semi-auto: 99% of all guns? check
Center fire: most guns again? check
Detachable magazine: 80+ percent
Pistol grip: 80+ percent
Folding or telescoping stock: large numbers of portable hunting rifles...
Anti-gun flaming nutcases from the u.s.s.s.ca: yep, check.

When I wake up and hear that california has had the big one and fallen into the sea I'll shed exactly one tear for the one last sane person that didn't get out.

Gah but back to sanity.

Nutlink: It doesn't matter if someone is killed with a gun or killed by bare hands... and before you say its hard to kill someone with your bare hands I can think of at least two ways that an arthritic granny could kill anyone in such a manner... its not that hard. The problem is not guns, explosives ... napalm ... or anything else you are or anyone here can think of, the problem is the fact that mankind is basically selfish and in many cases willing to maim and even kill other humans to gain what they want. Gun ownership is a right because a man has the right to defend himself; and bluntly put how the HELL are you going to defend yourslelf versus a gun when you have none of your own? Yes guns are for killing, and they do a damn good job at it: we live in a very screwed up world and all the hooting wont make a bit of difference.
Exscuse my rudeness, but no friend of my own would be killed by a thug when I'm around if someone pulls a gun on someone and shows intent to maim or kill I'll blow his brains out the backside of his skull. Enjoy it? HELL NO. Likely have nightmares about it for a while.

Pardon my ranting but I can't STAND seeing this kind of thinking.

EDIT:
Why us Neanderthal Idiots Own guns Read the WHOLE thing before you come to counter flame me.

Hnh. Four glasses of tea and I'm back to normal. SM: guns (the entire lot of them) are designed to kill... and those are are designed to kill animals are far more powerful than those to kill us weak little humans. Read My comments about which guns people ought to fear... if at all.

If you become a victim of a crime having to do with guns, then it will most likely be that someone threatens you with a gun. And even if somebody points a caliber .22-pistol at your face it does not matter whether you carry a knife, an assault rifle, a RPG launcher or no weapon at all, you cannot defend yourself

Upside-down thinking.

The clear clink of metal or verbal notice that the potential victim is armed is usually enough to send the criminal running to find better soft targets. My husband and I have personally deterred two criminals this way. Criminals, like predatory animals, don't like to get hurt or worse dead.

Also note that deterrence is already assumed in rural areas...which is one of the reasons crime is so amazingly low there.

I’ve yet to see a liberal hang a “no guns here” sign on their door….”violators will be shot” though is still very common…and respected.


Fox

I wish we would discuss the economic aspects more. Economics are what drive the world, religion and politics are the excuses.

Tyrfing, I must concede that I cannot think of any successful revolution where there was no foreign aid. Even the October Revolution in Russia was dependent on the battle raging on Germany's Eastern Front.

Civil disobedience is an alternative to armed resistance, but a brutal government will simply do as Stalin did. It effects change, but it can be just as horrible as (if not more horrible than) armed resistance!

Armed resistance is infinitely harder to supress. Your enemy is invisible, deadly, and everywhere. As soon as foreign opposition arrives to assist, your position becomes untenable. So it must be a combination of both factors, for a conqueror may never rest until the population is content, for the exact same reason.

For those of you that say that an army wont kill its fellow citizens are completely ignoring history! Soldiers quickly invent ethical loopholes. The United States Civil War has a thousand examples of extreme brutality. Brother fought brother in that war. People crossed state borders in Kansas and Missouri to rape and pillage.

It has happened, it continues to happen, and I can't see a way out! I want to go to Mars! Get me off of this godforsaken rock!

Heh ... Thor... I'd contend that selfishness drives this world. It most certainly drives economics.

Since everybody was talking about criminals who can only be fought with assault weapons, made their own weapons etc., I also assumend a criminal who has enough "criminal energy" to use the weapon

Concerning those "opportunist criminals" I already wrote about this..

Crimes with firearms will never disappear, but you can make it harder to get such weapons (and easier to trace back found weapons), especially for small-scale criminals, without imposing too strict bans...

You just arent getting it Tyrfing: the biggest halter on violent criminal activity is fear of retribution in kind. Crooks understand one thing only: violence.

'Assault weapons' are for those SHTF moments like post-natural disaster and riots, btw. Pocket guns are the ones you use versus the opportunistic criminals.

In reference to guns making it easier for crimes of passion: Many states over here have a 'cooling period' for buying *any* gun of several days to a few weeks, and its made exactly ZIP difference in crimes of passion... when you are pissed off enough to overcom all of your norms you can kill with a frying pan just as well as a gun... and given that you just can't remove all guns from society its just not fair to limit access on said basis. It just doesn't work.

That's true, but that's just an extension of the survival instinct. If you don't protect what is yours, someone will take it.

That said, I find the very idea of shooting another human being appalling. I don't think I'm better than anyone else, nor do I want to rot in jail.

But if I am to begin cultivating ginseng on my property, I will have to guard it. It's not worth my life nor theirs, but who exercises good judgement at all times? I'm not making this up. This is my reality.

It's one thing to love gun control when you live in the city and have police five minutes away. When you live in the country, the police are an hour away, and you are surrounded by sometimes desperate people, it's not the same, is it?

That said, I'll be fine without automatic weapons.

Well...if you stand with a criminal infront of you I agree its much easier to shoot the crook and all is good. I can that. But the easy way ain't always the right way!

@Pht: Its much easier to defend yourself against someone armed with a frying pan than someone armed with a gun. Plus you don't HAVE to kill the attacker. With guns someone will always end up dead. If no one had a gun no one would have to die. You could argue your way out of it by using diplomaty.

Why are you all so trigger happe? (except Tyrfing and Nutlink)

Why is it that you love your guns so much?

Self-defense? You have the police its their job, let them do it and make it easier for them to do it?

Daqar

I dont' know where the hell you get your knowledge from. Crooks understand MORE than violence. Try taking any law enforcement courses, join the Explorer Corps, hell, just talk to any neighborhood officer. As for owning a gun in self defense. I say again, HOW OFTEN DO PEOPLE USE GUNS FOR SELF DEFENSE? I say put a ban on guns to civilians, let the military use them for defense. What if the government decides to turn dictatorship? Who do you think the military is made of, robots? No, it's your average Joe like you or me or anyone else, and what makes you think they would fight for a dictatorship? Also, I don't mean ban ALL guns, just let people keep them for hunting or sporting. That I have no issues with. Also, any of you KNOW how the criminals mind works? Sure, this guy is robbing a bank with a semi-automatic, but what if later on you found out he had no insurance, was dead broke, and his daughter needed an operation to live so he was robbing to get the money? Your view would change, I can bet on that. People kill people, true enough, but guns provide an easy way to do it. Instead of getting in someones face with a blade and getting the victims blood on themselves they prefer to stand 10 feet away and blow them away then turn their backs. I used to be all for freedom of guns, but after becoming an officer I just can't stand the thought of wondering if the next person I pull over is going to have a gun stashed in there.

I agree, guns are almost never used for self defense. A good dog is far better protection. Keeping a loaded gun around is more dangerous to the owner's family than it is to any would-be burglar.



In the country, people use guns to put food on the table. Go spend some time in a poor county. Tell those people to give up some of their most valuable posessions. Tell them to spend several hundred dollars more anually to feed their families!



SS Officers were not special, either, they were just following orders. You can't say that they found special people to do those jobs, because there were too many of them! That wasn't even a dictatorship, Hitler was elected. Andersonville prison was pure horror, just as bad as any concentration camp, and right here in America, during the civil war! Average Joes are capable of extraordinary cruelty.

Look, you can try to ban guns all you want, but you'll be as successful as the ban on drugs. That's working beautifully, isn't it? Pretty soon, everyone in America will be either a cop or a criminal.

Get me off of this rock!

Thorkild - I said I had no problems with guns being used for hunting and sporting, but I didn't really specify that in that remark, so I can understand why you took it as you did. Specific guns for those events, not something with the power to blow thru a person and out the other side. Might as well use a rocket on a rabbit. The thing about the SS Officers as well, even if they WERE following orders, were also shot if they didn't do as they were told. They weren't court martialed or punished in many other ways. Just shot or tortured. And remember, times have changed. People say history repeats itself, but that's only if the lesson was not learned the first time. I agree that the average joe is capable of extrodanary cruelty all too well, but that is mainly because they are pushed into it or it is just something they learned while growing up.

I think some drugs should be legal. At least when people are all coked up then are just hurting themselves, but a looney with a gun hurts others. (Argue all you want about coke heads going crazy and killing or hurting people all you want, but that rarely happens as much as people think. It's not nearly as common as alcohol violence on a percentage scale even).

1. You can say that again...LOL

2. Lets see, twice in my 40 years on this green earth. Of course I don't know how many others passed by my house intending harm, seen the pickup and just though better of it since guns and trucks tend to go together and kept on going. A statistic thats hard to track other than in the amazingly low crime in rural areas.

3. As a bunch of us have said, hunting rifles are more powerful than the banned list of so called but very poorly defined "assault" rifles.

4. I honestly could care less at that point, and you shouldn't either. If I had the chance to stop his sorry butt, and my piece was with me...he'd be dead. We all got our problems, but concern about how his mind got so twisted he thought robbing a bank at gun point was a good idea is pretty much meaningless once he's starts taking the action. I fully support you devoting your peace loving bleeding heart energy into saving his "soul" before he commits a crime...once you fail that task it's time to step aside.





Elwha Fox

That's twice more than 80% of the rest of the US population though Fox. Congrats on it though

The list of guns available for hunting and such should be severely limited. While they are more powerful, they also are harder to conceal. I'm not just talking "assault" guns, but guns in general. I don't want a modified 9mm pointed at my chest when the next guy I pull over decides I'm pulling him over for something other than a traffic violation.

By no means I'm saying that is justifying what he is doing, nor do I think it makes him a "hero" of any sort. I'm just saying that there are other solutions. Not once have I had to fire my gun in the last year as an officer. Any problems I have are solved using words. Communication is key in that line of work. My point is you have to have compassion, you can't just blow someone away because they have a gun. Words are stronger than any bullet could ever be. Bullets just provide quicker, easier, and sometimes even the only solutions. But that is for an officer to worry about, not a civilian. We don't need any rush hour rambos.

I'll definitely agree on the coke thing. I've met drunks that are a far greater danger to society. I met one guy who smashed into a minivan loaded with a family.

He said, "What were they doing on the road at that time of night, WITH KIDS!?"

I said, "Coming home from grandma and grandpa's anniversary, perhaps?"

What amazed me was that after four or five DWIs (DUIs, whatever), and more than one accident, this idiot was still a free man! I think that he finally got his, but whether it was from the law or private justice, I cannot say.

One small clarification from my morning rants: Violent criminals, and for that matter those criminals that use guns in the commsion of crimes, the latter simply for the threat they represent, thats the kind of criminal I'm referring to.

Have a gander

In pdf form

and another

A little more

Kinda busy with a unit meeting but I'm shure I could find more.

Look. When everyone owns guns, the rate of violent crime actually decreases. Analogy: Why did Al-Qaida smash those planes into the WTC, when they could have hit a military base? Because the WTC was a soft target. Lots of missile batteries and guards tend to deter attackers.

There are areas where certain citizens are REQUIRED to own guns. Those places have some of the LOWEST rates of violent crime. After all, a cop's less likely to shoot you than a citizen with a rifle/pistol/SMG/helicopter minigun. He/she doesn't like filling out all that paperwork, right?

If giving up force as a reply to force worked, the world would be a much better and more pacifistic place. Unfortunately, it doesn't work, and the only response to someone who's threatening you sometimes is to get a weapon and shoot them.

Why is it that you always think of shooting the person as the first action?

Daqar

No. Firing the weapon is generally a last resort. Pulling out any medium to large caliber weapon (.50 AE Desert Eagle, etc.) will normally make them reconsider. Humanity's survival instinct is more powerful than any other force that drives us. Making someone stare at their own potential death is a great deterrent.

That was the idea behind extremely cruel punishments in the middle age...effect: zero


The question is just for what they will be used if the population has them...history has shown quite often what happens when suddently the government looses control. And that is not "most people form a civil guard to protect against the few who want to use the situation for their own good"


As I said: you will always be able to get a gun, if you planned the crime long enough, or use something else to kill somebody, if you really freak out. The problem is just that guns (which the people already own) make it a lot easier and that a madman with a frying pan or even a hunting rifle cause as much damage as with an assault rifle

You need to look a little more history Thorkild. For one, SS Officers where actually screened and had extra training/resources so they could "do their job". And Andersonville was not for the most part, a deliberate attemp to cause pain and suffering. The camp was built in a bad area for such a thing, and poorly designed. The thing that made it so bad was it had many more prisoners than it was designed for stuffed into it. I cannot recall the exact numbers but it was very badly overcrowded (by a factor or 4 or 5 times?). Then add in that the states in rebelion where running low on supplies like food. Many Federal POW camps where very bad places to be as well. Of course the massive POW populations where the result of the states in rebelion refusing to treat black prisoners as POW's. The end of the prisoner exchanges that went on near the start of the war had the unintended final result of the horriable POW camps.

As for the theory that more guns equals less crime, what a bunch of BUNK! YOu take a look at places that have a lot of guns. Somolia for instance. Since most of the population is armed it SHOULD be same right? Well, it's not is it. sm

Well....I've had it with this discussion. It makes me too nervous and violence focused. So I'm gonna tone down a great deal here. I might check in a few times to see what ppl say but you'll prolly be spared from my hilarious posts and comical ideas...but before I go I have one thing to say: Take care of each other and show respect. (I know you will but anywayz...)

Daqar

SS Officers were screened and received special training, but there were thousands of them! Do you think that that capability to be remorseless is confined to Germany?

The prison camps of the Civil War were all horrible. They were established by Americans, run by Americans, and filled with Americans!

I am not ignoring history. On the contrary, I think I'm the only one here who isn't convinced that it will never happen again.

I have a law background (german equivalent of a Master of Law and a Bar Exam).

During my education, i was working with the police. I was in the department, that gave weapon licences and confiscated illegal firearms or firearms of persons, which lost their license because of lacking reliability and responsibility.

That gave me the following opinion:

1. Firearms are dangerous.

2. Most people are careless

That is a disatrous combination. Many People accidently shoot themselves or others. Most owners don`t store their weapons in safe places, don´t care for the weapons and see no sense in doing that. So, they loose their fingers, feet and some even their lives or familiy members (i had several of these cases) in gun accidents and you can believe me - they suffer.

All in all, i am really happy to live in a country with very few people hiding a gun in their jacket. I feel safe. The authorities and the police are doing a very good job in my city - be it prosecuting or preventing gun ownage and usage. There is almost no intended gun murder in my region, i never hear a gunshot while strolling some bars and i really want this to be continued.

Well then instead of taking things away from the ignorant masses, why don't we educate them?

It already has happened again...not at such a scale and with the intention to kill a whole ethnic group, but concentration camps have been there under Stalin, in former Yugoslavia etc.

homo homini lupus est and if people are given too much opportunity to live out this instict, they will do.

i want a TMP (tactical machine pistol)....they r so small and cool...especially the 1 from CS

Regarding the ban on "Assault weapons" i must admit i fully sympatize with it, give me just one place where a Civilian need a Military grade peice of equipment ? or for that sake a rifle capable of firing off Military grade rounds such as the 7.62x51mm NATO 5.56 NATO and so on. perhaps for hunting, but most hunters often use other rounds, as these two has a nasty tendency to mess with the internals of the target.

(Military grade as in capable of Full Auto, Burst fire and the like, MG's goes in under this category too, quite frankly. i cant possibly see WHY some texan whould EVER need a M-60 LMG, well. perhaps for braggin rights, but is that a justifiable reason ?)

surely no criminal worth their salt whould ever lug about a full rifle, it is simply too big to conseal and too cumbersome to use at close quaters, a Carabine like weapon like the M4A1 and the AK74U are too rare to be easy to get your hands on and consealment is often still a issue, "true" SMG's such as the MP5,UZI et cetera is much more fitting here, but these are NOT a common weapons, then there are the "silly guns" such as the MAC-10, Mini UZI,Calico and so on. fully automatic in such a small package ? yea right youre gonna hit something more than 10 meters away. this leaves what ? Pistols... and what are most Criminals often using ?, thats right. Pistols, 9mm's and .45's are by far the most popular.

furthermore people often voice the need for access to such equipment as a form of Defence against their own goverment, now personally i find that a utterly paranoid attitude on things in most nations of today, and if the "mood" within the nation say's "revolution" Military grade firearms are often so abbundant that its not even funny.

but what is the Advantages then ? well, first of all there will be less of the generally considered military grade hardware on the street, thus fewer policemen/policewomen need to worry about suddenly see their Kevlar vest peirced by the round out of a AK-74 "liberated" from somebody's home three weeks ago. the likelyhood of people surviving gun related injuries goes up quite a bit, a 9x19 mm will make a hole in your arm, a 7.62x51mm will likely seperate most of your musclemass from that arm.

if americans are truely that worried about their goverment messing with their rights perhaps they schould look at what has been signed off in the PATRIOT act and the like.


GDL_Fox :

lets think of this abit, what is the likelyhood of somebody killing of you, and your entire family ? most burglars hightail it when they are discovered no matter if youre armed or not, of course somebody could hold a personal grudge but then we begin to take likelyhood into account.
does the minute chance of such a situation EVER occuring justify the need to have a fully loaded assaultrifle hidden under the bed ? and surely a normal Pistol can fill out this security need more than adequately if youre truely that worried.


=WC=Kristof Bowen :

if the population's "mood" turns towards the president then i can gauntee you that most of the professional gun runners currently operating in Africa and Asia will pack up and move to Canada/Mexico and ship in arms from there, its surprisingly easy to get firearms into a nation and as long as people are willing to pay the supply of arms will ALWAYS be there, and honestly. the pracitcal difference in battle between a AK-47/74 and a M-16A2 is small.

Daqar : you'd be amazed if you knew how easy it is to get hold of Firearms here, but what is the point in these ? you cant hide them properly, the likelyhood of survival goes down quite dramatically if you use them and in ie, a robbery a good Knife is just as effective, if not more. that is why we see so few firearms related crimes. now personally i can see the idea in banning "blank weapons" as a certain minister proposed earlier, but then, where is the difference between a combat dagger and a Hunting knife ?

Pht :

Irregulars have always, and will always be treated much harsher than Regular forces, there is a huge difference between shooting at somebody when wearing a uniform, and when not. one identifies you as a soldier, the other as a Civilian. the real "problem" with irregular forces is that they force a invading party to view Civililians with a much more suspisous view, because that kid might be polishing your boot, but who knows if he's gonna pull a pistol and shoot you in a minute ?

Rwanda, for instance.

Shrike, you wont see me jumping up and down for the patriot acts. We sit on our high horse, denouncing Muslim fanatics, while our very own Attorney General is an ordained minister.

Sometimes I feel like Sherif Ali, watching El Aurance charge after the retreating Turks:

"God help us."

Again, I must say, please NASA, take me! Send me on a one-way trip off of this rock! The Moon, Gannymede, Mars, anywhere. Get me outta here!

I would like the same, but for the 20-minute lag time while gaming...

I don't support the ban on "assault weapons" because:
First: Anyone with a fair amount of knowledge and completely legal materials can build one
Second: The lawmakers don't seem to recognize or care what assault weapons are.
Third: It has been proven many times over (The "Wild West") that when there are lots of people trained in the use of guns, crime rates decrease.

Oh, and your somalia analogy is untrue because they're not civilians, they're militia working for warlords, which classifies them under "war crimes" and not "violent crime". Yes, there is a difference.

Wow, someone REALLY needs to look up what he is talking about before he speaks.

1) Anyone with that knowledge, yes, but then you dive into organized crime and such. No common criminal off the street is going to know how to build a AK-47. Why should I have to worry about being blown away while pulling someone over vs worrying about if they know how to make the weapon to blow me away? I'd rather they don't have access to a fully made weapon already and be forced to build their own. Less guns in the street. Less is better. Organized criminals are more or less like a military of their own as well, so why shouldn't they have some of the same knowledge as those who possess and create the weapons? Your point is invalid on this one.

2) Just because there isn't a clear definition on the term does not mean they don't know or care what they are. Many of them are hunters themselves and don't want to ban guns completely, just some of the more dangerous ones. I dont' want anything penetrating my kevlar any time soon and they don't want to have to pay for my funeral. Everyones happy.

3) This comment really made me laugh. I'm still laughing. Watch the movie Tombstone and you'll see how the west really was. When I lived in Colorado there were plenty of buildings that had a few bullet holes left in them from gun fights. Do you realize how many criminals there really were back then? Many of them didn't just rob towns, either. They would sit out near a common trail and wait for others to pass by. As they pass, they would steal from them, and more often than not kill them. Go back to history class and ask them about the US in that time. Ask them why people lived in fear, why guns were banned in the first place, and the average age a "law dog" would live.

4) The point is that the what happened cost lives. Get that through your skull first.

FRR_Moon:

As an officer, I couldn't agree more. Many people are careless. Why do you think accidents happen with guns? "I didn't MEANT to point it at his head....I didn't know it was really loaded.....I thought he'd move...." etc. All excuses I've heard in the past that never ended pretty. And to whomever mentioned "re-educating" people, it's not too much their education as it is their morals and level of responsibility.

I've been following this thread for a while now, and I decided to share my thoughts on this matter. Allthough I don't live in the US of A, I do live in a country that has more guns/capita than US. The main difference however is that here everyone can't get a gun licence, you can't buy automatic weapons, and you must keep the guns in a locked space (ie. a safe). There are very few gun inlvolved crimes here. Maby it's a cultural difference. I don't know...

I can easily relate to you Americans in this issue. I can see how banning assault rifles would limit your freedom as individuals. But frankly, do civillians really need assault rifles? I think not. I admit, I would love to buy the same kind of assault rifle I used during my army service, but do I really need it? No. I don't believe anyone does! Self defence or hunting are about the most stupid excucess I've ever heard of. Tell me what does an automatic rifle do better than a pistol, a shotgun or a semi automatic rifle can't do in these situations?

If someone intrudes in to your home, a shotgun would far better suit the situation than an automatic weapon. Atleast thatway you don't have to worry about a stray shot ending up in a family members head in the next room. And if you absolutely have to carry a gun in public place(!) in fear of being robbed, I think a hand gun in a holster or a stun prod would be more handy than a damn gatling gun in a gym bag.

And IF you absolutely have to own a military class weapon, atleast have some training before getting one (army or whatever). Seems to me, many of the gunowners in the US are without any training in the use of firearms. A nasty gun with a trigger happy, paranoid, over patriotic hill-billy on the other end will only lower safety, not increase it!

More guns doesn't mean a more safer environment. If you wan't to hold on to your M4's and XM214's and whatnot, maby you should have more harsher gun ownership laws. But since you don't submit to that either, I think you're ************.

My 2c

just a quik point here then i'll move along........


anyone considering a total ban on all weapons is close to insanity, in the U.S. it would only make victims a much easier target, especially for people in rural areas.

(quote "take the guns away from the citizens, then only the criminals will have them)

for example, those of you who live in cities and towns and densly populated areas depend upon law enforcement personel in 1 form or another for your safety and security, be it at home or work. thusly you feel safer because the police are never too far away to come to your aid.

now if you live in a rural area, and someone mentions law enforcement, generally your going to think "speed trap" simply because in outlying areas the police or in my case sheriff's department and highway patrol are few and far between.
if i call 911 for help because of an armed intruder chances are im gonna look like swiss cheese with a bad case of lead poisoning when they arrive.
i can say this due to the fact that more and more often criminals nowadays are using excessive force right off the bat such as shooting a convenience store clerk just to empty out the register of a couple hundred dollars without hassle.

a month ago someone i work with told me how his friend was murdered at home at night by two intruders with 2 shots to his chest, then they proceeded to pistol whip his wife and rob the house, had his gun been easily accessible and not safely tucked away in the safe out of quick reach he might have had a chance and ther was no way calling the police was gonna save him in seeing how he lived a ways out of town...........

now if you still think stricter gun control is necissary for firearms OTHER than automatic weapons, i seriously doubt your sanity as far as understanding the idea of self defense.

telling someone that when faced with an intruder they should call 911 and never take matters into their own hands CAN be advice that will get you killed.

as far as automatic weapons go........it wont matter whether they are all banned or not, if an individual wants 1 bad enough he will find 1 or find someone who has 1 or modify another weapon to to do what they want,.........anybody heard of a machine pistol, yes thats right, a handgun thats fully automatic,.......i would rather have these individuals running around with automatic rifles than modified automatic pistols. at least then you have fair warning due to the fact its harder to hide a larger weapon.

if you really want to see a drop in crimes involving firearms, then get the government, state and local agencies to enforce the laws already on the books.
there are way too many criminals with access to/ and are buying guns with criminal records.

To get back to th topic, I agree completely that there is no need for fully automatic assault weapons. However, where is the line drawn?

I own a Ruger Mini 30 7.62mm semi-automatic rifle. With the 5-round clip, it is a hunting rifle, but with a 20- or 30-round clip it is more of an assault rifle. There are a lot of rifles floating around like this, guns that could be classified as either / or.

On a side note, we had to kill a cow yesterday. Some people can do this with one bullet, but that was not the case with us. I think we shot it in the head 12 times before it finally stopped kicking. We would walk away from it, then turn around, and it was still kicking and breathing. The horror!

once you've got one into the brain of such a creature its dead Thorkild, its like the "chicken syndrome" where you can behead a chicken and watch it run about, its purely the "instinctive" reaction of the nerve system.
that being sad its pretty strange to watch a chicken body run about on the floor without head, and i properly whould not belive it if it wherent because ive seen it.

The statistics are that besides for saloon shootings--after all, guns and alcohol make for a cruddy mix, right? There wasn't all that much crime there. If they're still decorated with bullet holes, maybe they're more recent. And weaponry is a good deterrent for crime.

MAD worked until today. A personal version should work.

Do you think you would look different if you tried to play the hero?
If your attacker is really willing to use his gun if he thinks he needs to, you HAVE got a problem, whatever you do.

@SST: That it was not reported everywhere at that time, like it is today, does not mean that there was no crime...

When in doubt, you kill the intruder and to hell with the consequences. You can get out of a jail sentence. You can't get out of getting shot up. You don't know what that intruder is going to be doing. Maybe they'll go rape your loved ones, steal everything, and kill you. It's still a kill or be killed game here, and until that changes, we need defenses.

Whoever mentioned the reported stats, thank you. Brought that up before I could. How often do you think people smoke weed? Now how many cases do you think are reported? Stats mean NOTHING, they can be manipulated to fit any case (I take it you are either in middle school or early high school, wait until they teach you stats in college). And yes, guns and alcohol make for a "cruddy" mix, but what would they do if there was just the alcohol and no guns? Someone would be beaten, but they wouldn't have a bullet in their head. And no, they were not recent bullet holes SST, they were on buildings in old ghost towns and even some older buildings in the city. Most had a little memorial thing about how the bullet holes ended up there and who did what to whom for what reasons. Weaponry is NOT a good deterrent for crime. Again, speaking from experience. Any criminal who has a gun and is willing to use it will most likely kill you before you have a chance to bring your gun to bear. Others that have a gun just to get their way but have no intention of using it will flee at the first chance of being caught. Even a creek in the house boards will scare off most criminals as they will think someone is awake. My god, you keep thinking of criminality on a terrorists level! Most crimes are commited by some poor sap who just lost it for a second, decided to go do this with his friends, or needs money. You need to quit playing games like Grand Theft Auto and spend more time in a psychology/sociology class.

And no, not to hell with the consequences. You can get out of a jail sentence, but only under certain circumstances. You need to stop being so paranoid and open your eyes to how society really is. You don't need a gun.

Exactly, SST. You don't know what the intruder might do. What if you end up shooting an innocent person?

Shrike, that's what we were thinking, but I've seen chickens run with their heads cut off, and I don't think that was what we were looking at. If you do it properly, the cow drops and kicks for a minute. We watched this happen and walked back to the truck to get a chain.

The next thing we know, she's kicking even harder and making the most horrible sound I've heard. My pard shoots her two more times, then through the eye with his revolver six times. The kicking and breathing slows down after another minute or two, and we start walking away again, shaking and hating ourselves.

The next thing we know, she's at it again, kicking and trying to raise her head. Two more rifle shots to the neck, one to the juggular and one to the brain stem. Finally, the kicking slows and stops, after a gallon of blood spills onto the ground.

So much for a merciful death. I hope I can sleep tonight. Thanks for listening.

The kind of people who argue for gun rights and stuff are the kinds just looking for an excuse to shoot someone. People have no respect for lives anymore. I mean, if someone breaks into my house to steal something, I'm either gonna let them alone and call the cops, or go yell at them, or beat the ************ out of them and call the cops. I'm not gonna kill them over a frickin TV. I can always buy a new one.
But on the other hand, if some psycho rapist/serial killer with a knife or whatever comes into my house to hurt me or my family, I'll kill them. It's that simple. That's self-defense. Property can be replaced, insured, or whatever. Someone's trying to steal your TV is no excuse to kill them.

All infavor of the assault-weapons ban should watch bolwing for colinbine. I swear we are a scrad a§§ country :-(, why some one needs a ak47 or a m16 in there home is beyond me, what are you tring to stop, a gang of theif's or the russian army like in black dawn?

Huh?

If they are an intruder in your house, they are already not innocent. Given no one has a way to read the intruders mind it's imposible to tell whether intent is to rape your daughter or steal her brand new Xmas TV set. Though most wouldn't shot first without a harsh vocal or a warning shot the bottem line is in those circumstances the intruders life is forfeit...it's that simple.

(And yes, I've been univited into a persons home yelling up a storm looking for someone else after walking into thier unlocked house...but where I'm from it's a high risk manuever.)


Fox

You hear strange noises from the door...the person comes in, moves around as if he was a bit uncertain where to go...you shoot...switch on the light....whoopsie, it was just your son returning from a party...where's the quickload function if you need it?

The only way to "succeed" against an attacker who is willing to use his gun if needed is "shoot first, ask then"...and then such things happen quite often

Wrong. My husband and I have twice used guns to chase intruders away. It works, and we didn't have to shoot one.

You can verify if the intruder has a gun when you line up a clear shot, but have absolutely no way to determine if he's willing to use it before it is too late....and when its your family at risk things become a lot clearer.

You can paint worst case scenerios about just about anything, but I'd never fire at an unclear target....no gun smart person would. It's fundamental rule of gun safety that every school should be teaching instead of failing to educated kids in how to use one of our fundamental freedoms. If gun safety never gets taught, and folks don't misuse thier freedom to carry guns well we've set the conditions for misuse. (gun use is in the same catagory as free expression...and we do teach kids to write and speak, sorta, since we understand that its essential for representative governments).



How did we go so far wrong in this country.




Fox

And the only way to know if the intruder is a thief or a serial murderer is if he/she takes your TV, or shoots you first. The best way to guarantee safety is to make sure you have a way to kill the enemy first. Without a better weapon, the enemy has the tactical and strategic advantage of suprise.
Granted, they might sneak up on you and kill you, but at least this way, you have a chance if you detect the enemy.

In truth, the most defense anyone needs is maybe a pump-action shotgun.