaragua, the established leaders, Chiang Kai-shek, Battista, and Somoza lost. Modern nations like Algeria, Angola, Ireland, Israel, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe only exist because guerrilla warfare can triumph over modern armies. While we may not approve of all the resulting governments, each of these triumphs tells a simple truth: a determined people who have the means to maintain prolonged war against a modern army can battle it to a standstill, subverting major portions of the army or defeating it themselves or with major arms supplied by outside forces.

The Founders’ purpose in guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms was not merely to overthrow tyrants. They saw the right to arms as crucial to what they believed was a prime natural right-of-self-defense.

As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant of the people....

The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, such that its repeal would legitimately confer upon government the powers otherwise proscribed. The Bill of Rights is the list of the fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by his Creator, that defines what it means to be a free and independent people, the rights which must exist to ensure that government governs only with the consent of the people.

People in my country use "firearms" everyday properly (and improperly) saving others and themselves, a good thing IMHO, as long as the bad use is properly punished, which all too often is NOT the case. (just in the last weeks, a man having a meal with with his wife in Dallas, "licensed to carry" stopped a crazy man that killed the manager of the Zona Caliente -think a hispanic "hooters" place - when he was planning on shooting others - just one example of a daily "good use" of concealed carry occurrence in America)

In Texas - the quote "it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" always comes to mind for those who have a heritage containing generations of gunsmiths - mine does, not a brag simply a fact - we are all products of our environment, none with an actual choice in that regard.

To those questioning the "sadness" - I'm always sadden for those that refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past, it's the difference between a "subject" and an "individual", or being "free" or a "slave.

ps - it's also a way to better understand the body of the folks one is dealing with on an open forum and this allows me to learn who folks are - like me or not, insult me or not, no skin off my teeth. I'm always me and guns, knives, swords along with speed and racing on 2 wheels or 4 and even water, are like firearms apart of my heritage. Long Range shooting requires the same precision from the shooter as a F1 car requires from it's driver and ya can't be "excellent" at either using crappy equipment.

F1nut wrote:To those claiming "NO CHANCE" - The twentieth century provides no example of a determined populace with access to small arms having been defeated by a modern army. The Russians lost in Afghanistan, the United States lost in Vietnam, and the French lost in Indo-China. In each case, it was the poorly armed populace that beat the "modern" army. In China, Cuba, and Nicaragua, the established leaders, Chiang Kai-shek, Battista, and Somoza lost. Modern nations like Algeria, Angola, Ireland, Israel, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe only exist because guerrilla warfare can triumph over modern armies. While we may not approve of all the resulting governments, each of these triumphs tells a simple truth: a determined people who have the means to maintain prolonged war against a modern army can battle it to a standstill, subverting major portions of the army or defeating it themselves or with major arms supplied by outside forces.

These are all pretty much irrelevant to the US. Aside from the developments in technology since the last of those examples, it's hard to imagine any scenario where the US was invaded without involving nuclear weapons, which obviously renders any firearm moot.

People in my country use "firearms" everyday properly (and improperly) saving others and themselves, a good thing IMHO, as long as the bad use is properly punished, which all too often is NOT the case. (just in the last weeks, a man having a meal with with his wife in Dallas, "licensed to carry" stopped a crazy man that killed the manager of the Zona Caliente -think a hispanic "hooters" place - when he was planning on shooting others - just one example of a daily "good use" of concealed carry occurrence in America)

And for every one of these there's many more counter examples where death(s) occurred when it otherwise wouldn't have.

You're not free because you have guns, just more significantly more likely to be shot by one.

F1nut wrote:
The comment was - "never even seen" - grab a dictionary, look up the word "seen" - (why should I assume that pokerman was unaware of the meaning of "seen" vs all the other appropriate words like handled, held, fired, used, etc.... - would that not have been more insulting?). I found that to be a sad thing, poor guy never even "seen" a firearm, show the poor guy some. I also found that to be a disingenuous statement; especially after recalling the fact that English gamekeepers (called game wardens here), around since the 18th century "do" carry firearms and even AFO "bobbies" are ever increasing in number, given the terrorist situation and ALL police carry in Northern Ireland, IIRC.

I don't need access to a dictionary thanks. It was blatantly obvious that pokerman meant seen in real life. You posting images of your arsenal means that he seen exactly that... images. Images of a gun are not the same thing as seeing a gun.

And to correct you. It is very rare to see 'bobbies' walking round with guns - your average copper isn't allowed to carry. This weekend is the first time in a very long time I've seen them on the streets, thanks to last week's attack.

SDLRob wrote:Closest I've come to firing one is a BB assault rifle at an adventure course place...

Gotta admit i'll never understand why an average, everyday American needs an assault rifle... I can understand people having a handgun or a shotgun or even someone in a more remote area with a rifle to handle hostile critters.... but an Assault Rifle?

I particularly remember one moment, when I was in the Army. Long time ago. Well, there was this dude. He was insignificant in any way you could think... small and bodily meager, ugly face, of a very low education, from a poor background and social situation. Very insecure, you couldn't get his eyes meet your eyes. But then, when we were up to our arms, an instant transformation would occur. He would straighten his shoulders up, erect his body, sharpen his eyes... he was another person. It was the assault rifle. He felt himself powerful and worth, at least as anybody else.

I suppose many folks do get a kind of a "kick" out their assault riffles, and the more of those, the merrier..

F1nut wrote: To those questioning the "sadness" [/b] - I'm always sadden for those that refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past, it's the difference between a "subject" and an "individual", or being "free" or a "slave.

Would you include yourself in that?


As mentioned previously, the number of firearms deaths in the US per year, versus the total firearms deaths ever recorded in the UK (including during The Troubles), would indicate that more guns = more deaths.

Do you think that it was a mistake that the interpretation of the Second Amendnent (and it is an interpretation), was to give all citizens the right to possess any kind of weaponry, for any reason? Had it been interpreted differently, many thousands more Americans now dead, would still be alive.

Perhaps Americans are slaves to gun ownership?

It may be worth reading this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912



Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, but little gun-related street crime..


Paraphrased, but you still get one

moby wrote:It may be worth reading this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912



Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, but little gun-related street crime..


Paraphrased, but you still get one

They actually are fulfilling that what in the US' 2nd is only an empty phrase: the point of of well organized militia. The military service is mandatory, and after being done, one is encouraged to keep the rifle at home. Not go parading with it around, btw.

But the purpose of that well organised militia would be for a different cause. Not to keep the government in check and raise up against it, but to assist in the case of an invasion on the country.

Argentum wrote:

F1nut wrote: To those questioning the "sadness" [/b] - I'm always sadden for those that refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past, it's the difference between a "subject" and an "individual", or being "free" or a "slave.

Would you include yourself in that?

Nope, I tend toward every attempt to learn from the past - which in this case was something you missed reading in my above post - "The days of devotion to civilian marksmanship, "volunteer rifle clubs" and the idea that there should be "a rifle in every cottage," as proposed by the Prime Minister Marquis of Salisbury in 1900, had given way to restrictive gun control laws that required subjects to demonstrate "good reason" to merely obtain a handgun or rifle. So with Hitler's legions poised to cross the English Channel, the British people were defended by an ill-equipped and defeated army and a "Home Guard" armed with little more than sporting shotguns and pikes." - this is the past I'm referring to......, as well as the past described below via the English documents listed that found their way into the US Constitution.



As mentioned previously, the number of firearms deaths in the US per year, versus the total firearms deaths ever recorded in the UK (including during The Troubles), would indicate that more guns = more deaths.

Nope, because this this is simply an un-truthful comment and as anyone actually looking at the number of deaths in Britian by firearms would conclude.



Do you think that it was a mistake that the interpretation of the Second Amendment (and it is an interpretation), was to give all citizens the right to possess any kind of weaponry, for any reason? Had it been interpreted differently, many thousands more Americans now dead, would still be alive.

Again nope, for I read everything -
Of all the powerful memories and emotions the Founding Fathers brought to the constitutional debates, apparently none was stronger than their fear of standing armies. As David Young has observed: "The necessity of an armed populace, protection against disarming of the citizenry, and the need to guard against a select militia and assure a real militia which could defend liberty against any standing forces the government might raise were topics interspersed throughout the ratification period."
Yet, in the absence of a standing army, how was the nation to defend itself from external or internal aggression? The Founding Fathers understood this would be accomplished by a militia. But what kind of militia?
Here is a typical Anti-federalist view, expressed by Richard Henry Lee (writing under the pseudonym "The Federal Farmer"):
"A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine [ ] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia ― useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…."




Perhaps Americans are slaves to gun ownership?

Sorry but while you are most assuredly entitled to "your" opinion, in this particular case one must be more well read on the actual "words" used in the US Constitution, which came from, was a compilation of and includes words from the "1100 Charter of Liberties" (Henry I), the "Magna Carta" (King John, 1215), the "Petition of Rights" (King George, 1628), the Grand Remonstrance of 1641" (King George) and finally the "Bill of Rights of 1689" (King George III) - all of which one might note are "British" texts and contracts between the British people and the Rulers, Kings and Queens of England. There is an excellent book, written by a lady named KrisAnne Hall called "Essential Stories for Junior Patriots 2nd Edition", only 80 pages, $15 from Amazon here: https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Storie ... 1483933385 - and no it's not to insult you, but if you are truly interested in learning from the past - then this is a good start as it in someway deals more with England than with America and it's always good to learn.

I also suggest "The 5000 Year Leap", by W.Cleon Skousen for Americans actually interested in the history of the "principals" that America was founded on...

Prema wrote:

SDLRob wrote:Closest I've come to firing one is a BB assault rifle at an adventure course place...

Gotta admit i'll never understand why an average, everyday American needs an assault rifle... I can understand people having a handgun or a shotgun or even someone in a more remote area with a rifle to handle hostile critters.... but an Assault Rifle?

I particularly remember one moment, when I was in the Army. Long time ago. Well, there was this dude. He was insignificant in any way you could think... small and bodily meager, ugly face, of a very low education, from a poor background and social situation. Very insecure, you couldn't get his eyes meet your eyes. But then, when we were up to our arms, an instant transformation would occur. He would straighten his shoulders up, erect his body, sharpen his eyes... he was another person. It was the assault rifle. He felt himself powerful and worth, at least as anybody else.

I suppose many folks do get a kind of a "kick" out their assault riffles, and the more of those, the merrier..

Although I suspect you guys actually know this already - the term "Assault Rifle" is NOT the proper term to describe any of the weapons I have shown above: (Wikipedia reference information shown below)

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. Assault rifles were first used during World War II. Though Western nations were slow to accept the assault rifle concept after World War II, by the end of the 20th century they had become the standard weapon in most of the world's armies, replacing full-powered rifles and sub-machine guns in most roles. Examples include the StG 44, AK-47 and the M16 rifle.

The term assault rifle is generally attributed to Adolf Hitler, who for propaganda purposes used the German word "Sturmgewehr" (which translates to "storm rifle" or "assault rifle"), as the new name for the MP43, subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44 or StG 44. However, other sources dispute that Hitler had much to do with coining the new name besides signing the production order.] The StG 44 is generally considered the first selective fire military rifle to popularize the assault rifle concept. Today, the term assault rifle is used to define firearms sharing the same basic characteristics as the StG 44.

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

It must be capable of selective fire.
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such.

For example:

Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 200 yards.
Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL battle rifle are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges.


NONE of the firearms pictured above meet the criteria shown above as they are ALL semi-automatic rifles and pistols.

medgar wrote:

F1nut wrote:You're not free because you have guns, just more significantly more likely to be shot by one.

While you are entitled to your opinion and I'm not inclined to attempt to change that - I have been shot before and I know there are only 2 types of people in the world:

1. those that run away when shots are fired, a bomb goes off or a lady or child screams for help etc...
2. those run "toward" the same or similar circumstances

I have no opinion whatsoever as to which type of person you are and can only truly "know" myself. I was raised to believe in god and doing what's right and I do my best to live that way, no matter the cost. You are free to live whatever way ya chose, I made mine long ago and am too old to change.

moby wrote:It may be worth reading this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912



Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, but little gun-related street crime..


Paraphrased, but you still get one

I think the key thing is the attitude of constantly having guns on your person, rather than pure ownership. If people keep their guns, unloaded & in the house we're unlikely to have as much of an issue.

Ennis wrote:

moby wrote:It may be worth reading this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912



Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, but little gun-related street crime..


Paraphrased, but you still get one

I think the key thing is the attitude of constantly having guns on your person, rather than pure ownership. If people keep their guns, unloaded & in the house we're unlikely to have as much of an issue.

Quite a good point. You actually reminded me that two close friends of mine posses guns. Once upon the time, they were into sport shooting, and so they acquired guns. But that was all they did with those, going out occasionally to a shooting range, training and competitions. I too went with them few times on training, trying my own interest in it (they wanted pulle me into, but I opted stay out... too much hassle). But then they both gradually lost the interest (too much hassle , and since then the guns have been locked in the safe boxes in years by now. I completely even forgot that they even possess the guns (and they too, I believe).

F1nut wrote:

medgar wrote:

F1nut wrote:You're not free because you have guns, just more significantly more likely to be shot by one.

While you are entitled to your opinion and I'm not inclined to attempt to change that - I have been shot before and I know there are only 2 types of people in the world:

1. those that run away when shots are fired, a bomb goes off or a lady or child screams for help etc...
2. those run "toward" the same or similar circumstances

I have no opinion whatsoever as to which type of person you are and can only truly "know" myself. I was raised to believe in god and doing what's right and I do my best to live that way, no matter the cost. You are free to live whatever way ya chose, I made mine long ago and am too old to change.

Funny that you would put together "shots fired" and "bomb goes off" on one side, and "a lady or child screams for help" into the same basket, in terms of running towards or away.

Anyway, I think I know what was that that you tried to tell us with it. That there are 2 types of people in the world, 1. cowards and 2. brave ones. And that you are the brave one (which was kind of apparent already from those pics. of your guns).

Prema wrote:Funny that you would put together "shots fired" and "bomb goes off" on one side, and "a lady or child screams for help" into the same basket, in terms of running towards or away.

Decades ago, responding to a woman's screams outside a restaurant in their parking only to find what I initially thought was a man beating a woman between two vehicles resulting in me being shot and him being killed seconds later, (turned out he had a revolver in his hand, finger on the trigger, with the intent to kill her right there - all unseen as I approached from behind between vehicles and snatched him off her) - my carry firearm was never drawn, as there was no time. Difficult to forget something like that, so now ya know why....

F1nut wrote:

Prema wrote:Funny that you would put together "shots fired" and "bomb goes off" on one side, and "a lady or child screams for help" into the same basket, in terms of running towards or away.

Decades ago, responding to a woman's screams outside a restaurant in their parking only to find what I initially thought was a man beating a woman between two vehicles resulting in me being shot and him being killed seconds later, (turned out he had a revolver in his hand, finger on the trigger, with the intent to kill her right there - all unseen as I approached from behind between vehicles and snatched him off her) - my carry firearm was never drawn, as there was no time. Difficult to forget something like that, so now ya know why....

That would be an extraordinary story (maybe not so for Texas?). Who shot you, and who killed the guy seconds later?

But I do not see the reason to extrapolate that universally, put the two on the same step, and make that a "standard" that to tell who is doing what's right and who not. Hearing a lady or a kid screaming for help, yes, run to check out (a terrible luck if you get shot, but a good luck then if not fatal) even if you don't carry. But the shots fired somewhere there, think twice first. Think thrice first. Or better, think 5 times before you rush there with your gun. And don't rush at all if not carryng a gun, but take a safe distance and call 911.
(I guess, we perhaps have a different understanding of "right" and "wrong")

Prema wrote:

F1nut wrote:Who shot you, and who killed the guy seconds later?

Her estranged husband (long history of abuse and criminal charges, turns out) - I was responsible for his death - the altercation took mere seconds, the resolution of being cleared and the worry of those matters took many weeks and my recovery mentally took far longer than physically.

God watches over those that do right.

ps - ain't nothing to be proud of IMHO.....

F1nut wrote: Her estranged husband (long history of abuse and criminal charges, turns out) - I was responsible for his death - the altercation took mere seconds, the resolution of being cleared and the worry of those matters took many weeks and my recovery mentally took far longer than physically.

God watches over those that do right.

ps - ain't nothing to be proud of IMHO.....

Tough. Knowing me, I don't know whether I would be able to handle it mentally long after. Thanks for sharing.

I still don't like guns, I was brought up by a father who had to carry one because of his job (and bring it home often), and I would get a huge tell off anytime I got closer to it (even though it was unloaded, of course). I have shot pistols, shotguns, MGs, assault rifles and had the chance to have a go with bigger things, but I didn't find it pleasant, too much responsibility.

A society isn't any better by having guns, you only get a higher chance of getting shot or killing somebody and have to live with it. I live in a country with a high restriction on firearms, to be more precise I live in a town that used to be a NATO naval base (now it is more a cruise destination), in my city we use plenty of fireworks for almost every ceremony. So there was this time when American sailors were passing by a a cathedral door when a wedding was taking place, then fireworks went off, nobody got scared because nobody thought it could be gunshots except the American sailors, they fled in horror until they realised there was no real danger! Why? Because they have to deal with that level of strees in their homeland, they have it so internalised that they are not aware of it.

@F1Nut: not gonna use the nested quotes, as things get too long

Just wanted to say that my first and last sentences were a little tongue in cheek, but I appreciate that this isn't obvious in typing - no "tone of voice" so to speak.

Curious as to why you say the number of deaths by firearms is untruthful. For the UK figures, got the numbers where I could from the Office of National Statistics (ie the UK Government), the rest from media (not gospel, I'll admit). For example, the total homicides due to firearms in England Wales and Scotland, 2001 - 2015 is 779 (NI dont give separate firearm related homicides, but the overall total, whatever the method used, for the same period, is 443). For 2015, firearm related deaths in the US exceeds 13, 000. (Media provided figures, so perhaps to be taken with a pinch of salt. Hopefully not a bucketful mind, so assuming they're in the right league).

To be fair, couldn't be bothered doing too much deep research to verify all of the figures - it's just an internet forum and (I like to kid myself) I have a life, so just trusting people to be reasonably accurate with figures.


Also, this bit:

F1nut wrote:
Again nope, for I read everything -
Of all the powerful memories and emotions the Founding Fathers brought to the constitutional debates, apparently none was stronger than their fear of standing armies. As David Young has observed: "The necessity of an armed populace, protection against disarming of the citizenry, and the need to guard against a select militia and assure a real militia which could defend liberty against any standing forces the government might raise were topics interspersed throughout the ratification period."
Yet, in the absence of a standing army, how was the nation to defend itself from external or internal aggression? The Founding Fathers understood this would be accomplished by a militia. But what kind of militia?
Here is a typical Anti-federalist view, expressed by Richard Henry Lee (writing under the pseudonym "The Federal Farmer"):
"A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine [ ] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia ― useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…."



Would the italicised bit at the end not imply that, if the American people are given the right to bear arms, then they should first be trained how to use them?


Have really enjoyed your contributions to this thread - it's refreshing to get a thought out, reasoned argument from a gun supporter.

And, btw, I will read those books you recommended - give me a few weeks

To be fair, couldn't be bothered doing too much deep research to verify all of the figures - it's just an internet forum and (I like to kid myself) I have a life, so just trusting people to be reasonably accurate with figures.

This reminds me of this videoclip:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBtXL9NAPXk[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBtXL9NAPXk

I've served in the army but haven't held a gun since. Though I have many friends who hunt I can't imagine why you'd want to build up an arsenal like the OP has. I don't mind people owning guns if they have a good reason to (can't really imagine any other reason than hunting) and keep them in a locked cabin at all times. Owning assault rifles and handguns, especially carrying them around is just asking for trouble.

chican wrote:This reminds me of this videoclip:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBtXL9NAPXk[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBtXL9NAPXk

The ACTUAL number of firearms deaths in England and Wales was 49 in the 2005-2006 reporting period and 56 in the 2006-2007 period and one can see the data here: http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports ... ce-uk.html

Covalent wrote:I've served in the army but haven't held a gun since. Though I have many friends who hunt I can't imagine why you'd want to build up an arsenal like the OP has. I don't mind people owning guns if they have a good reason to (can't really imagine any other reason than hunting) and keep them in a locked cabin at all times. Owning assault rifles and handguns, especially carrying them around is just asking for trouble.

It’s called Gun Collecting and while I am reticent to give the actual number, those pictured above are simply a few of the firearms in my collection. That said I really do wish that you had taken the time to READ the entire thread here as you would have not misused the term “assault rifle”.

Some folks invest their money in stocks and bonds, mutual funds, automobiles, clocks and a whole plethora of odd things – the purpose being not always that they like or are infatuated with the items/objects collected, but to some extent as an investment. I collect firearms, knives and swords for they, like those that collect gold, silver and other precious metals reliably “appreciate” in time and become more valuable with age. Purchased wisely at a low price these collections have far more value today than when they were purchased.

Nothing is finer than holding in one’s hand a 700 year old koto Japanese katana, signed by the man that made it or that of a custom made rifle capable making 1000-1200 yard shots consistently. These things are not all that different from getting to set behind the wheel of Juan Manuel Fangio’s, Jackie Stewart’s or Michael Schumacher’s World Championship winning cars and I have made the analogy above between drivers and shooters, unless ya missed it.

I THANK everyone that has contributed to this discussion; whether we share opinions or disagree, the one thing hopefully we have in common is that we all love and enjoy F1 racing and while for myself that is closely tied to precision shooting it dang sure ain’t no requirement.

ps - NO proper collector or responsible gun owner lacks a proper gun safe to store and house his collection in IMHO

F1nut wrote:

chican wrote:This reminds me of this videoclip:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBtXL9NAPXk[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBtXL9NAPXk

The ACTUAL number of firearms deaths in England and Wales was 49 in the 2005-2006 reporting period and 56 in the 2006-2007 period and one can see the data here: http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports ... ce-uk.html

Covalent wrote:I've served in the army but haven't held a gun since. Though I have many friends who hunt I can't imagine why you'd want to build up an arsenal like the OP has. I don't mind people owning guns if they have a good reason to (can't really imagine any other reason than hunting) and keep them in a locked cabin at all times. Owning assault rifles and handguns, especially carrying them around is just asking for trouble.

It’s called Gun Collecting and while I am reticent to give the actual number, those pictured above are simply a few of the firearms in my collection. That said I really do wish that you had taken the time to READ the entire thread here as you would have not misused the term “assault rifle”.

Some folks invest their money in stocks and bonds, mutual funds, automobiles, clocks and a whole plethora of odd things – the purpose being not always that they like or are infatuated with the items/objects collected, but to some extent as an investment. I collect firearms, knives and swords for they, like those that collect gold, silver and other precious metals reliably “appreciate” in time and become more valuable with age. Purchased wisely at a low price these collections have far more value today than when they were purchased.

Nothing is finer than holding in one’s hand a 700 year old koto Japanese katana, signed by the man that made it or that of a custom made rifle capable making 1000-1200 yard shots consistently. These things are not all that different from getting to set behind the wheel of Juan Manuel Fangio’s, Jackie Stewart’s or Michael Schumacher’s World Championship winning cars and I have made the analogy above between drivers and shooters, unless ya missed it.

I THANK everyone that has contributed to this discussion; whether we share opinions or disagree, the one thing hopefully we have in common is that we all love and enjoy F1 racing and while for myself that is closely tied to precision shooting it dang sure ain’t no requirement.

ps - NO proper collector or responsible gun owner lacks a proper gun safe to store and house his collection in IMHO

It's been a pleasure, and I thank you

Fired guns a few times, even though I'm British and have never been in the military or on a farm.

First was a .22 Enfield No.8 rifle. Pretty low caliber.

Second was an L-98, the cadet version of the British Army's SA-80

Then I went to Phoenix and fired a whole bunch of stuff. Litterally walked into a gun club and they gave me a Glock 35, a 44 Magnum, a semi-automatic shotgun (that had one hell of a kick), an AK47 and an MP5. Literally handed over my credit card and they gave them to us, no background checks or anything.

As much fun as I had on the range, my overriding emotion on leaving was hoping I'd never be in a situation where people were using guns on each other.

Come on, man. This thread wasn't necessary. Getting so worked up over nothing...

I will say this, though. I like the guns you have. Nice color, too. I personally don't see anything wrong with owning so many guns if all you do is go to a shooting range and fire at targets, which is quite fun from my own experience, or are just into the details of the guns (which I recently have found can be quite fascinating, like how guns reached their final designs, why certain materials were used, the similarities and differences between guns intended for the same purpose, etc.), so I'm not going to hound you about that. To me, it's not much different than collecting cars or motorcycles.

F1nut wrote:

chican wrote:This reminds me of this videoclip:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBtXL9NAPXk[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBtXL9NAPXk

The ACTUAL number of firearms deaths in England and Wales was 49 in the 2005-2006 reporting period and 56 in the 2006-2007 period and one can see the data here: http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports ... ce-uk.html

Thanks, but just to clarify, the video was shot in 1993 (no data from that year), I wouldn't take a music video as a serious reference, but what it says doesn't seem to be over the top in any direction.

To be completely pedantic the things in the first post aren't actually guns at all. They're rifles... This is a gun and I'll go out on a limb and say most in here have never seen one and none have actually fired one.

Blackhander wrote:To be completely pedantic the things in the first post aren't actually guns at all. They're rifles... This is a gun and I'll go out on a limb and say most in here have never seen one and none have actually fired one.

You just made me flashback to the "This is my rifle, this is my gun. One is for killing, the other's for fun." chant from bootcamp.

I was a mortar man in the Marines so I've definitely fired guns before.

RaggedMan wrote: I was a mortar man in the Marines so I've definitely fired guns before.

High Angle Hell !

11C
TexasANG

4th July 2017, a special day in the USA, over 100 people killed in Chicago. One of the benefits of owning a gun?

Poker wrote:

RaggedMan wrote: I was a mortar man in the Marines so I've definitely fired guns before.

High Angle Hell !

11C
TexasANG

I was in 81's so we got to fam-fire everything in the weapons company arsenal. Good ole Ma Deuce and M-47 Dragons, the SAW was just coming online when I got out but got to play with some of those too.

My son just got out of NM NG last year. He was MP but his unit was set up pretty much as force protection rather than law enforcement so he was checked out on all kinds of stuff that didn't even exist when I was in the Corps.

Since my father was a cop I have been around weapons all my life. One of my first memories was learning to clean a Browning. When I was ten I was finally allowed to go plinking for groundhogs, and my involvement has increased, to the level that I have handled and fired many weapons. I am still associated with people who use weapons for their proper purpose, and I'm darn proud of them. But as a civilian, guns have no part of my life.

Nut talks about the lessons of history, but ignores the basic fact that WW1 established conclusively that no civilian organization can stand up to a trained and equipped military.

Guns do not solve society's problems, they only add to more graves and weeping family members. The proliferation of weapons only escalates tense situations into lethal confrontations.

F1nut wrote: Nothing is finer than holding in one’s hand a 700 year old koto Japanese katana, signed by the man that made it or that of a custom made rifle capable making 1000-1200 yard shots consistently. These things are not all that different from getting to set behind the wheel of Juan Manuel Fangio’s, Jackie Stewart’s or Michael Schumacher’s World Championship winning cars and I have made the analogy above between drivers and shooters, unless ya missed it.

I absolutely agree with this, and can understand the synergy with guns. I can understand wanting to own guns, or even use them, much like my swords. But nothing gives me any entitlement to take my weapon into public where it becomes a threat to other people, and the same is true with your guns.

Similarly, nothing gives anyone the right to take that Ferrari F2004 on the road, and it would be a stupid thing to do.

As a police officer I fired guns as part of the training. I can't say that it is the best thing in the world. These things are made to kill, and that is something you are easy to forget when shooting for fun. Shooting targets is different than using it in real life situations. It's not fun anymore when you draw your firearm and you have done so to shoot a man. It will never be easy to walk with the thought but knowing the situation would have been much worse if you haven't shot the man gives the firearm a reason for being there. But leaving a bitter taste.

If you haven't seen a gun that's good. If you've never fired a gun that's fine too. There is nothing special about them and any fool can pull the trigger. Having said that, they can also save lives in the right hands.

Verstappen33 wrote:As a police officer I fired guns as part of the training. I can't say that it is the best thing in the world. These things are made to kill, and that is something you are easy to forget when shooting for fun. Shooting targets is different than using it in real life situations. It's not fun anymore when you draw your firearm and you have done so to shoot a man. It will never be easy to walk with the thought but knowing the situation would have been much worse if you haven't shot the man gives the firearm a reason for being there. But leaving a bitter taste.

If you haven't seen a gun that's good. If you've never fired a gun that's fine too. There is nothing special about them and any fool can pull the trigger. Having said that, they can also save lives in the right hands.

Well said.

Verstappen33 wrote:As a police officer I fired guns as part of the training. I can't say that it is the best thing in the world. These things are made to kill, and that is something you are easy to forget when shooting for fun. Shooting targets is different than using it in real life situations. It's not fun anymore when you draw your firearm and you have done so to shoot a man. It will never be easy to walk with the thought but knowing the situation would have been much worse if you haven't shot the man gives the firearm a reason for being there. But leaving a bitter taste.

If you haven't seen a gun that's good. If you've never fired a gun that's fine too. There is nothing special about them and any fool can pull the trigger. Having said that, they can also save lives in the right hands.

They can also escalate situations, even in the right hands. How many people would still be alive if the cops approaching weren't armed in the first place? How many situations could have been de-escalated, how many innocent people wouldn't have been caught in any crossfire?

Unfortunately armed civilians make armed cops necessary.

Ennis wrote:

Verstappen33 wrote:As a police officer I fired guns as part of the training. I can't say that it is the best thing in the world. These things are made to kill, and that is something you are easy to forget when shooting for fun. Shooting targets is different than using it in real life situations. It's not fun anymore when you draw your firearm and you have done so to shoot a man. It will never be easy to walk with the thought but knowing the situation would have been much worse if you haven't shot the man gives the firearm a reason for being there. But leaving a bitter taste.

If you haven't seen a gun that's good. If you've never fired a gun that's fine too. There is nothing special about them and any fool can pull the trigger. Having said that, they can also save lives in the right hands.

They can also escalate situations, even in the right hands. How many people would still be alive if the cops approaching weren't armed in the first place? How many situations could have been de-escalated, how many innocent people wouldn't have been caught in any crossfire?

Unfortunately armed civilians make armed cops necessary.

I disagree with this. If a 'baddie' is armed, he waves the gun and the police officer backs off. OK, he may get away, but on one gets shot. If both are armed, someone usually gets shot. (and sometimes neither of the above)

moby wrote:

Ennis wrote:

Verstappen33 wrote:As a police officer I fired guns as part of the training. I can't say that it is the best thing in the world. These things are made to kill, and that is something you are easy to forget when shooting for fun. Shooting targets is different than using it in real life situations. It's not fun anymore when you draw your firearm and you have done so to shoot a man. It will never be easy to walk with the thought but knowing the situation would have been much worse if you haven't shot the man gives the firearm a reason for being there. But leaving a bitter taste.

If you haven't seen a gun that's good. If you've never fired a gun that's fine too. There is nothing special about them and any fool can pull the trigger. Having said that, they can also save lives in the right hands.

They can also escalate situations, even in the right hands. How many people would still be alive if the cops approaching weren't armed in the first place? How many situations could have been de-escalated, how many innocent people wouldn't have been caught in any crossfire?

Unfortunately armed civilians make armed cops necessary.

I disagree with this. If a 'baddie' is armed, he waves the gun and the police officer backs off. OK, he may get away, but on one gets shot. If both are armed, someone usually gets shot. (and sometimes neither of the above)

I agree on a small scale. I think the risk of a criminal having a gun, should not necessarily mean that every cop goes armed (as you said, most guns don't get fired).

I think when huge swathes of the population is armed, as in the US, then an armed police force almost becomes a given.

I also hate self-defence teachings, which involves both guns & proactive defence. This is instilled in the armed police forces, which I understand as you shouldn't risk getting shot, but it also encourages a confrontational approach and results in people being shot based on a very small risk of someone else's gun being fired.