So I got bored and went to a shooting range on saturday. I've been hunting with rifles of many types, but never fired a handgun before so I rented a glock 9mm and a .44 magnum revolver. Holy crap! I started with the 9mm which has a firm kick and is really hard to aim. With the body sized target at 50 ft I could hit it at least but I had no accuracy whatsoever. I was actually more accurate with the .44 but after about 24 shots I think I sprained my wrist! Talk about a friggin' hand canon! I highly recommend everyone should shoot a couple guns at least once in their life.

I highly recommend everyone should shoot a couple guns at least once in their life.

..a popular view which is serving the world so well.

Rob

First it's the guns, then it's the computers (see Cuba)...Keep an open mind.

Alex

Why don't you through some Hitler references in there too. Those are always my favorite when the NRA says "That's the first thing that Hitler did..."

Seriously though, guns are super cool (see Lebanon).

I think we (the US) could learn a thing or two from the UK... could you imagine NYC being patroled by police officers that only carried small clubs?

Yeah the UK sure got it right, make guns illegal so only criminals end up having them. That was about as smart as the US outlawing alcohol.
I think it is amusing when anti-gun people think of you as condoning murder and mayhem because you support the right to bear arms. Do they think people that drive cars are murderers? By that logic they must because thousands die every year from car accidents. Get rid of cars and you save all those lives...
I will never understand why some people can't separate the machine or tool from the human action. Eliminating it will not stop a person from killing another person.

ya take oj for example he used a knife.

OJ?! He is still looking for the "real killers". Remember?!

I will never understand why some people can't separate the machine or tool from the human action. Eliminating it will not stop a person from killing another person.

Right, guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

I actually don't have a side to take on the gun control debate, because both sides have merit. But I did find it interesting that this thread started with a description of a target shooting session where the target was a human silhouette.

...with that logic, let say goodbye to the doctors!

Doctors Kill More People than Autos:
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9911/29/medical.errors/

Tony, that's humyn you sexist pig.

Strange things, those guns... A couple of observations:

The recent war here (Croatia) has left us with a lot of ex-soldiers in possession of light weapons (in spite of that being illegal and numerous half-successful attempts at collecting it). The result is a sharp rise in number of domestic violence incidents, neighborhood disputes and bar brawls ending in shots or hand grenade detonations. (The fact that many of former soldiers - not only them, of course - are without job does not help, either.) Hand grenade is also 'favourite' weapon among posttraumatic stress sindrome victims attempting suicide. Interestingly, this 'trophy' weaponry is almost never used in roberies and similar crimes (still quite rare here).

OTOH, in Switzerland (a country with 150 years of peace and relatively low crime rate) most reservists (say, 20% or so of population) keep their light weapons at home. However, it does not get used for back-yard targeting practice, dispute setling or shooting at an occasional trespassing bum. Kids don't bring it to school, either. It is just safely locked away untill the next military exercise. That fact does not seem to hurt their democracy (nor the fact that Bobbies are not armed hurt British).

It's pitty there is not a reservation where NRA types, radical libertarians and right-wing anarchists could test their political theories in practice (left-wing anarchists would need a separate reservation). I think that many survivors would come out reformed...

Tony, that's humyn you sexist pig.

I haven't heard this one. Are there really people to whom 'human' is not PC enough?

Did YOU say human too?! What is WITH you people!

It's pitty there is not a reservation where NRA types, radical libertarians and right-wing anarchists could test their political theories in practice

Funny, I thought I was living there right now.

It's pitty there is not a reservation where NRA types, radical libertarians and right-wing anarchists could test their political theories in practice

Funny, I thought I was living there right now.

Yeah, I guess one could look at it that way...

Are there really people to whom 'human' is not PC enough?

My favorite is the word "women". PC people change it to "womyn", so that they don't have the word "men" embedded within it.

But what is even funnier is that extreme PC people don't like the letter "y" because it denotes the Y (male) chromosome. So, they spell "women" as "womxn".

Truly absurd.

My favorite is the word "women". PC people change it to "womyn", so that they don't have the word "men" embedded within it.

But what is even funnier is that extreme PC people don't like the letter "y" because it denotes the Y (male) chromosome. So, they spell "women" as "womxn".

Truly absurd.

I hope you are joking (it is Apr 1st today), but then again....

Strange how PC people focus on form (names), not substance. I think that the situation where Indians would have their land and Blacks and Whites equal treatment at courts, similar pay for similar job and free access to education is preferable to one where Native Americans live in reservations and African Americans are order of magnitude more likely to get capital punishment if they kill a Caucasian that vice versa....

I am again breaking my promise not to get into politics....

because you support the right to bear arms

Let me chime in here with my support. We here at NACO are trying to educate the general public in the U.S. about the role of remotely-operated anti-personnel mines in an effective home defense. NACO and SOON (Sawed-Off Owners' Network) are partnering this summer in a lobbying campaign to lift oppressive and unreasonable federal and state restrictions on SB/USB (short and ultra-short barrel) weapons.

It would have been impossible for the framers of the U.S. Constitution to foresee the ensuing technological advances in home defense armament that law-abiding citizens have every right to take advantage of. Remember they *did* say:

"THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR"

Obviously, any financial contribution you can make to the campaign will be most welcome. Paypal accepted (non- credit card payments only, please)


Thanks for your support!!

Just playing a point here, don't use it to figure out my stance on the subject:

Outlawing cars would take a vital service away from people. But outlawing guns wouldn't harm anyone in theory. Guns are used for:

1. Shooting someone else (in defense, as a murder, accidents, suicide)
2. Hunting (not needed, we have farms for food)
3. Entertainment (target practice, etc...)

So in theory, taking them away would result in a safer country. It wouldn't impact people greatly, and we all know not many law makers care about #3.

The whole gun control issue has always been a sticky one. The only criminals will have them is a big aspect of it. And it is always interesting to see different countries policies, and what does work and what dosen't. It's all about the culture.

I personally believe that guns should not be banned outright in the US since that won't solve much. Instead, have a process similar to driving a car. Ensure the owner knows how to properly use it, give them a license, and let them own a gun. Of course many gun owners are against this for some reason, but I see it as no different then other hobbies like ham radio where a license is needed to broadcast.

I think it is because most (not all) pro-gun ownership people lean to the right-wing and most (not all) right wingers are into conspiracy theories and think that the government will keep tabs on who owns gun and that those people will be targeted when the government decides to take over (personally, I thought that they already ran the country). These people are also against any sort of national ID system and some go so far as to say that the Twin Towers were crashed into by our own government in order to allow excessive military action (just like some accused the US government of knowinly allowing Pearl Harbor to be attacked) and to allow drakonian laws including national ID cards were samples of our DNA is kept on file. (Because the government is SO intersted in my daily activities that they even installed video cameras on the freeway to see where I am driving to.)

This thread is like a lit match and a spilled gallon of gasoline in the same small room... I give it about 20 minutes to hit.

i agree, im not aginst guns int he us, nor am i for them.. but i think banning them would have some major problem, WW3?

National Association of Claymore Owners

ROFL!

"This side towards enemy."

I would highly recommend not making a stand against someone's right to bear arms when they are bearing said arms.

Just a little interjection. The reason "right wingers" don't want the federal government knowing who has guns and how many and what kind, etc... Is because the right to bear arms is there to arm the public in a way so as to throw off a tyrannical government if the need ever arose. If this government knows who has weapons that could be used against it, then guess who becomes the first target? I'm not saying I agree with these views, it's just a safeguard that is in place, just in case. btw, I own several guns. (17) All of them registered.and believe me, I'm on an FBI list somewhere. ;8^)

Personally I have no problems with guns. I also would like it to be alot harder to legally get them. At most gun shows nowadays you can get most anything you want right there. Personally I enjoy both target shooting and hunting. A lot of time population control is needed for some animals hint hint deer (cars are not the preferred method of population control).
I dont see much of a point for handguns other than for police officers. But rifles and shotguns I have no problem with as long as the people who own them keep them locked up and away from the kids. By the way hunting is a legitimate sport I see no difference in hunt than in fishing. As long as you eat what you kill I see no harm as long as you are abiding by the law. Personally I rather eat a wild animal than one that was keep in horrific conditions only to be slaughtered for meat. Just my 2 cents

In reply to:

---

But outlawing guns wouldn't harm anyone in theory

---

Except those poor people with jobs in the gun industry.

I believe in the Cris Rocks tactic: we dont need to control the guns, but rather the bullets. In CHRIS ROCK: BIGGER & BLACKER, he proposed a huge tax on bullets such that one bullet would cost up to $5000. At that price, he reasoned, there would no longer be innocent stand-bys being shot. People he said would think twice before they shoot and in some cases many would have to get a second job first in order to save enough money to buy a bullet.

That was funny.. "You know he musta done SOMETHIN', they put $50,000 worth of bullets in his a$$"

Is because the right to bear arms is there to arm the public in a way so as to throw off a tyrannical government if the need ever arose

...which is a pretty futile exercise now - you'd need a personal missile defence shield and who knows what else to even stand a chance of lasting 5 minutes.

I'm with Acurasquirrel on this one - the number of kids injured or killed each year in the US by guns is extremely worrisome. Within 24 hours of you reading this sentence, it is statistically probable that another 13 children have died.

Finding the balance between the right to defend one's property/hunt/target shoot and the right of children to not get killed by guns is obviously too tricky to get right.

By the way hunting is a legitimate sport I see no difference in hunt than in fishing. As long as you eat what you kill I see no harm as long as you are abiding by the law. Personally I rather eat a wild animal than one that was keep in horrific conditions only to be slaughtered for meat.

I agree with you about every point I quoted here, but one unstated thing bothers me. While I agree that it is much better for the animal to have lived an unfettered life, and that eating hunted animals is good, the state of mind one must be in to find killing ``fun'' disturbs me. Certainly, in times past, hunting was the best way to get dinner. It could be argued now that someone might prefer hunting to purchasing at the butcher's based on how the animals were treated, but I doubt that that's the case for the majority of hunters. I believe that most hunters hunt because they find it entertaining, and that's what bothers me, much more than the killing of the animal itself (as I am certainly not a vegetarian).

, the state of mind one must be in to find killing ``fun'' disturbs me

That's a good point, but you are assuming that all sports must be 'fun'. I've participated in a few sports that weren't so much about 'fun' as 'satisfisfaction' or 'accomplishment'.