Paranoia Feeding American Gun Culture

[Michelle]

I thought it was interesting that the guy says...(about carrying one in your belt and one in your ankle holster) If you get disarmed...they never think you have a second weapon...everytime I've had to pull out my ankle gun, they were always shocked....

...or something similiar to that...so...why would this guy have to pull out his ankle gun so often? Curious minds want to know.

Thanks guys.

I was wondering about that too, joc.

He has a good point about being of a mindset your life is more important and unless you have come to the conclusion that you can kill another human having a gun is no good to you. Due to unfortunate circumstances, I had to come to that realization many years ago. I did a lot of soul searching, but when it comes down to them or me and my loved ones...it's going to be them. But, like most cops will tell you, they don't look forward to the day they ever have to shoot and kill someone. Even they get counseling and time off afterwards.

[The Unseen]

Guns are cool. And all of these people who say...you'll have to pry them from my cold, dead hands...not so much. When push comes to shove the vast majority will register their guns and think it is a good idea. And if the government banns certain guns...the vast majority will turn them over and think it is a good thing...because the vast majority of Americans are Proles.

:td: Oh and did I forget :td:

[Yamato]

Where did this plague of majority rulers come from? We really want to pretend that as soon as you're in the group that's 49% or less, you lose the right to do whatever that minority thinks? These illegal Americans would have us all in chains. How unstable would a society become when our rights are dependent on the kool aid flavor of the month? The meandering opinion polls that change constantly? Are you people serious? Let's just pack the rest of our manufacturing base up and send it to China and we'll buy from them according to what the 51% can agree on today? Un freaking believable.

[F3SS]

What concern is it of yours if I want to own enough fire power for a small militia? What concern is it of the Governments? If I am breaking the law otherwise, it might be. But just the mere fact that one possesses a large amount of fire power and ammunition does not make them a criminal....and that is exactly what the Government Plan is...to make that criminal. The Constitution doesn't limit the amount of arms one can have...only that the right to possess them shall not be infringed. The Government is now trying to INFRINGE....that is the whole problem...it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL....and if you want to change the Constitution, there is a way to do that constitutionally...if you want to scrap the Constitution...Welcome To the New Age for real!

Noone ever considers that it might be just plain old fun if you have the money, the permits and the land to own and fire off a machine gun which I imagine is a ridiculously expensive hobby the few partake in and even fewer who own them ever do use them as most probably are just collectors. I doubt any legal machine gun owners have a machine gun for home defense and even if they did who cares? A dead bad guy is a dead bad guy big gun or little and the destruction you could cause on your house with an M-16 is reason enough to use a smaller sidearm.

So many of these antigunners are fixated on semi-auto rifles, especially the AR 15 which I hear uses relatively small caliber rounds. I really don't know TBH. But what's the drastic difference between an semiauto rifle and a semiauto handgun besides possible clip size. It would take all if 2 seconds to switch between two 15 round handgun clips. I think it's the word 'auto' that scares them, semi or not. A revolver holds less bullets but you can still fire them off as fast as you can pull the trigger. Bottom line is these people who think they know what too much fire power is dont know what the hell they're even talking about.

Joc, I'm just bs'n and not necessarily asking you all these questions...

Unless she did the sensible thing: practice every now and then. She would hardly have needed 5 slugs per goon.

Aside from soldiers and law enforcement I don't think the average citizen should be ridiculed for not having enough practice when it comes to these situations. I'm not saying they shouldn't be well versed in safety standards. Imagine your just minding your own business with 3 kids, or whatever, in the house on an ordinary day like any other and some one with bad intent busts down your door and puts you in such a nerve racking situation. It's a big thing to even be able to pull the trigger at all. I know you didn't exactly say this but when certain people hear things like your comment above they take it as she shouldn't have a gun in the first place and the cops, that she never had time to call anyway, should've dealt with it. Just cause she needed five shots to take this dude down doesn't mean she should have the right and the means to try.

Edited January 10, 2013 by -Mr_Fess-

[+joc]

Noone ever considers that it might be just plain old fun if you have the money, the permits and the land to own and fire off a machine gun which I imagine is a ridiculously expensive hobby the few partake in and even fewer who own them ever do use them as most probably are just collectors. I doubt any legal machine gun owners have a machine gun for home defense and even if they did who cares? A dead bad guy is a dead bad guy big gun or little and the destruction you could cause on your house with an M-16 is reason enough to use a smaller sidearm.

So many of these antigunners are fixated on semi-auto rifles, especially the AR 15 which I hear uses relatively small caliber rounds. I really don't know TBH. But what's the drastic difference between an semiauto rifle and a semiauto handgun besides possible clip size. It would take all if 2 seconds to switch between two 15 round handgun clips. I think it's the word 'auto' that scares them, semi or not. A revolver holds less bullets but you can still fire them off as fast as you can pull the trigger. Bottom line is these people who think they know what too much fire power is dont know what the hell they're even talking about.

Joc, I'm just bs'n and not necessarily asking you all these questions...

Aside from soldiers and law enforcement I don't think the average citizen should be ridiculed for not having enough practice when it comes to these situations. I'm not saying they shouldn't be well versed in safety standards. Imagine your just minding your own business with 3 kids, or whatever, in the house on an ordinary day like any other and some one with bad intent busts down your door and puts you in such a nerve racking situation. It's a big thing to even be able to pull the trigger at all. I know you didn't exactly say this but when certain people hear things like your comment above they take it as she shouldn't have a gun in the first place and the cops, that she never had time to call anyway, should've dealt with it. Just cause she needed five shots to take this dude down doesn't mean she should have the right and the means to try.

I never practice. I do however know in my heart that I am well prepared to shoot and kill any number of intruders that break into my house. I don't want to kill anyone...ever. But I would in a New York Heartbeat.

My Uncle was an avid gunsmith, collector, all around good guy. He taught me a couple of things that I will never forget: First...there is no such thing as an 'unloaded' gun. Second: Don't point a gun at anyone unless you are going to kill them with it. Don't ever try to 'wound' someone...if you are going to shoot them...shoot to kill.

[Order66]

I've never owned a gun, but this debate makes me want to go out and buy one just to antagonize self-righteous politicians who keep telling everyone what to do. Maybe this is what's fueling gun sales?

[Sweetpumper]

I've never owned a gun, but this debate makes me want to go out and buy one just to antagonize self-righteous politicians who keep telling everyone what to do. Maybe this is what's fueling gun sales?

Hell yes it is. I've never considered an assault rifle but am now. No one is going to tell me I can't.

[F3SS]

I never practice. I do however know in my heart that I am well prepared to shoot and kill any number of intruders that break into my house. I don't want to kill anyone...ever. But I would in a New York Heartbeat.

My Uncle was an avid gunsmith, collector, all around good guy. He taught me a couple of things that I will never forget: First...there is no such thing as an 'unloaded' gun. Second: Don't point a gun at anyone unless you are going to kill them with it. Don't ever try to 'wound' someone...if you are going to shoot them...shoot to kill.

Hey good for you. The last one is tough though. I don't own, yet, but if someone kicks down my door and I was packing I'd aim at center mass given that I hold my composure and hope I didn't kill them. I'm not sure I could aim at someone's head and shoot. It's such an unpredictable and circumstantial event that who knows what the heck I would or could do. This scenario is they kick the door down and I'm right there to greet them. If it were an all out attack on me or anyone else in the house, including my dog, I'd hope to be more aggressive and determined.

I've never owned a gun, but this debate makes me want to go out and buy one just to antagonize self-righteous politicians who keep telling everyone what to do. Maybe this is what's fueling gun sales?

I couldn't agree more. I feel the same. My lady isn't so keen but now when I bring it up I get 'you do what you want' in the your in for a long guilt trip tone of voice only a woman can produce. Anyhow, yes the liberals are agitating big time. They looking for a violent reaction. Instead they're just getting more people like you and I fired up to rail against them. They're also being out people like these guys who are out showing what open carry really looks like...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/oregon-men-openly-carry-rifles-around-portland-neighborhood-to-make-point-good-idea/ OREGON MEN OPENLY CARRY RIFLES AROUND PORTLAND NEIGHBORHOOD TO MAKE POINT — GOOD IDEA?

I'm not sure that's what I really want to see as a norm but its not illegal and as usual, that's liberalism producing the exact opposite of its stated intent, ie: me, you, 100K new NRA members in a couple weeks, these guys in Oregon...

[Michelle]

Hey good for you. The last one is tough though. I don't own, yet, but if someone kicks down my door and I was packing I'd aim at center mass given that I hold my composure and hope I didn't kill them. I'm not sure I could aim at someone's head and shoot. It's such an unpredictable and circumstantial event that who knows what the heck I would or could do. This scenario is they kick the door down and I'm right there to greet them. If it were an all out attack on me or anyone else in the house, including my dog, I'd hope to be more aggressive and determined.

Unless you are sure what you could do you don't need a gun, dear. You don't shoot at someone hoping you don't kill them. If it comes down to you or them, you have to know what you will do and have to shoot to kill. You don't aim for the head because the odds are against you with it being the smaller target. You never shoot at someone without the intent to kill. Even police don't think like that. Shooting a leg to stop them from coming at you is only for the movies.

[F3SS]

Unless you are sure what you could do you don't need a gun, dear. You don't shoot at someone hoping you don't kill them. If it comes down to you or them, you have to know what you will do and have to shoot to kill. You don't aim for the head because the odds are against you with it being the smaller target. You never shoot at someone without the intent to kill. Even police don't think like that. Shooting a leg to stop them from coming at you is only for the movies.

My good conscience has a way of speaking out sometimes. I could absolutely shoot someone if I needed to. I never want to and if I did, say it was just a relatively harmless thief, I would hope he didn't die. Believe me I'd do the right thing but I just don't find it easy to say I could kill somebody without a second thought.

Being real though, more than anything I just like to shoot targets. It's fun. Defense is a bonus use. ATM it's about being told by the left what I can and can't own and what is and isn't good for me. Then again, when don't they do that?

[Yamato]

Beware of videos telling us about "the psychology of" that can't spell the word psychology.

[Drayno]

I've never owned a gun, but this debate makes me want to go out and buy one just to antagonize self-righteous politicians who keep telling everyone what to do. Maybe this is what's fueling gun sales?

Either people are buying them to be contrary, out of paranoia - as some people would cite, or out of genuine concern for this countries projection and the safety of themselves and their families. It can't be more than those three things.

[AsteroidX]

Either people are buying them to be contrary, out of paranoia - as some people would cite, or out of genuine concern for this countries projection and the safety of themselves and their families. It can't be more than those three things.

Honestly we dont know. It could be the government itself buying up guns and ammo. Itleast in part. And especially ammo and C3 gear.

[+joc]

Hey good for you. The last one is tough though. I don't own, yet, but if someone kicks down my door and I was packing I'd aim at center mass given that I hold my composure and hope I didn't kill them. I'm not sure I could aim at someone's head and shoot. It's such an unpredictable and circumstantial event that who knows what the heck I would or could do. This scenario is they kick the door down and I'm right there to greet them. If it were an all out attack on me or anyone else in the house, including my dog, I'd hope to be more aggressive and determined.

That's exactly where you shoot...center mass...heart! And don't hope you don't kill them...shoot them and kill them, because if you don't kill them...they might pull out an ankle gun and kill you with it...but never aim for the head...and don't hesitate...if you do pull a gun on someone...don't tell them to do jack...just kill them. That's it! Sounds harsh...but remember...they are in YOUR house..uninvited. If someone is well versed in self defense techniques they can take that gun away from you in the blink of an eye from 20 feet away. Before you can even think to shoot...they'll have it. Okay boys and girls...recap...never pull a gun on someone unless you intend to kill them...and when you pull the gun...kill them and ask questions later. Finally, one more thing I'll never forget, is what my conceal carry instructor taught us a long, long, time ago...it's better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six.

Edited January 11, 2013 by joc

[Hasina]

This belongs here too:

Hardy, p. 1237. "Early Americans wrote of the right in light of three considerations: (1) as auxiliary to a natural right of self-defense; (2) as enabling an armed people to deter undemocratic government; and (3) as enabling the people to organize a militia system."

Malcolm, "That Every Man Be Armed," pp. 452, 466. "The Second Amendment reflects traditional English attitudes toward these three distinct, but intertwined, issues: the right of the individual to protect his life, the challenge to government of an armed citizenry, and the preference for a militia over a standing army. The framers' attempt to address all three in a single declarative sentence has contributed mightily to the subsequent confusion over the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment."

Merkel and Uviller, pp. 62, 179 ff, 183, 188 ff, 306. "[T]he right to bear arms was articulated as a civic right inextricably linked to the civic obligation to bear arms for the public defense."

[F3SS]

That's exactly where you shoot...center mass...heart! And don't hope you don't kill them...shoot them and kill them, because if you don't kill them...they might pull out an ankle gun and kill you with it...but never aim for the head...and don't hesitate...if you do pull a gun on someone...don't tell them to do jack...just kill them. That's it! Sounds harsh...but remember...they are in YOUR house..uninvited. If someone is well versed in self defense techniques they can take that gun away from you in the blink of an eye from 20 feet away. Before you can even think to shoot...they'll have it. Okay boys and girls...recap...never pull a gun on someone unless you intend to kill them...and when you pull the gun...kill them and ask questions later. Finally, one more thing I'll never forget, is what my conceal carry instructor taught us a long, long, time ago...it's better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six.

Thanks guys but I do completely agree with ya. I think what I'm trying to say is that I'd hate to take someone's life if all they wanted was my TV. But of course, how am I to know? Maybe they intend on more than that and I'd have to assume so. It would just suck to have to deal with it on a personal level plus I don't want some strange angry ghost floating around my house, lol.

One more thing... I wouldn't think I'm in the movies where you shoot the bad guy and immedidiately take your eyes off him to give your girl a hug. I promise, if I take charge of the situation I'll remain in charge. This is all a bit redundant ATM anyways because all I have is an old but pretty nice single shot pellet rifle that I haven't shot in probably over a decade and an old civil war era shotgun hanging on my wall that is no more useful than a club.

[questionmark]

I've never owned a gun, but this debate makes me want to go out and buy one just to antagonize self-righteous politicians who keep telling everyone what to do. Maybe this is what's fueling gun sales?

Hell yes it is. I've never considered an assault rifle but am now. No one is going to tell me I can't.

Well, looks like you understood the game but are drawing the wrong conclusions. Assault rifles are only useful as man stopper if they are shot full auto. Anything below a .32 (and that is most so called "assault rifles") will cause damage, even death but the effect will not be immediate. With single shots an assailant will just keep coming unless hit in a critical spot (and that requires training and cold blood).

As far as hunting goes, they are way to imprecise to make a good kill.

So, you are buying a famed item that, besides the bragging value, is about as useful as tits on a bull for the purpose of most normal people. If you want a rifle to protect yourself get yourself a classic M1, or anything else above caliber 32. That way you just have to hit the target to disable it. And it will save you a lot of money.

[Hasina]

And even on full auto, aren't assault rifles still pretty lackluster? You have to contend with the continuous recoil, your magazine runs dry lickitysplit, and aiming's the shizz because of, well, that horrible continuous recoil.

[questionmark]

And even on full auto, aren't assault rifles still pretty lackluster? You have to contend with the continuous recoil, your magazine runs dry lickitysplit, and aiming's the shizz because of, well, that horrible continuous recoil.

Yes, but it has the advantage that you don't really have to know how to handle a weapon, you hold it in the general direction and squeeze the trigger, a few bullets will find the target. And that was the general idea at the time when assault rifles were developed. And taken to the epitome by Stalin who insisted that all his soldiers were equipped with automatic weapons arguing that if the average soldier lasts 2 days in combat why should he be trained for weeks, maybe months, to learn to shoot.

[F3SS]

The extent of my experience with a machine gun comes from playing Call of Duty. I know it's not exactly a simulator but short bursts are the only way to be accurate. It's a lot of fun unloading a 60 round magazine with one long squeeze but it's akin to a baby holding a fire hose. You're spraying everywhere but where you need it and if the target's moving you ain't gonna hit it and if the target is still you better hit it immediately or do short bursts. No sane person would use one in their house for protection. You'd tear the place apart.

[+joc]

Well, looks like you understood the game but are drawing the wrong conclusions. Assault rifles are only useful as man stopper if they are shot full auto. Anything below a .32 (and that is most so called "assault rifles") will cause damage, even death but the effect will not be immediate. With single shots an assailant will just keep coming unless hit in a critical spot (and that requires training and cold blood).

As far as hunting goes, they are way to imprecise to make a good kill.

So, you are buying a famed item that, besides the bragging value, is about as useful as tits on a bull for the purpose of most normal people. If you want a rifle to protect yourself get yourself a classic M1, or anything else above caliber 32. That way you just have to hit the target to disable it. And it will save you a lot of money.

Much, much more effective...and scarier if you are looking down the barrel of it, is the pump shotgun he was talking about...point and click...you don't even have to aim...

[Yamato]

Yes, but it has the advantage that you don't really have to know how to handle a weapon, you hold it in the general direction and squeeze the trigger, a few bullets will find the target. And that was the general idea at the time when assault rifles were developed. And taken to the epitome by Stalin who insisted that all his soldiers were equipped with automatic weapons arguing that if the average soldier lasts 2 days in combat why should he be trained for weeks, maybe months, to learn to shoot.

What are you talking about? Do you think that the definition of an assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon now? The assault rifles that are RELEVANT to your constantly meandering arguments about gun control in the US are SEMI AUTOMATIC. You pull the trigger, and ONE BULLET comes out.

Now it's civilians not hitting their target as the flavor of the day to ban the 2nd Amendment? As if that's the problem we need to solve now? What are you doing? Try out some statistics in war like shots fired to enemy KIA or wounded. WWII: ~20,000 bullets expended for one enemy KIA or wounded. Vietnam: ~200,000 bullets expended for one enemy casualty. If the problem is really about rate of fire and sloppy fire and not hitting the intended target, how come all those wildly fired bullets aren't hitting anyone you care about? Because it's an absolute double standard made possible by a bridge burned to the ground between what you wish to impose on free people compared to government employees.

[Drayno]

Now a lovely message from the Left.

[Gummug]

There was an underground effort I think in Western Europe, during the 2nd World War to arm free Jews with small .22 cal handguns. "For every Jew, a .22", the idea being that fighting back against the Nazis became possible. If they were caught and going to be taken, they'd be able to pull their weapon before a weapon was pulled on them. Or more heroically, they could actively hunt Nazis one at a time, pursuing them in the streets, shooting them in the back of the head.

You probably heard about the "liberty pistol"? It was a cheap, mass-produced single-shot .45 with room for extra cartridges in the handle, if I remember correctly. The allies dropped them behind enemy lines if I remember so that the resistance and others could use them to kill the enemy and then take his gun.

Let's see if I can put in a picture:

Edited January 12, 2013 by Gummug

[+joc]

What are you talking about? Do you think that the definition of an assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon now? The assault rifles that are RELEVANT to your constantly meandering arguments about gun control in the US are SEMI AUTOMATIC. You pull the trigger, and ONE BULLET comes out.

Now it's civilians not hitting their target as the flavor of the day to ban the 2nd Amendment? As if that's the problem we need to solve now? What are you doing? Try out some statistics in war like shots fired to enemy KIA or wounded. WWII: ~20,000 bullets expended for one enemy KIA or wounded. Vietnam: ~200,000 bullets expended for one enemy casualty. If the problem is really about rate of fire and sloppy fire and not hitting the intended target, how come all those wildly fired bullets aren't hitting anyone you care about? Because it's an absolute double standard made possible by a bridge burned to the ground between what you wish to impose on free people compared to government employees.

Is there anything...anything? you can comment on without being wound up tighter than a spring in a Clay Pigeon Launcher? ?mark was just stating how in effective automatic machine gun fire can be. I read no where...no where...in the mans post anything about banning automatic weapons. Actually if you followed through on his line of reasoning about the ineffectiveness of automatics like that...there would be no reason to ban them because they would be absolutely useless....I agree with about .5% of things ?mark says...but reading all of that into his statement is just ridiculous.

And don't think I plan on bantering back and forth with you about it...I'm sure you'll go off on me like you do anyone who crosses your highly stressed path.