open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked So, What kind of Firearms do you own?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Author Topic

Dorian Tormak
M0N0LITH
Posted - 2011.08.20 18:37:00 - [91]
 

Originally by: Ai Mei
Originally by: Dorian Tormak
Up here in Canada it's OK to be a gun nut because we aren't Petarded like the USAers.I mean, seriously, you guys can't even hold your alcahol down there and shoot accurately at the same time, noobs.
yeah but see we have the wheel and don't have to go catch a moose or a polar bear when we need transportation.


You're just mad because you know we use Toyotas and they are much better than Chevy, etc...

Originally by: Bane Necran
Originally by: Dorian Tormak
Up here in Canada it's OK to be a gun nut because we aren't Petarded like the USAers.I mean, seriously, you guys can't even hold your alcahol down there and shoot accurately at the same time, noobs.
On behalf of all of Canada, i beg you to stop posting.


You must be one of those Maple Leafs fans with the small koks!

Ai Mei
Starfish Operating Syndicate
Posted - 2011.08.21 01:45:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Dorian Tormak
Originally by: Ai Mei
Originally by: Dorian Tormak
Up here in Canada it's OK to be a gun nut because we aren't Petarded like the USAers.I mean, seriously, you guys can't even hold your alcahol down there and shoot accurately at the same time, noobs.
yeah but see we have the wheel and don't have to go catch a moose or a polar bear when we need transportation.


You're just mad because you know we use Toyotas and they are much better than Chevy, etc...

Originally by: Bane Necran
Originally by: Dorian Tormak
Up here in Canada it's OK to be a gun nut because we aren't Petarded like the USAers.I mean, seriously, you guys can't even hold your alcahol down there and shoot accurately at the same time, noobs.
On behalf of all of Canada, i beg you to stop posting.


You must be one of those Maple Leafs fans with the small koks!


Actually i owned a chevy truck for over 20 years and had it only break on me once. Damn thing had no AC/ no cruise control, cloth seats, and only an AM radio. It was a real truck. Too bad no company makes a real truck like that any more.

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.08.21 02:47:00 - [93]
 

I used to be very interested in everything weapons.
Then I did military service.
Been cured ever since.

Bek Thyron
Posted - 2011.08.21 05:30:00 - [94]
 

You guys. I seriously envy you. Need better gun laws here in Germany. :(

Although, i collect cs-gas hand weapons. Have a nice collection, BUT: They are not "real guns" - weight and feel is OK, but, dont look in the barrel :(

Oh well. At least i served long enough in military to have a chance to use a good amount of rifles. (Loved the hk g3 btw, DAT RECOIL XD, although, the g36 is a very, very nice thing to have. And military versions have full auto.)

By the way, how is it in NA: Are you allowed to OWN things like...this? Or, flamethrowers in general? What about using?

mr id
Caldari
Black Rise Service Group
Posted - 2011.08.22 15:14:00 - [95]
 

a lot

Ymirus
Minmatar
Fly Drunk
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2011.08.23 13:45:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Blacksquirrel
Originally by: Ymirus
The only people who own guns (outside of police and army) here are criminals. It really is that simple.
I for one quite enjoy the fact that firearms aren't commonplace.


Ahh good thing then cause no one gets bludgeoned, stabbed or run over with cars as a means of intentional murder... Oh wait. I was also under the impression criminals had to actually break the law first. I hope you never get into a position of power be medieval times all over again.... "Well chaps time to burn some heretics again!"

"Why?"

"Why?... Because they think different from us!"


Someone got stepped on their tippy toes by my post it seems. Luckily you don't jump the gun or spout drivel with only a small piece of the entire picture!

Owning a gun over here is only allowed if you have the proper licence, which is only given out for very good reasons. These do not include protecting your home from the evil king of England looking to invade, or because they look shiny and you enjoy the bang they make. In other words, getting a licence is damn near impossible. As such, any regular Joe owning a gun is breaking the law simply by the fact that he owns a gun.

Why you felt the need to include crime in your post when I made no mention of it is a bit of a questionmark too, but that's probably there to draw attention away from your poorly argumented trolling. As for the whole personal bit, that's just making you look pathetic and silly, since nowhere did I claim these were my laws, nor whether or not I supported them.

Glad you made yourself look like an infantile brat?

Malcheus
Posted - 2011.08.23 21:09:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Ymirus
Originally by: Blacksquirrel
Originally by: Ymirus
The only people who own guns (outside of police and army) here are criminals. It really is that simple.
I for one quite enjoy the fact that firearms aren't commonplace.


Ahh good thing then cause no one gets bludgeoned, stabbed or run over with cars as a means of intentional murder... Oh wait. I was also under the impression criminals had to actually break the law first. I hope you never get into a position of power be medieval times all over again.... "Well chaps time to burn some heretics again!"

"Why?"

"Why?... Because they think different from us!"


Someone got stepped on their tippy toes by my post it seems. Luckily you don't jump the gun or spout drivel with only a small piece of the entire picture!

Owning a gun over here is only allowed if you have the proper licence, which is only given out for very good reasons. These do not include protecting your home from the evil king of England looking to invade, or because they look shiny and you enjoy the bang they make. In other words, getting a licence is damn near impossible. As such, any regular Joe owning a gun is breaking the law simply by the fact that he owns a gun.

Why you felt the need to include crime in your post when I made no mention of it is a bit of a questionmark too, but that's probably there to draw attention away from your poorly argumented trolling. As for the whole personal bit, that's just making you look pathetic and silly, since nowhere did I claim these were my laws, nor whether or not I supported them.

Glad you made yourself look like an infantile brat?


So you can only have a licence for good reasons, but what good reason do you have to own multiple firearms other then "because they look shiny and you enjoy the bang they make."
Or are you going to select just the right gun out of your not-to-be-underestimated collection of defensive toys when momma grizzly comes running at you? Because I do believe pepperspray works better against her.

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2011.08.24 05:48:00 - [98]
 

Pepperspray deters a bear.
Shotgun with slugs, STOPS the bear.

Effectiveness depends entirely on the motivation of the bear, which can range from everything from 'curiosity' to 'startled' to 'starvation'.

Would you seriously trust pepper-spray over the pump-action 12ga to deter a starving bear? No, I didn't think so.

On the whole licensing thing...

Do you have much luck getting career criminals to apply for firearm licenses in your country? Its just so insultingly illogical. Citizens that are willing to submit to any license/registration scheme are *by definition*, not the people that are liable to cause problems with firearms.

You have to realize that firearm license schemes are not about crime at all. That is merely how the big-government nanny statists justify them.

It is merely just another form of control, more shackles for the masses who desire safety above all else.

Allowing citizens to freely arm themselves will, invariably, bring a certain degree of carnage - but that is the price of liberty.

The Founders trusted American citizens with deadly weaponry. It is admirable, because it assumes a degree of maturity and responsibility on the part of the people.

European states, on the other hand, generally do NOT trust its subjects with firearms. That maturity and responsibility is assumed to simply not be present.

Sad, really. Sad


Malcheus
Posted - 2011.08.24 07:17:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: Herr Wilkus
Pepperspray deters a bear.
Shotgun with slugs, STOPS the bear.

Effectiveness depends entirely on the motivation of the bear, which can range from everything from 'curiosity' to 'startled' to 'starvation'.

Would you seriously trust pepper-spray over the pump-action 12ga to deter a starving bear? No, I didn't think so.




Funny you should say this, because shooting a bear with a shotgun is not at all guaranteed to kill it. It's easy to miss when a bear is storming you, and even if you hit it, you may not even get through the skull.
Pepperspray, or mace, is really effective, since bears have a really sensitive nose they are also really sensitive to
irritants such as pepperspray. Furthermore you can spray for several seconds, which almost guarantees you will hit.

The licensing thing in most countries is not about not trusting the populace, but about keeping the amount of firearms under control. if someone has 8 firearms and a burglar comes by, then off they go to the black market.

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2011.08.24 07:55:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Malcheus

Funny you should say this, because shooting a bear with a shotgun is not at all guaranteed to kill it. It's easy to miss when a bear is storming you, and even if you hit it, you may not even get through the skull.
Pepperspray, or mace, is really effective, since bears have a really sensitive nose they are also really sensitive to
irritants such as pepperspray. Furthermore you can spray for several seconds, which almost guarantees you will hit.

The licensing thing in most countries is not about not trusting the populace, but about keeping the amount of firearms under control. if someone has 8 firearms and a burglar comes by, then off they go to the black market.


Silly. The point of firing slugs is not to penetrate the skull. It is to hit the bear with a projectile with a lot of mass, breaking bones and/or knocking the charging animal down. While there is some debate on high powered rifle (penetration to vitals) vs shotgun (mass of projectile) vs high powered handgun (portability) - the only ones who actually say pepperspray is the most effective are Park Service/Forest Service employees (who don't want bears shot) and greenie backpackers (who are afraid of guns).

I'm confused, so the gun license somehow stops a thief from breaking into your house and stealing your guns?

Hey, I've got it! Why not just cut to the chase and require thieves get a license before they can break into your house! It makes just as much sense. Then you'd have the names and addresses of every thief in the country - would make them a lot easier to fingerprint and track down after they commit a crime. Very Happy


Malcheus
Posted - 2011.08.24 08:09:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Herr Wilkus
Originally by: Malcheus

Funny you should say this, because shooting a bear with a shotgun is not at all guaranteed to kill it. It's easy to miss when a bear is storming you, and even if you hit it, you may not even get through the skull.
Pepperspray, or mace, is really effective, since bears have a really sensitive nose they are also really sensitive to
irritants such as pepperspray. Furthermore you can spray for several seconds, which almost guarantees you will hit.

The licensing thing in most countries is not about not trusting the populace, but about keeping the amount of firearms under control. if someone has 8 firearms and a burglar comes by, then off they go to the black market.


Silly. The point of firing slugs is not to penetrate the skull. It is to hit the bear with a projectile with a lot of mass, breaking bones and/or knocking the charging animal down. While there is some debate on high powered rifle (penetration to vitals) vs shotgun (mass of projectile) vs high powered handgun (portability) - the only ones who actually say pepperspray is the most effective are Park Service/Forest Service employees (who don't want bears shot) and greenie backpackers (who are afraid of guns).

I'm confused, so the gun license somehow stops a thief from breaking into your house and stealing your guns?

Hey, I've got it! Why not just cut to the chase and require thieves get a license before they can break into your house! It makes just as much sense. Then you'd have the names and addresses of every thief in the country - would make them a lot easier to fingerprint and track down after they commit a crime. Very Happy




yeah, why would you believe the people that work in the forest on how to keep bears away....

The thing about gun licences:
If you don't give out licenses, people don't buy ridiculous amounts of guns, so ridiculous amounts of guns don't get stolen and end up on the black market.
Furthermore, if the people of a country are less gun-crazy, there are bound to be less arms dealers, and thus less arms dealers that get robbed.

Oh, and on trust issues:
you say our government doesn't trust us enough to allow us to get guns.
ok.
But we trust our countrymen so much that we don't feel we need to have guns to defend ourselves against them.

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2011.08.24 09:00:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Malcheus
Oh, and on trust issues:
you say our government doesn't trust us enough to allow us to get guns.
ok.
But we trust our countrymen so much that we don't feel we need to have guns to defend ourselves against them.


Don't try to use that argument, it won't work. The guy is apparently still living in the era where the US were a british colony.

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
Posted - 2011.08.24 10:56:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: Herr Wilkus
European states, on the other hand, generally do NOT trust its subjects with firearms. That maturity and responsibility is assumed to simply not be present.

Sad, really. Sad


Hi Wilkus

Its hard to steal land from Indians and Mexicans and French and English (etc..) without guns amirite?

Laughing

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
Posted - 2011.08.24 11:34:00 - [104]
 

There does seem to be an atlantic divide between opinions on guns, as people in the US and Europe are taught polar oposites on the matter from the age of childhood.

Americans seem to be 'paranoid' about the government encroaching on and taking away their 'liberty', and gun ownership somehow prevents this? it has nothing to do with the king of England no matter what your dated constitution says.

There are times and places where i can see gun ownership being a positive or a neccesity, but generally, i dont see why Joe Schmo who lives in Anonymous Suburbia needs a gun.

Pre-empting the 'protection' card that always gets played, its only because guns are so easy to get hold of in the US that you would need one in the first place. Without actually looking at the stats, I bet my entire wage that gun crime is more prevalent per population in the US than Europe because your gun ownership laws are so lax. So its a chicken egg thing, if guns werent so widely available in the first place, would you have needed that gun for protection?

Now, that said, there are several subtle differences between the US and Europe that affect opinions on guns.

1. You in the US seems to have equated gun ownership to liberty and the founding of your nation, which is a hard sentiment to ignore

2. Open space - there is far more open space and 'wilderness' in the US than anywhere in Mainland Europe and the UK, which in turn will lead to more 'neccesity ownership' when faced with the 'hardships' that such an environment will provide

3. Enthusiasts - It could be argued that if gun ownership laws were relaxed here in Europe, then there would be more enthusiasts to 'rally the cause'. I'm not going to lie, firing a weapon is a thrill and can be really fun, and owning guns for sporting and fun reasons shouldnt be a negative. My only concern would be where are these guns kept, how safe are they, and where can they be fired. From my perspective here (in the UK), gun ownership is something of a national sport/hobby in the US, but there is nothing really on a comparable scale in europe.

I think, i can sum it up from an European perspective

1. We dont/wont condone people taking up arms and being judge and jury, that is what the police force and the judicial system are for. (on a personal note, that earlier story about an old man shooting dead thieves for stealing from his neighbors house totally appauls me)

2. We arent scared of guns per se, just the wider availability of guns leading to them falling into the hands of those who would have bad intentions. The wider availability of lethal force to a population will lead to more cases of it being used. Such an example would be a youth in the recent UK riots caught on CCTV firing on police and at a police helicopter, this was big news such is the low occurence of such actions.

to summise, we dont dislike guns, we just dont want idiots pulling the trigger

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2011.08.24 11:51:00 - [105]
 

A lot of this is just people bashing each others cultures.

In Europe - the kings didn't want the peasants armed. That is historical fact. After the turmoil of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries - you didn't have so man kings any more - but the people were used to the idea of having their access to weapons restricted.

The New World was populated in part by people seeking to escape the repression that was common place in the old world. People in the New World who didn't have guns - became victims of that fact, not to mention that they didn't eat as well.

Comparing Old World Cultures to New World Cultures - you're going to have different attitudes towards weaponry. Mostly, it's simply what people are used to. If you grow up in a certain environment, you're used to it and it's found more acceptable to you than it might be to someone from another culture. This is as true of attitudes towards gun ownership as it is towards farting in public.

Because the USA was created by citizen militias that rose up and threw off their colonial power - they associate guns with their liberty. If they had not had guns - they would not have that liberty. Britain would not have left just because we asked them nicely.

The other thing is - we are populated to a large degree by descendants of those people who left Europe so that they wouldn't have someone telling them what they can do. This attitude is reflected in our government - where States Rights was a fundamental issue in it's very structure. The big states thought representation should be based on population - whereas the small states thought each state should have the same numbers of representatives. Thus - the US House or Representatives and Senate - each of which creates laws in parallel - and then must reconcile them with each other before the President signs or vetoes them. Since it's founding - there has been a continual struggle between those who thought more power should be vested in the central government and those who wanted power to be maintained locally. A large reason for the Civil War we fought - was States Rights. People who say that it was all about slavery - are ignoring the entire history of the nation that preceded that war.

Here - when the Civil War started - it was once again local Militias that were formed up into the armies of the contending sides. Each regiment was numbered in some relation to when it was created in it's state. Thus - the 20th Maine.

Today - much of the strength of the American Army comes from National Guard units which can be called out by the Governor of their state - and often are when there is some natural disaster where that units equipment and organization can help.

We are also a nation that still has many wild, open, rural environments - where people hunt animals to feed themselves. For people who grow up in a rural environment in the US guns are something you often begin using as a child. The people who live in these environments are exposed to real dangers from wild animals and other human beings seeking to do them harm - simply because they are so isolated. If you're out living in a county that is larger than some states and only has six law enforcement officers - then if something goes wrong - you are going to be left to your own resources and those of your neighbors for a good long period of time.

Someone living in a crowded nation in Europe - simply has no idea what it is like living in a rural environment in the US.

Guns are a part of our culture. Guns created our culture - without them - it wouldn't exist.


Now ... as to the smart ass that wrote about killing Indians ... you probably don't know a damn thing about that either. There's no space for a lengthy discussion of the subject in this post - but - the fact that there were more whites killed by Indians than there were Indians killed by whites might be a new idea to some. The Indians lost because despite their losses white numbers overwhelmed them.

.

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2011.08.24 11:57:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Skippermonkey
to summise, we dont dislike guns, we just dont want idiots pulling the trigger


I agree with most of your post, but I'll go a bit farther.

I don't want KIDS pulling triggers, because they lack the experience and maturity to handle them properly. Each time I watch some TV documentary about some clueless father putting a M16 into the hands of their 10 year old kid in a firing range, I shake my head in disgust.

There are some arms companies in the US that sell civilian all-up assault rifles and sniper rifles. I even heard about one gun whose marketing claimed it was easier to clean due to having a grease-resistant handgrip. It also just happended to prevent the formation of fingerprints, with obvious implications where crime is related, but it was still sold.

You might argue that a gun is essentially defensive weapon. Their accurate range is fairly short, and their small weight and size mean they can be brought to bear on their target very fast. An assault rifle or shotgun are certainly not defensive weapons. They are war tools used only to kill other humans, and putting them in the hands of childs, even just for training in a range, should be a crime in itself.

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2011.08.24 12:18:00 - [107]
 

Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk on 24/08/2011 12:23:18


One more thing - the guns are here. We are awash in them. Any idea that we could go to a European style of gun laws ... is simply something that isn't going to happen.

It isn't a chicken of the egg thing. The guns came with the colonials - as they would have died without them - and have been here ever since. In some of your crowded urban areas - you've got a lot different set of laws than you do in states what are more rural.

In any case - there are so many guns here now - that you could not get rid of them if you tried.

Look at the criminalization of ********* and Alcohol. That didn't work.

Most gun laws - don't work now.

Gangs and other criminals have access to machine guns - that are already illegal. Convicted Felons - already are prohibited from gun owner ship. Yet - the Gangs have machine guns and the felons have guns. In a nation where we are already awash in guns - no criminal is going to be dissuaded from acquiring one - simply because there is a law against it. They're already criminals - what they hell do they care about the law?

Some localities require gun registration - do the criminals all go out and register weapons it is already illegal for them to own? No.

The real problem in our culture - is not guns - it is all the people who would rob their fellow citizens. Drugs are a much bigger problem than guns - drugs are something we've allegedly been losing a war against for 40 years. The only reason you have death rates to guns that rival that of automobile accidents - is because of criminals killing each other - mostly over drugs.

The criminals already have the guns. It's already illegal for them to have them. Criminals already deal in drugs - it's already illegal for them to do so. Passing more gun laws isn't going to do anything, any more than all the laws passed against drugs.


What would do something - would be an environment where people had jobs - or real hope for a life that didn't involve crime, either as a criminal or a victim. The thing is - people created the environment we have. People use guns to kill each other - by choice. The gun didn't make them do it.

Look at Norway. What kind of gun ownership laws do they have there? Did that stop someone from using a gun to commit mass murder?

Look at Rwanda. Did lack of guns stop genocide? No. They used Machete's.


What's stupid - is thinking that you can just take one nations laws and way of life and some how have them fully adopted by another nation with an entirely different culture.


It's like laws governing land mines ... they're easy to make and the ideal choice of people who don't give a damn about international conventions. All the anti land mine people are just silly. They aren't going to accomplish anything.

.

Dorian Tormak
M0N0LITH
Posted - 2011.08.24 20:34:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Herr Wilkus
The Founders trusted American citizens with deadly weaponry. It is admirable, because it assumes a degree of maturity and responsibility on the part of the people.

European states, on the other hand, generally do NOT trust its subjects with firearms. That maturity and responsibility is assumed to simply not be present.

Sad, really. Sad


Yeah, because you've totally showed that you can be mature and responsible...Rolling Eyes but maybe you're right; maybe Americans simply are dumber than the rest of the world...

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2011.08.25 05:11:00 - [109]
 

Edited by: Herr Wilkus on 25/08/2011 05:16:57
o/ Skip. Yeah, I've not quite gotten my bag limit on Eskimos yet. They seem to get sneakier every hunting season.

The problem is with idiots pulling the trigger? True. I just consider it a failure when society writes laws with the basic assumption the everyone is an idiot unless they prove otherwise.

Granted, Suddenly Ninjas trades heavily on precisely the opposite assumption.

Originally by: Dorian Tormak

Yeah, because you've totally showed that you can be mature and responsible...Rolling Eyes but maybe you're right; maybe Americans simply are dumber than the rest of the world...


Sorry, you missed the point. I wasn't making a statement about actual maturity levels in either region. EVERY society has its low functioning individuals. That is indisputable.

I was commenting that with respect to firearms:

The US (and state) governments START with the assumption that the average teenage/adult citizen is capable of responsible firearm ownership. (Yes, teenagers.) Your firearm rights can be restricted if you are a felon or are committed. (I think 'sectioned' is the British term...)

European governments start with the assumption that the average citizen is incapable of responsible firearm ownership. Some states allow it, but impose so many rules and expenses that it insures that most law-abiding people will not even bother. Other governments simply do not allow it, forcing otherwise law-abiding citizens to break the law simply to protect themselves (like the Norfolk fellow.)

Criminals in these countries will still get guns, except with an added bonus: they know their victims are not. England/Wales has twice as much burglary and significantly more (from memory, 25-30% more) armed robberies than the USA. And that isn't even factoring in Scotland (4x Burglary rate of USA) and Northern Ireland (higher murder rate than USA).

In short: USA trusts its citizens with firearms unless an individual proves incapable. Europe assumes its citizens are incapable, then forces individuals to prove otherwise. As an advocate of individual freedom, I consider the US philosophy on the matter superior.

Malcheus
Posted - 2011.08.25 13:35:00 - [110]
 

I don't think our (european) government neccesarily thinks all their citizens are incapable of responsibly handling guns. It's just that if you apply the same rules as Americans, some people who are incapable of doing so will get their hands on guns. Added to that, there is no real benefit of allowing people to arm themselves.

Therefore, our governments made the (in my oppinion just) descision to sacrifice the right of the responsible masses to own guns, for the sake of preventing dangerous individuals from acquiring them.

And as far as the "we need to defend our homes from ...." argument goes, that's what we have insurances for here in Europe. If someone comes by and tries to steal my stuff, I'd much rather get my money back from an insurance company, then to attempt to murder someone. Furthermore, attempting to defend my home would not be unlikely to end up in a firefight, if the rules were the same here as in the US.

But you are right, there's no way back anymore for the USA, since there are already too many firearms in circulation there. Luckily there's a booming economy and very little unemployment, so there's no risk at all from people losing it and going on a rampage, or a civil war breaking out. (yes, that was sarcastic)

Caleidascope
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.08.25 13:50:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Malcheus
Added to that, there is no real benefit of allowing people to arm themselves.


That is not entirely correct.

Gun business is business... Firearms require manufacture, so there is an investment into facilities, tools, trained personal. That is jobs. Then there are various accessories, holsters, grips, sights, springs, etc. These also have to be manufactured. More jobs. Finally, like everything else, there is the competitive nature of the human beings. Target shooting competitions, leagues, local competitions, national, international, opportunities to advertise products, sponsorships. Finally. Ammunition for the firearms. It has to be made. More jobs.

The firearms business is mostly dead in Europe. I am sure people in Europe feel better knowing that they can not get firearms and there are fewer jobs for them.

Dr Offensive
Posted - 2011.08.25 15:12:00 - [112]
 

I think people own guns for different reasons:

Collector
Hunting
Home defence

There are plenty of other good reasons to own a gun.

Unfortunately every time some nutter goes on a rampage and kills half the population of a school is it not always the case that they were heavily "into" guns

Woody Hill
Posted - 2011.08.25 15:28:00 - [113]
 

1. PzH 2000 Self propelled artillery (Not running ATM due to a problem with the insurance)

2. TOR-M1 anti aircraft missile launcher (Great fun down at the local model aircraft club)

3. LGM-30G Minuteman ICBM (Its located under my garden shed, the roof of the shed folds back when I want to launch it)

Gavin DeVries
Posted - 2011.08.25 15:57:00 - [114]
 

Currently own three:

Sig P220R .45 ACP - defense and for shooting, because I like to shoot.
M1 Carbine - bought it for historical reenactment, but still own even though I don't do it anymore.
very old Savage .410 shotgun - single shot break-open, was my first gun. Birthday gift the day I turned 7. It's at my parents' house, and I think dad still uses it for pest control from time to time.

I used to own an SKB 12 gauge, from back when I was a hunter, but I lost that in a fire about 3 years ago. I carried the Sig and the M1 out before leaving, and grabbed my computer next, but the smoke was getting bad then so I left the shotgun behind.

Cpt Greagor
Caldari
Liquid Relief
Posted - 2011.08.25 16:14:00 - [115]
 


Alpheias
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.08.25 16:26:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: Cpt Greagor
This is how I shoot my rifles.

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.


That would explain the lack of IQ.

Cpt Greagor
Caldari
Liquid Relief
Posted - 2011.08.25 16:33:00 - [117]
 

Originally by: Alpheias
That would explain the lack of IQ.


Get headshots every time. If I'm lucky I get two.

JordanParey
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2011.08.25 17:38:00 - [118]
 

For now, all I've got personally is a Colt Officers' ACP (3.5" barrel model) that I plan on using to get my CCW license. Picked it up for $400 a few months back, which was a ridiculous deal, and got a set of tritium night sights that I will hopefully have installed today.

We *do* have about 15 other firearms in the house, though:

Ruger Mini-14 (.223)
FN FS2000 (.223)
Springfield Armory XD40
Marlin .22
Remington .22
Mossberg 12ga shotgun
Remington 20ga shotgun
AK47
Enfield bolt-action chambered in 7.62x54R

and a few others I can' remember. I have a functioning brain and functioning genitalia and I have those..

I'm also a firefighter/EMT Rolling Eyes

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2011.08.26 03:46:00 - [119]
 

Edited by: Herr Wilkus on 26/08/2011 03:47:59
Originally by: JordanParey
For now, all I've got personally is a Colt Officers' ACP (3.5" barrel model) that I plan on using to get my CCW license. Picked it up for $400 a few months back, which was a ridiculous deal, and got a set of tritium night sights that I will hopefully have installed today.

We *do* have about 15 other firearms in the house, though:

Ruger Mini-14 (.223)
FN FS2000 (.223)
Springfield Armory XD40
Marlin .22
Remington .22
Mossberg 12ga shotgun
Remington 20ga shotgun
AK47
Enfield bolt-action chambered in 7.62x54R

and a few others I can' remember. I have a functioning brain and functioning genitalia and I have those..

I'm also a firefighter/EMT Rolling Eyes


You realize that this stuff puts you on the current Department of Homeland Security's short list for possible terrorist activity, right? Hope you don't fly very often - Janet Napolitano is watching you!

Yes, even then.

EDIT: Except for the genitalia, pretty sure big sis don't swing dat way. Laughing

JordanParey
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2011.08.26 05:52:00 - [120]
 

CCW permits where I am at do not register the firearm, only the user. So, if I qualify on my .45, I can carry anything up to a .45 but they won't know which firearm I may carry. I fly plenty often and am careful enough to not discharge any firearms within 3 days of a flight (because of those chemical sniffer things they use in airport security now.)


Besides, after my trip to Cambodia/Vietnam/Thailand, I've come to the decision that we do more to scare ourselves than terrorists could ever accomplish. More like Department of Homeland inSecurity.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only