Guns

[ledhed]

I having had personal experiance actually using my weapons in a self defense situation on several occasions am VERY glad the were not Suppressed.

a 12 guage shotgun makes one hell of an impression . Just having it ...after a few rounds it tends to settle things down very fast and alert the neighbors to dial 911 .

And a .45 Glock makes enough noise to attract much needed attention , and DEFINATELY makes one hell of an impression on the miscreants that have created the conditions that have required its use .

I have carried concealed since 1982 ...and cant think of a reason to carry a silenced weapon for self defense...I want to wake up the neighbors and make an impression ...thats just my personal choice . intimidation ...IMO.... can eliminate the need to take more than one target out of play .

But I would LOVE to have one for my basement . Just for target practice .
( living inside a city doesn't give you much room for an outdoor range) .
I have a good 20 yard of space set up now ..but I am limited to .22 long rifle max ...because I cant afford to pay for the sound asborbing materials .
So I will be looking into it further .

 

[Sureboss]

This is going to be a typical question from someone who knows not alot about guns.

Can you suppress Shotguns?

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

This is going to be a typical question from someone who knows not alot about guns.

Can you suppress Shotguns?

No. Unlike what Hollywood would have us think, you can't suppress anything. Pistols work because they are small bore, and have sub-sonic rounds.

Silencers work by expanding the gases before they escape. That's why they are usually very fat. Once the bullet leaves the barrel, it passes through the suppressor, and the gases expand into its larger diameter. This means they escape less compressed, and therefore with less energy to release, making a smaller bang. This also slows the bullet some. With a shotgun, the hole needed at the front of a suppressor would be so large it wouldn't trap gases or sound inside the device very well.

And if your gun uses supersonic ammo, like high-caliber rifles, all the shot silencing in the world won't prevent the sonic boom of the bullet giving you away.

 

[Solid Lifters]

This is going to be a typical question from someone who knows not alot about guns.

Can you suppress Shotguns?

You bet. And they do exist. However, they're quite large and make the shotgun a bit lopsided and unbalanced. So, they aren't very popular.

They work because the powder charge of a shotgun is not all that different from a high-powered rifle, so gas volume is not the problem. Bore diameter is a problem. But, with a large enough can size (the first 'chamber' of a silencer is called a 'can') you could have enough volume to trap the gases.

They work well with both slug and buckshot. Actually, they act as a choke tube and make the buckshot pattern tighter. A few pellets might get deformed, actually, but it's not too bad to be a problem. Again, subsonic ammo would be best, but the 'crack' made by transonic or hypersonic ammo is not that loud.

Silencers for shotguns cut down a lot of noise and like all other silencers reduce felt recoil. But, their bulky, heavy size is a huge drawback. They work, but aren't very practical.

 

[Josh]

ledhed- I wouldn't ever carry a suppressed weapon for defense, either. However, my home defense weapon will be suppressed as soon as the paperwork is approved.

A few companies have made shotgun suppressors, but not very succesfully. I believe the latest would be TROS USA. They had one on a Saiga12 if I recall correctly. Looks cool as hell, but not too sure of its effectiveness.

On a side note: I'll be leaving for North Carolina in a few hours. While I'm there with my wife and her family I'll be open carrying my M&P45 in a blackhawk CQC serpa carbon fiber holster. If anyone here is a local to the Onslow County/Jacksonville area look for me on the news! I hear the Sheriff absolutely hates people open carrying in his area - even though it's completely legal for anyone over 18 to do - without a permit.

I'll be the one in cuff's laughing.

 

[ledhed]

ledhed- I wouldn't ever carry a suppressed weapon for defense, either. However, my home defense weapon will be suppressed as soon as the paperwork is approved.

A few companies have made shotgun suppressors, but not very succesfully. I believe the latest would be TROS USA. They had one on a Saiga12 if I recall correctly. Looks cool as hell, but not too sure of its effectiveness.

On a side note: I'll be leaving for North Carolina in a few hours. While I'm there with my wife and her family I'll be open carrying my M&P45 in a blackhawk CQC serpa carbon fiber holster. If anyone here is a local to the Onslow County/Jacksonville area look for me on the news! I hear the Sheriff absolutely hates people open carrying in his area - even though it's completely legal for anyone over 18 to do - without a permit.

I'll be the one in cuff's laughing.

👍

I like the noise .

 

[EJRocky]

Speaking as a UK citizen here... I reckon that Gordon Brown should ban completely guns being sold to people who have criminal records, previous drug use, anything, if it isn't already. That means that us public could buy guns and shoot burglars...

 

[red70mach1]

Due to the laws in my state by these lawmakers here in Sacramento, law-abiding citizens get hit really hard with some laws that are stupid in comparison to Arkansas or Nevada.

 

[V1P3R]

"Blaming guns for deaths is like Rosie O'Donnell blaming her fork because SHE'S FAT!"

http://video.google.com/videosearch...S:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv#

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

This is completely off line of what others are talking about, but with regards to the thread poll topic, I kinda wish guns were never invented and we still used swords and bow and arrows etc etc.

 

[Swift]

This is completely off line of what others are talking about, but with regards to the thread poll topic, I kinda wish guns were never invented and we still used swords and bow and arrows etc etc.

Then it would be a debate about the right to carry swords or other weapons. That's what the founders of the USA were concerned about. The public not being able to defend itself.

 

[Omnis]

This is completely off line of what others are talking about, but with regards to the thread poll topic, I kinda wish guns were never invented and we still used swords and bow and arrows etc etc.

Bow and arrow is still deadlier than most bullets.

And I'm glad guns were invented, because swordfights would be grossly unfair.



50 seconds in.

 

[Joey D]

This is completely off line of what others are talking about, but with regards to the thread poll topic, I kinda wish guns were never invented and we still used swords and bow and arrows etc etc.

You realise we could just as easily kill each other with sticks and stones?

Guns, as an object, aren't the issue, it's the misuse of some of the people who acquire them. Even though a large majority of gun owners are responsible, you never hear about them. I mean how "entertaining" would a new story be if you heard of a guy properly storing and maintaining his firearms? Probably not vary, but if you hear about a guy who shot up a supermarket then you become interested. The media portrayal of guns makes them look bad, when in fact they are no different then most other tools.

 

[YSSMAN]

You realise we could just as easily kill each other with sticks and stones?

That, and I think you can easily argue that swords/knives and crossbows are nearly more-deadly than guns to begin with.

Consider that the 800,000 who died in Rwanda were mostly hacked to death with machetes, very few were killed with the more "conventional" (ie, AK47) method. The primal use of a weapon such as that, at least for me, is far more terrifying than a gun. If you don't know how to use a gun, what else are you going to do, throw it at someone?

Guns are a necessary evil. We can't help it that there are idiots out there who can't use them properly.

 

[Sureboss]

I feel I may be playing with fire here, so please don't rip me a new one...

You can run away from someone with a machete, if they have a gun, they always have a range advantage.

*runs from scary gun-toting Americans

 

[FoolKiller]

I feel I may be playing with fire here, so please don't rip me a new one...

You can run away from someone with a machete, if they have a gun, they always have a range advantage.

Which is why it is good to allow law abiding citizens access to the guns that criminals will procure anyway.

Or why it is a good idea to allow citizens standing up for their rights against an unjust government to have the guns that the tyrannical military will have anyway.

Basically, gun restrictions prevent the innocent from having proper defense against those who wish to take advantage of them.

I mean, if a guy is willing to commit murder I doubt that gun possession restriction he just violated will concern him too much.

 

[Sureboss]

This isn't a confrontational post, but I can say that I feel perfectly safe without carrying a gun. Can't base an opinion on what it's like to be living in America, never lived there and only visited there for a few days on holiday when I was 4.

I know there has been quite a big debate on it state side (always has been, hasn't there?), would you say it's still a pro-gun majority?

 

[daan]

Guns.

Sureshot.

hehe.

 

[Danoff]

would you say it's still a pro-gun majority?

No, but luckily it's not an issue that can be voted on.

 

[FoolKiller]

This isn't a confrontational post, but I can say that I feel perfectly safe without carrying a gun.

Many Americans feel safe without a gun too. That doesn't mean those who want them shouldn't be allowed to have them.

would you say it's still a pro-gun majority?

It is hard to tell. Being in Kentucky we have a huge pro-gun base. But then we have a huge number of hunters too.

If I had to guess though, I would say it is not pro-gun majority nationwide.

Fortunately, the founders recognized that people would eventually forget why that right is important and put it in the document that lays out precisely what rights are to not be infringed upon.

 

[Sureboss]

Guns.

Sureshot.

hehe.

I really should get it changed to SureBoss after the Nono...

 

[Stevisiov]

I really should get it changed to SureBoss after the Nono...

Looks like someone needs to be beaten at the dixie...

 

[Joey D]

This isn't a confrontational post, but I can say that I feel perfectly safe without carrying a gun. Can't base an opinion on what it's like to be living in America, never lived there and only visited there for a few days on holiday when I was 4.

I know there has been quite a big debate on it state side (always has been, hasn't there?), would you say it's still a pro-gun majority?

I feel safe enough without a gun, although I do know and have practiced getting a fire arm very quickly in case of a break-in. Our home has been broken into once before and they took pretty much everything of value, if someone had been home the intruder probably would have ended up dead. In the state of Michigan you are allowed to defend your property if you feel threatened, as long as you aim to stop and not to injure. So basically it's aim centre mass and work your way up. If you shoot an intruder in the leg, it's harassment and you can be charged. I don't have a burning desire to off someone, but I'd rather it be them then myself or my family.

My mom, dad and myself all have taken a firearm safety course, been trained in the firearms we own, and go to the range frequently. The safest way to be around a gun is to know what to do with it and if you need to use it you don't panic. With that said though none of use carry a gun in public since there isn't a need to. I feel pretty safe, in general, in the area we live in. However, if I were to go north to Flint or south to Detroit I probably wouldn't feel as safe...especially in Flint. But like every area there is always going to be the good and bad.

I would say in many part of the states there are a lot of pro-gun people, but I realise that in others it can be very anti-gun. Both sides have decent arguments but when it boils down to it the Bill of Rights allows citizens to own them and I don't see that every changing. I do think people should get more training and education on firearms though since it would help prevent accidental discharge as well as stolen gun from citizens who legally own them. Our firearms are locked in a gun safe, out of sight of anyone, invited, coming into our home. The less people that know where they are the better.

I feel that many people are way to lack about gun safety and don't have the proper training to handle the firearms they own. I don't even like to fire a gun that I haven't at least observed the characteristics of. Responsible gun ownership is the key in the states and it's what we should work towards.

There is always going to be a problem with the baddies getting weapons, banning guns altogether wouldn't prevent that.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Re: All who replied to my swords comments.
At least with swords you need to be close to attack. And bow and arrows at least are not normally as accurate as a gun, and you can survive an arrow to the body quite easily, so long as infection doesn't happen. Luckily medicine ha advanced. My main reason for medieval weapons choice is that they are harder to learn to use skillfully (meaning less people are skilled with them) and their battles look cooler.

 

[Joey D]

You can survive a bullet wound just as easily as you can survive an arrow wound. I know a couple of people who have been shot (one during a hunting accident) and they are still living just fine.

 

[YSSMAN]

...And I don't know about you guys, but I think I'd rather be shot than stabbed or hacked to death by some sharp object...

 

[Omnis]

Fortunately, the founders recognized that people would eventually forget why that right is important and put it in the document that lays out precisely what rights are to not be infringed upon.

But therein lies their biggest mistake in that they did not make the Constitution a teaching document.

 

[Omnis]

Re: All who replied to my swords comments.
At least with swords you need to be close to attack. And bow and arrows at least are not normally as accurate as a gun, and you can survive an arrow to the body quite easily, so long as infection doesn't happen. Luckily medicine ha advanced. My main reason for medieval weapons choice is that they are harder to learn to use skillfully (meaning less people are skilled with them) and their battles look cooler.

Didn't you watch my video? I'd rather have a gun than to have Chris Yang invade my house with a sword.

If all you can do is run, how the hell are you supposed to protect what's yours? Barbarism is more likely to exist when weapons are hard to come by and when available weaponry requires a highly-skilled user. You need a lifetime of training to be a swordsman proficient enough to protect yourself and your property. Guns just require a lot of ammo and enough skill to point and shoot.

(sorry for the double post)

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

...And I don't know about you guys, but I think I'd rather be shot than stabbed or hacked to death by some sharp object...

Maybe, but if WW3 broke out I'd rather go onto a battle field knowing I that unless someone is right beside me they can't harm me after that first round of arrows which you can at least see coming and try and avoid. As opposed to being shot by a bullet you didn't even know was aimed at you, and bleeding to death in the immense pain of the wound and impact.

Didn't you watch my video? I'd rather have a gun than to have Chris Yang invade my house with a sword.

If all you can do is run, how the hell are you supposed to protect what's yours? Barbarism is more likely to exist when weapons are hard to come by and when available weaponry requires a highly-skilled user. You need a lifetime of training to be a swordsman proficient enough to protect yourself and your property. Guns just require a lot of ammo and enough skill to point and shoot.

(sorry for the double post)

But correct me if I'm wrong here, isn't it that ease of use and access that makes it so easy for fellons to commit crimes and murder? Imagine if you were in a store, and someone who has been pushed to the edge in life (therefore not likely have trained his whole life just to do one robbery) pulls out a sword/knife and tries a hold-up. He threatens to kill anyone who moves etc. when the store-keeper pulls out a sword he has behind the counter (which he has trained with to protect his store) and tells the robber to leave. Out-numbered and out-skilled the robber is left with no choice other than to make a run for it. No one is hurt, nothing is robbed.


On the other hand, same incident, with guns now. The store-keeper has no time to draw his weapon as it would only take half a second for the robber to pull that trigger and end his life. The robber makes away with the money, and if anyone tried something funny a life could be ended in a heart beat.

I agree that death by gun is going to hurt much less than death by sword. But it's the prevention of death at all that I favour medieval weapons for.

 

[Casio]

As cool as it would be to see someone hold up a store with a Morning Star or something. Is the robber just going to stand their with a sword to the shop keepers throat while the shop keeper fumbles around trying to draw his sword? I think not.