Guns

[otago]

It's not useless... Speaking of crazies, one of my friends was telling me about how some retard pulled a gun on him at our usual car meet last Wednesday night.

When somebody point a gun at you it's too late to reach your own already.

You can rule out this situation without the gun as your friend did. Or you can play cowboy and book the place at nearest cemetery, your chances to outshoot somebody holding you at gunpoint are very slim

 

[Joel]

When somebody point a gun at you it's too late to reach your own already.

You can rule out this situation without the gun as your friend did. Or you can play cowboy and book the place at nearest cemetery, your chances to outshoot somebody holding you at gunpoint are very slim

What about if someone has broken into your house, and set off the alarm, and you have roughly 10-15 seconds to arm yourself? I live in Canada, and we have guns, but ours aren't used for home defense.

 

[Keef]

When somebody point a gun at you it's too late to reach your own already.

You can rule out this situation without the gun as your friend did. Or you can play cowboy and book the place at nearest cemetery, your chances to outshoot somebody holding you at gunpoint are very slim

It doesn't matter if the chances are slim or not. It's the principle that a person should have the right to protect their life, family, and property, depending on the various rules of states here in the US. The principle. What is your point with this post?

 

[Rykon Zero]

If a potential robber faces the idea that almost every house he tries to rob will be armed, that'll at the very least deter him slightly, no? And the idea that it only takes one bullet to kill, and the fact that if you own your house, you generally can maneuver and surprise the robber before he gets to you, won't that make robbers even less apt to enter a house against the owner's will and steal his things?

Just my feelings.

 

[Famine]

If a potential robber faces the idea that almost every house he tries to rob will be armed, that'll at the very least deter him slightly, no? And the idea that it only takes one bullet to kill, and the fact that if you own your house, you generally can maneuver and surprise the robber before he gets to you, won't that make robbers even less apt to enter a house against the owner's will and steal his things?

Just my feelings.

UK home burglaries 2005 - 481 per 100,000
US home burglaries 2005 - 706 per 100,000

 

[Keef]

UK home burglaries 2005 - 481 per 100,000
US home burglaries 2005 - 706 per 100,000

It doesn't matter to me if it's a more dangerous place. I am willing to sacrifice safety for the right to defend my life and property. While a home invasion might be less likely in the UK, when it does happen you're stuck hoping to distract the guy with a spot of tea and a biscuit while you wait for the police and their whistles.

 

[Famine]

...

I wasn't addressing your point. I was addressing StigNumbers' point that burglars would reconsider breaking in where households are more likely to be armed. Which is why I quoted him and him alone. The numbers don't agree with him (where the US and UK are involved at least, since they're the two most comparable cultures with institutionally opposed firearm policies).

 

[Omnis]

Although it's not really a perfect comparison (or contrast) because gun ownership is not a mandate and plenty of burglary victims actually are unarmed. Or at least the burglar is counting on it.

 

[Famine]

Indeed - but StigNumbers referred specifically to "the idea". In the US a household might be armed. In the UK they won't be (unless you're breaking into a farm in Norfolk. And anyway, you'll get away with it). But "the idea" doesn't seem to be a significant deterrent if the statistics are sound.

Edit: I'm sure people know by now that I don't agree with the ban on firearms in the UK, right?

 

[Rykon Zero]

I'm 14, it's an opinion, and even then, it's assuming that burglars are either smart enough or competent enough to think these things through beforehand. My ideal of the lower rates of burglaries is obviously false, but as an advantage, anyone who is so mind bogglingly stupid to get themselves killed or injured in the process of burgling a house is left out of the gene pool, making sure only the smart ones continue. (Yet another opinion, based on what little I know of genetics and the full effect of Darwin's theory.)

At any rate, it's nice to know that I have a nice assortment of weapons to dispatch burglars. Not that I would.

 

[Omnis]

Oh, I see, Famine. Yeah, I guess the idea isn't then.

And for the record, it's never a good idea to make people think you're armed when you aren't.

 

[Keef]

...

I wasn't addressing your point. I was addressing StigNumbers' point that burglars would reconsider breaking in where households are more likely to be armed. Which is why I quoted him and him alone. The numbers don't agree with him (where the US and UK are involved at least, since they're the two most comparable cultures with institutionally opposed firearm policies).

I realize the "guns as a deterrent" theory might be all backwards. Some people don't look it up though so we keep BSing our way through arguments. But the freedom is more important than the danger. It gives you another option, and we all like options.

Except the people who like all decisions made for them, which are likely the same people who support guns being outlawed.

And for the record, it's never a good idea to make people think you're armed when you aren't.

QFT, but is it a good idea to let them know you aren't armed? Because they might still be anyway. Obviously if they know you're probably armed they're going to arm themselves if they're determined enough, but that's better than he arming himself for the fun of it while you're clean out of luck.

 

[otago]

It doesn't matter if the chances are slim or not. It's the principle that a person should have the right to protect their life, family, and property, depending on the various rules of states here in the US. The principle. What is your point with this post?

The point is quite simple. Criminals always make a first move, this is a main problem with self defence.

Principles and theory are fine, sadly real life is quite different. If somebody point a gun at you and asking 20$ it's a matter of losing 20$. If you try to follow your principles it immediately turns into matter of losing your life instead 20$.

If you own a gun it doesn't mean your rights are save, it only means you are going into shootout with 50:50 chances at best. Fine when you are in grave danger, stupid in all other cases

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Principles and theory are fine, sadly real life is quite different. If somebody point a gun at you and asking 20$ it's a matter of losing 20$. If you try to follow your principles it immediately turns into matter of losing your life instead 20$.

What if there's a witness who also has a gun?

 

[otago]

I'm 14, it's an opinion, and even then, it's assuming that burglars are either smart enough or competent enough to think these things through beforehand.

The real burglars pick up houses before, usually close to some big road to make easy escape. Then make sure nobody home, get the stuff and disappear.

Anybody who attempt armed burglary is extremely dumb by definition. This is low life criminals, not professionals.

What if there's a witness who also has a gun?

I remember the story of some guy who steped forward when some other guy decided to try his assault rifle in shopping moll and see how many people he could kill.

This guy made a shot or two, missed, than got 7.62 rifle bullet and died at place. Handguns are not good against rifle, it always worth to weight your chances before

 

[Joel]

The point is quite simple. Criminals always make a first move, this is a main problem with self defence.

Principles and theory are fine, sadly real life is quite different. If somebody point a gun at you and asking 20$ it's a matter of losing 20$. If you try to follow your principles it immediately turns into matter of losing your life instead 20$.

If you own a gun it doesn't mean your rights are save, it only means you are going into shootout with 50:50 chances at best. Fine when you are in grave danger, stupid in all other cases

I don't know about you, but assuming i had a concealed weapon, it would be used as a last resort. If I was held at gunpoint for 20$ i would sure as hell give up 20$. IMO, always "go along" with the criminal. An iPod isn't worth your life.

 

[otago]

I don't know about you, but assuming i had a concealed weapon, it would be used as a last resort. If I was held at gunpoint for 20$ i would sure as hell give up 20$. IMO, always "go along" with the criminal. An iPod isn't worth your life.

If somebody cares so much about his own life, he should buy bulletproof west. That will really make a difference.

I have a feeling that guns for many is something like a symbol. They buy it, put it somewhere and think they are fine now, all rights are protected. Not even bother to get some skills on shooting range.

 

[Famine]

I remember the story of some guy who steped forward when some other guy decided to try his assault rifle in shopping moll and see how many people he could kill.

This guy made a shot or two, missed, than got 7.62 rifle bullet and died at place. Handguns are not good against rifle, it always worth to weight your chances before

In that situation, you're dead anyway. The guy wants to kill as many people as he can! Until he runs out of ammunition or his gun jams, everyone in the room is dead. So your chances are none at all.

Far better that someone in the room is armed and tries to take the guy down. That person's odds might not improve - rather than being just another target, they become a priority one - but they're already nil to start with. And of course had he been a better shot...

 

[Azuremen]

If somebody cares so much about his own life, he should buy bulletproof west. That will really make a difference.

I have a feeling that guns for many is something like a symbol. They buy it, put it somewhere and think they are fine now, all rights are protected. Not even bother to get some skills on shooting range.

Spoken like a person that has no experience with guns. Being that I live in a gun friendly area, with numerous hunters, I can tell you for fact almost everyone that owns a gun regularly practices. Myself included.

Further, I know there are studies that have shown that where gun ownership tends to be higher, crime rates are generally lower. No one wants to break into a house or steal a car if there is a good chance the owner also has a shotgun or handgun.

 

[Omnis]

Not to mention an armed citizenry was supposed to keep the government in check.

 

[Keef]

Principles and theory are fine, sadly real life is quite different. If somebody point a gun at you and asking 20$ it's a matter of losing 20$. If you try to follow your principles it immediately turns into matter of losing your life instead 20$.

You've misunderstood the principle i was talking about. The principle is not necessarily to use the gun in a situation like that. The principle is to have the right to use the gun.

Here in Ohio we have a Conceal and Carry law. You must take a gun safety class, a gun proficiency class where they find out if you can shoot the thing, and you obtain a license that allows you to carry a concealed weapon somewhere on your body. The point is not so everyone goes around shooting each other. The point is that a person has a right to protect their own life if they feel it is in danger. There are many restrictions, if you end up shooting someone you have to go to court to prove this and that, and it's a process.

Anyway, if somebody came up to me, put a gun to my head, and asked for $20, I'd probably give him the money. Even if I was carrying a gun, it's not worth the trouble. He told me what he wanted, so I'll give it to him. Hopefully he'll go away without a confrontation. Hopefully I never have to use that gun that I might carry with me. But I do have the option. Even if I never have to use it I'm glad to have the option, whereas many people around the world are simply not allowed to even have the option.

If you own a gun it doesn't mean your rights are save, it only means you are going into shootout with 50:50 chances at best. Fine when you are in grave danger, stupid in all other cases

Like I said, the point is not to use the gun. The point is to have the option to use it if need be. It's a decision that a responsible gun owner must make, just like how a police officer must decide if his or her life is in danger.

And if the thought didn't occur to you I'll remind you something about where I live: we do have that conceal and carry law. I have no idea who is licensed to carry a concealed gun in public. They're normal people just like me, with a straight head and clean record. When you get to thinking about it, everyone around you walking down the street might be carrying. No big deal.

 

[FoolKiller]

UK home burglaries 2005 - 481 per 100,000
US home burglaries 2005 - 706 per 100,000

Can we get some IQ stats with those?

The point is quite simple. Criminals always make a first move, this is a main problem with self defence.

So, are you suggesting that we all just cower in the corner and let the bad guys do whatever they want? You did just lump all self defense into this statement.

Personally, if someone comes into my home and attempts to do something awful to myself or my family he will have to kill me to pull that off. Gun or no gun, I will attempt to make that criminal's first move his last if he wants something other than physical objects.

Principles and theory are fine, sadly real life is quite different. If somebody point a gun at you and asking 20$ it's a matter of losing 20$. If you try to follow your principles it immediately turns into matter of losing your life instead 20$.

You do not understand what a principle is. A principle cannot change. It is a truth. The principle here is that we, as human beings, have the inalienable human right to posses a means of self defense, in this case a gun. No man, government, or God can take that away. If a man is holding me at gunpoint and asking for $20, even if I do not try to pull a gun I still have that right. I can follow my principles, and the principles that founded my country, and still give the man $20. He can't take that away.

And then that guy could be taking that $20 from my wallet in my kitchen, while he thinks I am sleeping, and I could take out a gun (if I owned one) and come up behind him with it and he would be the one at a weapons disadvantage.

If you own a gun it doesn't mean your rights are save, it only means you are going into shootout with 50:50 chances at best. Fine when you are in grave danger, stupid in all other cases

No, but if I own a gun, and choose to use it, it means that I would rather risk my life than give up my rights to another human being.

If somebody cares so much about his own life, he should buy bulletproof west. That will really make a difference.

Sometimes it isn't your own life you are trying to protect.

I have a feeling that guns for many is something like a symbol. They buy it, put it somewhere and think they are fine now, all rights are protected. Not even bother to get some skills on shooting range.

I have a feeling that you haven't read this thread fully after that statement.

 

[Josh]

Gun pr0n... awaiting Aimpoint T1/LaRue mount.

 

[Stevisiov]

Nice 👍

 

[LSX]

Very nice setup Josh, I'd love a flat top AR. Much more versatile in terms of sight options than an A2.

Were allowed to post gun pr0n?

 

[FoolKiller]

Were allowed to post gun pr0n?

If it is legal for you to do so in your country or state. The issue for many is claiming they own one if they are banned in their country.

 

[Danoff]

UK home burglaries 2005 - 481 per 100,000
US home burglaries 2005 - 706 per 100,000

Where did you get that stat? Do they have robbery statistics? That seems like a better comparison.

 

[Famine]

It was actually quite tough to get hold of - not least because UK crime statistics are, and I misquote, in a location equivalent to the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying, "Beware of the Leopard.". And we won't even mention how crimes are classified...

For the sake of clarity and in the spirit only of StigNumbers' thoughts, I stuck with the crime of unlawful home entry which is pretty difficult to reclassify. That said, the UK stats, once again, were hidden in the depths of a document and spread over two years. The official Home Office stats say that UK burglary rates are at about 500/100k for 2005 (robbery is at 100/100k), so I think I did pretty well

Edit: The US stat came, by a circuitous route, from the FBI who reported 2.2m burglaries in 2005.

 

[LSX]

Well here is some more pr0n then...
No EBR's though...

M59/66

My first firearm I purchased myself. I restored it as much as I could. It has a very clean bore, just had rough looking wood and was extremely dirty. It's not like it had much collector value, there are a lot of these rifles in circulation. I don't feel bad about it, besides I like the blond look over the dark red brown it was.

This was free, M200 Sears & Roebuck 12GA.

It had a bent barrel and ho-hum looking wood. I carved the slide handle and stock, stained and lacquered it. I painted the metal with high heat paint, that has held very well. I need to drill and tap it for sights now, just never got around to doing so. But, I'm proud of it, because it was going to just be left to rot, now it sits on a rack.

 

[Danoff]

@Famine

US Crime stats for robberies are 147.6 per 100,000 for 2007. Not sure what the UK stats are. I thought I had something but it fell through. I spotted this though:

A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.
It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.
Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.
By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

Burglaries are likely to go up as criminals become concerned with citizens being able to defend themselves. Robbery is more likely to rise as one feels that they have an physical advantage over those that they might be robbing - as would be the case with an unarmed population.

But one would generally expect violent crimes to rise across the board (rather than just theft) when victims are disarmed. I won't call the above quote conclusive evidence that that has happened, but it certainly doesn't refute the notion.