NationStates Jolt Archive

One, the bruise on my right shoulder will heal.

Two, I'm not going to waste time at gun shows, when I could be hugging trees.

Three, I won't worry about the powder I've stored next to the hot water heater.

Four, I won't have to throw fits when I finish second at the Saturday rifle match.

Five, it keeps me away from those annoying metric sizes. What the heck is 9mm good for anyway? I thought a real bullet had to have two digits and start with a 4.

Oh wait,

Six, I'll feel good because there are no bad guns left in the world.

I hope that made someone smile. Are there any real reasons?

[QUOTE=Myrmidonisia]
Five, it keeps me away from those annoying metric sizes. What the heck is 9mm good for anyway? I thought a real bullet had to have two digits and start with a 4.





QUOTE]
9mm is good for chambering 115 grain +p jhp My home defense round of choice. Illegal in my state BTW.

You don't get shot.

i agree a real bullet has 2 digites and starts with a 4

Five, it keeps me away from those annoying metric sizes. What the heck is 9mm good for anyway? I thought a real bullet had to have two digits and start with a 4.

I have a .44 Desert Eagle and it hurts like a son of a bitch every time.

Usually the making of ammo is outsourced to "metric" countries. lol

One, the bruise on my right shoulder will heal.

Two, I'm not going to waste time at gun shows, when I could be hugging trees.

Three, I won't worry about the powder I've stored next to the hot water heater.

Four, I won't have to throw fits when I finish second at the Saturday rifle match.

Five, it keeps me away from those annoying metric sizes. What the heck is 9mm good for anyway? I thought a real bullet had to have two digits and start with a 4.

Oh wait,

Six, I'll feel good because there are no bad guns left in the world.

I hope that made someone smile. Are there any real reasons?


1. My wife will be dead, because her ex-husband won't be afraid anymore, and he'll kill her.
2. I'll be dead, because he won't have any more trouble killing me.
3. He's promised to kill my daughter, so he'll be able to do that.
4. He's promised to kill my son, so he'll be able to do that.
5. And, his son, whom my wife has sole custody of, will get to live with the monster for the rest of his life.

I hope that makes the anti-gun people happy - four corpses slaughtered, and one boy abused for the rest of his life.

1. My wife will be dead, because her ex-husband won't be afraid anymore, and he'll kill her.
2. I'll be dead, because he won't have any more trouble killing me.
3. He's promised to kill my daughter, so he'll be able to do that.
4. He's promised to kill my son, so he'll be able to do that.
5. And, his son, whom my wife has sole custody of, will get to live with the monster for the rest of his life.

I hope that makes the anti-gun people happy - four corpses slaughtered, and one boy abused for the rest of his life.

Makes me happy.

1. My wife will be dead, because her ex-husband won't be afraid anymore, and he'll kill her.
2. I'll be dead, because he won't have any more trouble killing me.
3. He's promised to kill my daughter, so he'll be able to do that.
4. He's promised to kill my son, so he'll be able to do that.
5. And, his son, whom my wife has sole custody of, will get to live with the monster for the rest of his life.

I hope that makes the anti-gun people happy - four corpses slaughtered, and one boy abused for the rest of his life.
oh please, even with the stupidity of the police force 2-5 dcant happen. oh yeah NO ONE is going to expect the abusive exhusband on a restraining order if number one happens. and electrocution is sure as hell fun

5. It would reduce the number of Republicans
4. It would reduce the number of Republicans.
3. It would reduce the number of Republicans.
2. It would reduce the number of Republicans.
1. It would reduce the number of Republicans.

Anyone else find it interesting how gun nuts think Democrats are out to get them and their livliehood, when it's gun control that is usually the ONLY thing they tend to have in common with the rich Republicans who say that they are on the gun nuts side?

Usually the making of ammo is outsourced to "metric" countries. lol

Not in my basement, it isn't, pal. I don't think Lake City is in a metric country, either, Meter-Boy. Not unless Missouri has seceeded.

oh please, even with the stupidity of the police force 2-5 dcant happen. oh yeah NO ONE is going to expect the abusive exhusband on a restraining order if number one happens. and electrocution is sure as hell fun

First, I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs when someone thinks that retribution is a good substitute for prevention. Next, two thru five can happen...Ever hear of serial murders? Last, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the police department isn't responsible for protecting any individual. Their responsibility lies in deterring crime. So who does that leave to protect us? Me and my .45, I suppose.

Although, for home defense a 12 gauge might be better. I think just chambering a shell would send most bad guys back out the door.

I feel like I've seen this thread here before. Oh right, it was every day that this forum has been in existence.

For the record, you could give a gun to everybody in the world, and I wouldn't be afraid of getting shot. It's a matter of having an inoffensive "foreign" policy.

First, I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs when someone thinks that retribution is a good substitute for prevention.
wouldnt that be guns?


Next, two thru five can happen...Ever hear of serial murders?

serial murders and this are different cases, in serial killer cases its generally some random guy who pops up and starts killing people, they have to work to find suspects. he has stated that the exhusband has beat his wife on numerous occasions and has been reported and has a restraining order against him. who the hell do you think would be the FIRST suspect if she died?

Last, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the police department isn't responsible for protecting any individual. Their responsibility lies in deterring crime. So who does that leave to protect us? Me and my .45, I suppose.
how does a gun protect you? maybe after shooting starts? because its not a visual deterrence. and anyone else with a gun with intentions to kill already wont care if you have a gun, you just get to be the first target

Although, for home defense a 12 gauge might be better. I think just chambering a shell would send most bad guys back out the door.
im sure a dog the size of a chair would too...

5. It would reduce the number of Republicans
4. It would reduce the number of Republicans.
3. It would reduce the number of Republicans.
2. It would reduce the number of Republicans.
1. It would reduce the number of Republicans.

Anyone else find it interesting how gun nuts think Democrats are out to get them and their livliehood, when it's gun control that is usually the ONLY thing they tend to have in common with the rich Republicans who say that they are on the gun nuts side?

Gee Whiz, I started this thread to put a little levity in the gun control discussions. I'm sure there are many of you that are far more clever than I am and we could all have a laugh. But here we go, descending into the depths of hyperbole and demagoguery.

Where did I ever mention a political party? I find very little in common with Republicans or Democrats lately. Especially after this National ID card stuff was passed in the big Intelligence overhaul bill. And leave out the class--warfare stuff, too. There are a lot more rich Democrats out there than anyone cares to mention. Does the name George Soros mean anything?

But since you brought it up, look at the blue states and counties versus the red states and counties. Where is gun control more accepted? Where is crime a bigger problem? What blue city has the honor of being the murder capital of the USA? Democrats bring this on themselves. When Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and the guy from New Jersey...Lautenberg, all push bans on everything but single shot rifles, how can sane people fail to identify Democrats with gun control?

Now if you had said liberals and conservatives both are on the same side of the issue, you might have made a good point.

Now let's get on with the business of making fun of gun control advocates!

If we ban something, no one will obtain it!!! :D

Now let's get on with the business of making fun of gun control advocates!

Hot damn! *points and laughs at Chess Squares, a blind tool of Sarah Brady.*

Not in my basement, it isn't, pal. I don't think Lake City is in a metric country, either, Meter-Boy. Not unless Missouri has seceeded.

The oil drain lug nut on my Chrysler is 13mm. :)

wouldnt that be guns?

No. Your statement was that an electrocution would be fun. That doesn't prevent the original murder. Now, maybe it deters someone down the line, but that sure doesn't do the ex-wife any good.



serial murders and this are different cases, in serial killer cases its generally some random guy who pops up and starts killing people, they have to work to find suspects. he has stated that the exhusband has beat his wife on numerous occasions and has been reported and has a restraining order against him. who the hell do you think would be the FIRST suspect if she died?


Gosh, you guys are so literal. Okay, have you heard of mass murder. That's where someone kills a bunch of people, right? Why won't the guy kill the ex-wife. Then, before anyone discovers her death drives to the next home and kills the ex--husband. Now he finds the kids hiding in a closet and kills them too. Finally, while he is on his way to Hoboken, the State Highway Patrol sees a broken tail light and pulls him over. One thing leads to another and he is arrested, extradited, tried and hanged. Still doesn't help the dead family, does it?


how does a gun protect you? maybe after shooting starts? because its not a visual deterrence. and anyone else with a gun with intentions to kill already wont care if you have a gun, you just get to be the first target


Okay, I just found out I'm writing to someone that is completely out of touch with reality.

How does a gun protect me? It deters. First, in the USA I may or may not have a gun. That is a slight deterrent. In Kennesaw, GA, I must, by law, have a gun. That is a little bigger deterrent. There isn't much crime in Kennesaw, so maybe it's a big deterrent. How else? You have just entered my house. I hear you. I reach for the shotgun and cock it. The metallic sound of a pump-action shotgun is very unique. That sound alone would be a pretty good deterrent, I think. A recording might be a good bluff. Be careful if you are in England or Australia, though. If the bad guy has a heart attack, you will undoubtedly go to jail for causing it! The biggest deterrent is the fact that I'm willing to use it. If I have time, I'll shoot the SOB. If not, he wins. If I don't have the gun, or the possibility of having a gun, I can't deter anyone from anything.


im sure a dog the size of a chair would too...
Sure, you bet...

If we ban something, no one will obtain it!!! :D

So many targets, so little bandwidth. Chodolo, you aren't really serious, are you? I can't stop laughing long enough to typeeeeee

The oil drain lug nut on my Chrysler is 13mm. :)

Are you planning on shooting it, or what? Where does that engine come from, not Missouri, I hope. Certainly not Detroit, either. Last time I checked the Chrysler company didn't make ammunition, either.

No. Your statement was that an electrocution would be fun. That doesn't prevent the original murder. Now, maybe it deters someone down the line, but that sure doesn't do the ex-wife any good.
TASER, tasers are fun




Gosh, you guys are so literal. Okay, have you heard of mass murder. That's where someone kills a bunch of people, right? Why won't the guy kill the ex-wife. Then, before anyone discovers her death drives to the next home and kills the ex--husband. Now he finds the kids hiding in a closet and kills them too. Finally, while he is on his way to Hoboken, the State Highway Patrol sees a broken tail light and pulls him over. One thing leads to another and he is arrested, extradited, tried and hanged. Still doesn't help the dead family, does it?
which isnt the same as a serial murderer. and 2 that is just as hypothetical and him killing just one person and going into hiding



How does a gun protect me? It deters.
no, it doesnt. in order for it to be a deterrent, people would have to outright know you have a gun on you. unless you got it wild west style around your waist, in no way is a gun a DETERRENT

I reach for the shotgun and cock it.
so you sleep with a loaded shotgun near your bed i assume? very clever, hope you dont have kids or trip or something.

The metallic sound of a pump-action shotgun is very unique. That sound alone would be a pretty good deterrent, I think.
bingo, YOU THINK. wow, you were saying im out of touch with reality, you jsut admitted this is ALL hypothetical and YOUR opinion. your just as out of touch as i am.
A recording might be a good bluff. Be careful if you are in England or Australia, though. If the bad guy has a heart attack, you will undoubtedly go to jail for causing it! The biggest deterrent is the fact that I'm willing to use it. If I have time, I'll shoot the SOB. If not, he wins. If I don't have the gun, or the possibility of having a gun, I can't deter anyone from anything.
a dog sleeping in the living room is a much better deterrent than a gun you are hiding under your bed while you are asleep having wet dreams about people breaking into your house so you can shoot them. and why is a dog a DETERRENT. because they are VISIBLE AND AUDIBLE, if some guy is poking around outside or makes a noise anywhere on the house, the dog is far more alert than you would be and would bark or something of that nature.

I feel like I've seen this thread here before. Oh right, it was every day that this forum has been in existence.

For the record, you could give a gun to everybody in the world, and I wouldn't be afraid of getting shot. It's a matter of having an inoffensive "foreign" policy.

I sure hope not. I'm trying to have fun with this. I don't want to get involved in a drawn out mess with facts and figures and exaggerations and lies... Well maybe lies would be okay. Lies and name-calling. But polite name-calling, of course. And politically correct names, at that. Democrat is a good name. But I like "Bed-wetter" better. Gun-Grabber is okay, but lacks some imagination. Gun Nut is pretty stale, too. Let's find some new ways to express our disdain for each other.

One, the bruise on my right shoulder will heal.



I've been there. Looks like I got hit with, um, the butt of a shotgun? Can't compare to any other bruise I've had.

Quote:
Originally Posted by My Gun Not Yours
1. My wife will be dead, because her ex-husband won't be afraid anymore, and he'll kill her.
2. I'll be dead, because he won't have any more trouble killing me.
3. He's promised to kill my daughter, so he'll be able to do that.
4. He's promised to kill my son, so he'll be able to do that.
5. And, his son, whom my wife has sole custody of, will get to live with the monster for the rest of his life.

I hope that makes the anti-gun people happy - four corpses slaughtered, and one boy abused for the rest of his life.

Makes me happy. -Sdaeriji

Okay, that was just low. Way below the belt. You should be ashamed.

Okay, that was just low. Way below the belt. You should be ashamed.
well 1,3-5 are bad, 2 i would be ok with

a dog sleeping in the living room is a much better deterrent than a gun you are hiding under your bed while you are asleep having wet dreams about people breaking into your house so you can shoot them. and why is a dog a DETERRENT. because they are VISIBLE AND AUDIBLE, if some guy is poking around outside or makes a noise anywhere on the house, the dog is far more alert than you would be and would bark or something of that nature.

What do I do after the window breaks and the dog barks and the dog gets shot?

What do I do after the window breaks and the dog barks and the dog gets shot?
rofl, if they are breaking in the house with intention to kill, a shotgun under your bed wont save your ass

LOL good ones

no, it doesnt. in order for it to be a deterrent, people would have to outright know you have a gun on you. unless you got it wild west style around your waist, in no way is a gun a DETERRENT

Most crimes that are prevented by firearms are prevented merely by the sight of the weapon being brandished. Nothing more. No shots fired. The assailant flees like the coward he is and the gun owner has been saved by their firearm. Know your facts, Chess Squares....oh wait, you believe anything that isn't put out by Sarah Brady about guns are "Right-wing gun nuts' lies." :rolleyes:


a dog sleeping in the living room is a much better deterrent than a gun you are hiding under your bed while you are asleep having wet dreams about people breaking into your house so you can shoot them.

You narrow-minded little brat. That's your problem, CS, you think everyone who owns a gun fantasizes about killing someone with it. Moreover, if I was a criminal, I'd rather contend with a dog than someone with a .357 hand-cannon who's not afraid to use it on me....

and why is a dog a DETERRENT. because they are VISIBLE AND AUDIBLE, if some guy is poking around outside or makes a noise anywhere on the house, the dog is far more alert than you would be and would bark or something of that nature.

A dog is a nice thing to have. The dog barks about a criminal, wakes you up, you draw your gun, and make sure you, your family, and your property are safe and sound....dogs and guns, together, in unison, can be one of the best forms of crime prevention......but, I have a dog that sleeps like a rock. You light firecrackers off in his nose and you wouldn't wake him up. What good is he to me if a criminal breaks into my house? Not very good. I have many firearms, though, and they're plenty good to me if a criminal breaks in......

rofl, if they are breaking in the house with intention to kill, a shotgun under your bed wont save your ass

And you know this how? Have you ever even fired a gun, CS? A criminal ain't going too far if he's got 12 gauge buck-shot in his ass.....

listen you want a gun? join the police force, they are way understaffed and can carry guns around and shoot people and its awesome.

rofl, if they are breaking in the house with intention to kill, a shotgun under your bed wont save your ass
You're right, I should just beg. Pleeese don't kill me. Pleeese take anything you want. Pleeese do what you want to my kids, just Pleeese don't kill me!

And you know I can't protect myself because...?

Man, this is no fair. I'm arguing against a Sarah Brady Myrmidon? I can't do it. I can't waste my time like this? If only I had known. The shame...

You're right, I should just beg. Pleeese don't kill me. Pleeese take anything you want. Pleeese do what you want to my kids, just Pleeese don't kill me!

And you know I can't protect myself because...?
i guess im going to have to spell it out

a guy breaks into your house, the dog barks or whatever, he shoots the dog

you have just learned something, he is armed and has an intent to kill

you grab your gun and go out, he sees your gun, you get shot.

listen you want a gun? join the police force, they are way understaffed and can carry guns around and shoot people and its awesome.

What are you, twelve?

If we ban something, no one will obtain it!!! :D

In order to make a political statement, after guns were banned in England, Dr. P. A. Luty built a submachine gun and 6 rounds of ammunition in his home.

http://www.thehomegunsmith.com

wouldnt that be guns?




serial murders and this are different cases, in serial killer cases its generally some random guy who pops up and starts killing people, they have to work to find suspects. he has stated that the exhusband has beat his wife on numerous occasions and has been reported and has a restraining order against him. who the hell do you think would be the FIRST suspect if she died?


how does a gun protect you? maybe after shooting starts? because its not a visual deterrence. and anyone else with a gun with intentions to kill already wont care if you have a gun, you just get to be the first target


im sure a dog the size of a chair would too...

You're either an idiot or blind, or both. A gun is a visual deterrence, a lot of situations have ended better because of them. Guns can protect without having to be used.

wow i think paxania and colerica are just gun thread trolls, i have never seen them outside a gun thread, i dunno when the last time i saw them was but i come into this thread and they show up like fricking leprechauns taunting me with their hidden gold or some shit

i guess im going to have to spell it out

a guy breaks into your house, the dog barks or whatever, he shoots the dog

you have just learned something, he is armed and has an intent to kill

you grab your gun and go out, he sees your gun, you get shot.
Who knows your house better, you or the burglar? You will know how to set up in order to be able to see him first and thus shoot him first.

Who knows your house better, you or the burglar? You will know how to set up in order to be able to see him first and thus shoot him first.
im glad you think this stuff through

You're either an idiot or blind, or both. A gun is a visual deterrence, a lot of situations have ended better because of them. Guns can protect without having to be used.
that is questionable. i doubt anyone WITH INTENT TO KILL will not be scared off by another gun. the key words being WITH INTENT TO KILL

listen you want a gun? join the police force, they are way understaffed and can carry guns around and shoot people and its awesome.

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."
- Heinrich Himmler

i guess im going to have to spell it out

a guy breaks into your house, the dog barks or whatever, he shoots the dog

you have just learned something, he is armed and has an intent to kill

you grab your gun and go out, he sees your gun, you get shot.

I hate keep repeating myself. Wait, I just said I wouldn't argue with a Brady Myrmidon. Sorry. The way and the light have been passed on to you by the great Sarah. It is foolish for those mere mortals among us to disturb the great anti-gun karma.

But please tell me, why can't I protect myself? Why is it an automatic that I get killed and not the bad guy? By the way, I don't have a shotgun, I just wish I did. I have a 1911. It fits in the dresser drawer better at night and the gun safe in the closet better during the day.

Anyway, why will the bad guy always win? Us mortals wants to know!

i would be better off reasoning with dubya

WHY would a person with INTENT TO KILL be scared by you having a gun?

In order to make a political statement, after guns were banned in England, Dr. P. A. Luty built a submachine gun and 6 rounds of ammunition in his home.

http://www.thehomegunsmith.com

Did the bastard go to jail?

This is fun!

i guess im going to have to spell it out

a guy breaks into your house, the dog barks or whatever, he shoots the dog

you have just learned something, he is armed and has an intent to kill

you grab your gun and go out, he sees your gun, you get shot.

Which situation would you rather have, CS?


SCENARIO 1:

Bob breaks into your home, armed with a handgun. You awake to stirring sounds from downstairs. You have a twelve gauge shotgun, and you're more than able to defend yourself with it. You find Bob outside your four year-old daughter's room and blast him with it. Bob falls to the floor either grievously wounded or dead. You have defended your family and your property. Without your shotgun, your daughter would have been either killed, wounded, or kidnapped. She owes her life to you and your shotgun.

SCENARIO 2:

Bob breaks into your home, armed with a handgun. Your dog is awoken by stirring sounds and runs downstairs to investigate. He barks at Bob and Bob shoots him. He then procedes to go upstairs. He finds you, unarmed, and shoots you. Your four-year old daughter is awake from the gunshots and walks to your room, where Bob finds her. He decides to kidnap her. Your home has been ravaged. Your dog is dead. You are either grievously wounded or dead. And your helpless daughter has been taken.

The oil drain lug nut on my Chrysler is 13mm. :)

No, it's 0.511811024 inches.

And I'll sell you an "English" wrench that'll fit it. (It's supposed to have grinder marks on the one side.)

i would be better off reasoning with dubya

WHY would a person with INTENT TO KILL be scared by you having a gun?

Because he's aware that the gun you have can kill him. That's why he's afraid of the visual sight of a gun, even if he has the intent to harm or kill you.

i would be better off reasoning with dubya

WHY would a person with INTENT TO KILL be scared by you having a gun?
Just because the person has an intent to kill does not mean they have an intent to die. See the person wants to kill you with no harm coming to them, that's why they are probably using a gun. So they will know the destructive force behind a gun. People suddenly become much more compliant when they have a gun pointed at their head unless they themselves also have a gun pointing back.

Are you planning on shooting it, or what? Where does that engine come from, not Missouri, I hope. Certainly not Detroit, either. Last time I checked the Chrysler company didn't make ammunition, either.

You eva take an oil lug to the head, boy? :)

(As far as I am aware, most Chrysler engines are made in Canada.)

No, but they used to! In Evansville, Indiana.
(note item #15)
http://www.allmilitaria.com/ammunition.html
http://www.chicagolandmopar.com/news/w991103b.asp

No, it's 0.511811024 inches.

And I'll sell you an "English" wrench that'll fit it. (It's supposed to have grinder marks on the one side.)

Next you're going to tell me that water freezes at 32 degrees instead of 0! ;)

___________________________________________________________
"My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the ways I likes it!!"
-Abe Simpson

i would be better off reasoning with dubya

WHY would a person with INTENT TO KILL be scared by you having a gun?

Gee, I don't know. Because he might be killed, wounded, maimed, surprised? Like I said earlier, here in Kennesaw, Georgia, it is a law that I possess a firearm at home. We don't have crime here. Not a zero crime rate, but you don't read about the chain of events that we were discussing. I don't remember the last murder in Kennesaw. But that may be senility or Alzheimers, I forget which. Big dogs just don't cut it, Pal. Empirical evidence does.

i think that only automatic guns should be banned, because we do have the right to bear arms. plus, me and my 12 guage will pwn anyone anyways....

i think that only automatic guns should be banned, because we do have the right to bear arms. plus, me and my 12 guage will pwn anyone anyways....

Please tell me you're referring to full-auto firearms and not semi-auto firearms.

i would be better off reasoning with dubya

WHY would a person with INTENT TO KILL be scared by you having a gun?

For the same reason why thieves tend to avoid houses with dogs.
Or hits liquor stores instead of banks. The criminal wants the best payout for the least amount of work (dont we all?). Alarms, dogs and armed opponents make the risk not worth the payoff.

Next you're going to tell me that water freezes at 32 degrees instead of 0!
But...water does freeze that 32 degrees. Darn rest of the world not conforming to the US standards. Making poor little me all confused. :(

You eva take an oil lug to the head, boy? :)

(As far as I am aware, most Chrysler engines are made in Canada.)

No, but they used to! In Evansville, Indiana.
(note item #15)
http://www.allmilitaria.com/ammunition.html
http://www.chicagolandmopar.com/news/w991103b.asp

I try to stay out of the way when I change the oil. The plug isn't so bad, it's the hot oil that comes out next that bothers me.

It bugs the hell out of me that they can't get the tolerances right on a 0.5 inch nut. Is that what Canada contributes to the world?

Perhaps if you Americans had gun control thered be less incidents of kids going on killing sprees and perhaps Dimebag would still be with us...

In the UK in the 70's a guy went on a killing spree in an English village with an AK 47, result? Assault weapons banned. In the 90's a man walked into a Scottish school and gunned down a load of children. Result? Everything above .22 caliber banned and remaining guns so tightly regulated you cant really have one outside a gun club.

The other thing is that fair enough you have a handgun to defend your home, its your constitution after all, why do you need machine guns or sniper rifles to protect your home? Unless youve got one huge garden nobody needs a sniper rifle at home surely?

No, it's 0.511811024 inches.

And I'll sell you an "English" wrench that'll fit it. (It's supposed to have grinder marks on the one side.)

That's called "Standard" or "Customary" down in this part of the world, Son. Damn those Canadians for not being able to hold a tolerance on a 0.5 inch part!

Next you're going to tell me that water freezes at 32 degrees instead of 0! ;)

___________________________________________________________
"My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the ways I likes it!!"
-Abe Simpson

And human body temperature is 100 degrees!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/joppa_gal/ILYF.jpg

ROCK ROCK ON FAHRENHEIT SCALE!

So, Markreich, do the math: will you contribute to my fund to buy Abraham Simpson a Honda?

hmmm shot or stabbed...shot or stabbed...hmmm so many choices. i mean, really, what's the difference if we have guns or not? murders will always happen, people will always say "we have to stop the madness!". you can't change the human animal, but you can put it down when it goes rabid. and by the way, i don't own a gun. i do like them, though.

But...water does freeze that 32 degrees. Darn rest of the world not conforming to the US standards. Making poor little me all confused. :(

US standards???? That would be part of the old British Imperial system which has long since been abandoned. Metric is much easier, base 10 instead of Imperials base 12 system.

See, the biggest problem I see with anti-gun laws, is that it makes it harder for the law-abiding types to get guns. Making more laws isn't really going to do a lot against people who aren't too worried about breaking laws. After all, if you're going to kill someone, I'm pretty sure you're not going to run into any moral conundrums when it comes to your weapon of choice. Making more laws just makes it harder for the responsible, law-abiding citizen to have access to their choice of home protection, recreation or income.

But...water does freeze that 32 degrees. Darn rest of the world not conforming to the US standards. Making poor little me all confused. :(

The water in Georgia freezes at 0 deg, too. I don't think there is a problem. How much time is a kilometer, anyway? Is it almost a liter?

I like the hogshead thing. How many barrels to a hogshead? This is important!

Perhaps if you Americans had gun control thered be less incidents of kids going on killing sprees and perhaps Dimebag would still be with us...

In the UK in the 70's a guy went on a killing spree in an English village with an AK 47, result? Assault weapons banned. In the 90's a man walked into a Scottish school and gunned down a load of children. Result? Everything above .22 caliber banned and remaining guns so tightly regulated you cant really have one outside a gun club.

The other thing is that fair enough you have a handgun to defend your home, its your constitution after all, why do you need machine guns or sniper rifles to protect your home? Unless youve got one huge garden nobody needs a sniper rifle at home surely?

The intent of the Second Amendment is to overthrow the next Mussolini. Home defense is just a bonus.

The other thing is that fair enough you have a handgun to defend your home, its your constitution after all, why do you need machine guns or sniper rifles to protect your home? Unless youve got one huge garden nobody needs a sniper rifle at home surely?
I'm pretty sure machine guns are banned. Not only that, they are fricking huge, you can't really carry them to well and they'd be hard to manuver indoors. The sniper rifle is very useful in hunting. I've killed three deer with a sniper rifle, they pack quite a punch and shoot very far.

Perhaps if you Americans had gun control thered be less incidents of kids going on killing sprees and perhaps Dimebag would still be with us...

In the UK in the 70's a guy went on a killing spree in an English village with an AK 47, result? Assault weapons banned. In the 90's a man walked into a Scottish school and gunned down a load of children. Result? Everything above .22 caliber banned and remaining guns so tightly regulated you cant really have one outside a gun club.

The other thing is that fair enough you have a handgun to defend your home, its your constitution after all, why do you need machine guns or sniper rifles to protect your home? Unless youve got one huge garden nobody needs a sniper rifle at home surely?

Damn, the serious people have started to infect the thread. Do we just ignore them and hope they'll go away? No fun. Or do we humiliate them with logic? Too easy. Let's just call them names.

The intent of the Second Amendment is to overthrow the next Mussolini. Home defense is just a bonus.
Yay, somebody payed attention in school. That is why the founding fathers put the second ammendment in there, so that if ever the government started to not listen to the will of the people, the people could overthrow the government.

I just prefer the thought of living in a country were any idiot cant walk into a superstore and leave with enough weaponary to kill a bus load of people... though its entirely different cultures, dont get much of any kind of gun crime here except for parts of England but even then nowhere near the same scale.

Yay, somebody payed attention in school. That is why the founding fathers put the second ammendment in there, so that if ever the government started to not listen to the will of the people, the people could overthrow the government.

You seriously think they'd teach me that in school?

I just prefer the thought of living in a country were any idiot cant walk into a superstore and leave with enough weaponary to kill a bus load of people... though its entirely different cultures, dont get much of any kind of gun crime here except for parts of England but even then nowhere near the same scale.

I guess I kind of like the thought of you living there, too.

I guess I kind of like the thought of you living there, too.

Wow, thats impressive humour you got there. Asshole.

This has been fun. I've got some bill-paying, cash-earning, real work to do. I check in later to see if we have humiliated any more Bradyites or Canadians.

Carry On!

You seriously think they'd teach me that in school?
Well...they did in my school...so...I would hope that they would have.

Wow, thats impressive humour you got there. Asshole.

Wait, what am I supposed to say? The road you want to travel is pretty well worn. So I just agreed with you. We don't need any more gun-banning idiots in the USA. The inn is full. The no-vacancy sign is on. We've met the quota.

Plus, the profanity is unnecessary. I'm not personally offended, but there are children present. There is a line in constructive name-calling and I think you have crossed it. Banned, banned from my threads, I say!

Well...they did in my school...so...I would hope that they would have.

"Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It is up to you as teachers to make all of these sick children well -- by creating the international child of the future."
- Dr. Chester M. Pierce, Professor of Education at Harvard, addressing the Association for Childhood Education International in April, 1972

Perhaps if you Americans had gun control thered be less incidents of kids going on killing sprees and perhaps Dimebag would still be with us...

In the UK in the 70's a guy went on a killing spree in an English village with an AK 47, result? Assault weapons banned. In the 90's a man walked into a Scottish school and gunned down a load of children. Result? Everything above .22 caliber banned and remaining guns so tightly regulated you cant really have one outside a gun club.

The other thing is that fair enough you have a handgun to defend your home, its your constitution after all, why do you need machine guns or sniper rifles to protect your home? Unless youve got one huge garden nobody needs a sniper rifle at home surely?

1. It's not a matter of need. If you can tailor the 2nd Amendment, you can tailor the 1st, 6th, or any other one you want.
And yes, I played "Cowboys From Hell" at lunch today in memoriam.

2. That just proves the the UK didn't learn the lesson from the Firearms Act of 1920: Who the hell is anyone to tell me that I need a REASON to own a pistol or rifle?
To say nothing of the pickle the UK had in 1940!
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/SlipperySlope.htm#fn77

3. Do you need knives?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3244709.stm
Better, since banning guns, is life in the UK any safer?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1024520/posts

I posit that if a citizen is licensed to carry weapon X legally, he should be allowed to.

The water in Georgia freezes at 0 deg, too. I don't think there is a problem. How much time is a kilometer, anyway? Is it almost a liter?

I like the hogshead thing. How many barrels to a hogshead? This is important!

63 gallons of beer to a hogshead. (I'm told other liquids may vary, but I've never seen any reason to try it out with any other liquids...)

And human body temperature is 100 degrees!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/joppa_gal/ILYF.jpg

ROCK ROCK ON FAHRENHEIT SCALE!

So, Markreich, do the math: will you contribute to my fund to buy Abraham Simpson a Honda?

You know Abe lost his license after the incident with the guys wearing the jackets... ;)

This has been fun. I've got some bill-paying, cash-earning, real work to do. I check in later to see if we have humiliated any more Bradyites or Canadians.

Carry On!

What? You do realize that we Canadians own guns, don't you? Lots of guns. Well, not automatic weapons, but lots of rifles and shotguns and so on.

US standards???? That would be part of the old British Imperial system which has long since been abandoned. Metric is much easier, base 10 instead of Imperials base 12 system.

Just further proof the the British are far too accommodating to the French. And they brought back "Paris time"! Sheesh!!

3 barleycorns is a perfectly sensible unit of measurment!!

A nation born through conflict, when our most powerful defense force was the guys who owned muskets and rifles privately... Sure the times have changed, but really, if I wanted to walk into... anywhere and kill everyone there why use a weapon like a gun? Let's say I wanted to get a 30.06 rifle
Those are relatively expensive, require licenses, waiting periods, ammunition, and a little bit of skill to use effectively... I'll just go to Home depot and by Stump Killer (95% Potassium Nitrate), Diesel fuel, Ferdilizer, and some ammonia based cleaner for under $300 (US) and have a functioning rocket with low yield-shaped charge... and if I were to use something like that at oh... a church? school? Target? mall?... Don't say gun control... If someone wants to kill someone there's far more efficient ways than a rifle/pistol/shotgun... and I'd rather someone kick in the door to any of my classes with a belt fed .30 cal machine gun or 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun than have them rocket the building...

Oh well, that's just my opinion... and back to the original post... try shooting southpaw, it's really wierd, especially with a .22 semi-auto, lots of rounds little kick :)

As a crazy left wing gun nut I fell it necessary to bring up Switzerland.

The best gun policy, as far as reducing crime, would be if everyone had a handgun and carried it openly on their person. What are you going to do when every person in the country has a gun and it takes five minutes to broadcast you picture and most recent location?

What? You do realize that we Canadians own guns, don't you? Lots of guns. Well, not automatic weapons, but lots of rifles and shotguns and so on.

Sorry to lump you in with the whiners. That was a dig at the metric system. You know, being able to make a half inch nut +/- 0.001 or so, having it end up at 0.512 in.

Canadians have impressed me by the way they have largely ignored the new law to surrender their firearms. The state governments have impressed me by their unwillingness to enforce the national law, as well. I hope I can stand as firmly if the idiots win down here. "Come and get them" is just as important now as it was in Sparta. We're just fighting a different battle.

Oh well, that's just my opinion... and back to the original post... try shooting southpaw, it's really wierd, especially with a .22 semi-auto, lots of rounds little kick :)

I've actually been thinking about a better shooting jacket. The thought of a bullet less than .30 cal just makes me shudder. The AR-15 rifles are pretty easy to shoot well, they are still .22 cal. Just a really high power .22. The CMP makes them available for pennies, compared to retail costs, so when I get old and arthritic, I might buy one.

Regards and Semper Fi too all you wacko gun-nuts.

The AR-15 rifles are pretty easy to shoot well, they are still .22 cal. Just a really high power .22.
That's a bit like saying that the Winchester Model 70 Classic Safari Express in .458 Winchester Magnum is still a .45, just a really high power .45. The wounding potential of the 5.56x45mm/.223 Remington is immensely superior to the .22 rimfires, and calling something ".22" always conjures up the image of a piddly-ass pea gun.

That's a bit like saying that the Winchester Model 70 Classic Safari Express in .458 Winchester Magnum is still a .45, just a really high power .45. The wounding potential of the 5.56x45mm/.223 Remington is immensely superior to the .22 rimfires, and calling something ".22" always conjures up the image of a piddly-ass pea gun.

Geez, the thread was supposed to be about exaggeration and humiliation. It just seemed like a good way to go for such an overdone topic. We probably ought to start a "My favorite long rifle is..." thread, though. I wonder how the gunaphobics would handle that?

Shooting an AR-15 is a good way to raise scores in a high-power rifle match. No question about it. They are much easier to shoot than any 30 cal rifle I can think of. It's an emotional thing. I like loading up a magazine with big bullets and waking up the neighborhood when I put the first round downrange on Saturday morning. The AR-15 sounds more like a pop gun compared to my Garand or Springfield. Besides, I don't like the gas system, it's too hard to keep really clean. I don't like the handguards unless they are floated. And I really don't like the springy noise it makes when I shoot it. The damn buffer spring is so loud and it sounds like a mechanical toy breaking each time the bolt cycles.

Now, if you are into serious self-defense or world domination, I think a carbine like the AR-15 would be a good choice. A thousand rounds of ammo weighs less that the 308 stuff, you can load thirty round mags, you can carry more loaded mags, there are a lot of neat add-ons to the rifle...

One thing that most folks overlook is that pretty much 99% of the people on most "gun control" threads actually support gun control.

Gun control doesn't mean that all guns must be banned. Gun control includes things like waiting periods, background checks, and limiting the types of weapons available. So, unless you're one of the tiny majority who really believes anyone should be able to buy any weapon any time with no limitations whatsoever, you support gun control. The argument is over how much control is acceptable.

Just sayin', cause I'm kind of fed up with the oversimplified "Gun control? Out of my cold, dead fingers!" line. Even Chuck believes in gun control, you damn dirty apes.

Oh, yeah, and won't somebody please think of the Dimebag?

that is questionable. i doubt anyone WITH INTENT TO KILL will not be scared off by another gun. the key words being WITH INTENT TO KILL

no chess he is NOT scared off. once he breaks the window and shoots your dog, you know your life is at stake

you take the gun out from under the bed and set up your shot to KILL HIM as soon as he gets to the bedroom door.

only a fool gives a criminal the chance to kill them by saying "stop or ill shoot". you just shoot.

One thing that most folks overlook is that pretty much 99% of the people on most "gun control" threads actually support gun control.

Gun control doesn't mean that all guns must be banned. Gun control includes things like waiting periods, background checks, and limiting the types of weapons available. So, unless you're one of the tiny majority who really believes anyone should be able to buy any weapon any time with no limitations whatsoever, you support gun control. The argument is over how much control is acceptable.

Just sayin', cause I'm kind of fed up with the oversimplified "Gun control? Out of my cold, dead fingers!" line. Even Chuck believes in gun control, you damn dirty apes.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

no chess he is NOT scared off. once he breaks the window and shoots your dog, you know your life is at stake

you take the gun out from under the bed and set up your shot to KILL HIM as soon as he gets to the bedroom door.

only a fool gives a criminal the chance to kill them by saying "stop or ill shoot". you just shoot.
oh yeah likes hes not going to shoot you soon as he sees you. and if some one is going to break into your house and starting shooting, unless you live in the middle of NOWHERE chances are they arnt there to rob your ass, they are there to kill you. unless they got a silencer which goes back to they are going to shoot you if they see you move and you probably wont be awake to stop it

and i really hope none of you people have kids, a kid gets up in the middle of the ngiht makes some noise and walks past your bedroom only to get shot by a wacko. or better yet they are screwing around in your room and shoot themselves with your gun you dont keep in a case so its more easily accessible to kill bad people

lets round up all the gun nut rambos and send them to iraq, they will end the war or put the US in world court for genocide or BOTH within a month.

oh yeah likes hes not going to shoot you soon as he sees you.

How's he going to manage to do that, CS, with buck-shot in his chest? He isn't going to shoot me first if I've already shot him.

and if some one is going to break into your house and starting shooting, unless you live in the middle of NOWHERE chances are they arnt there to rob your ass, they are there to kill you. unless they got a silencer which goes back to they are going to shoot you if they see you move and you probably wont be awake to stop it

Maybe *you* wouldn't be awake to stop it.....


and i really hope none of you people have kids, a kid gets up in the middle of the ngiht makes some noise and walks past your bedroom only to get shot by a wacko. or better yet they are screwing around in your room and shoot themselves with your gun you dont keep in a case so its more easily accessible to kill bad people

More baseless insults at gun owners. Yep, we're all going to kill our kids just because we own firearms. :rolleyes:

lets round up all the gun nut rambos and send them to iraq, they will end the war or put the US in world court for genocide or BOTH within a month.

Even more baseless insults against firearm owners. Yep, we're all lunatic "Rambos" who want to shoot everyone we see. You need to get out more, CS, and escape the bubble you live in.....

How's he going to manage to do that, CS, with buck-shot in his chest? He isn't going to shoot me first if I've already shot him.


You've forgotten the most important part of the Brady Bunch logic.

There never has been and never will be a home or business owner that can successfully defend their property against a determined foe. It just can't happen. Chessie said so.

and i really hope none of you people have kids, a kid gets up in the middle of the ngiht makes some noise and walks past your bedroom only to get shot by a wacko. or better yet they are screwing around in your room and shoot themselves with your gun you dont keep in a case so its more easily accessible to kill bad people

In our house, we lock the kids in the cellar and arm the Claymores at night. I think that's safe enough, don't you?


lets round up all the gun nut rambos and send them to iraq, they will end the war or put the US in world court for genocide or BOTH within a month.
Fortunately, the USA doesn't recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court.

Geez, the thread was supposed to be about exaggeration and humiliation. It just seemed like a good way to go for such an overdone topic. We probably ought to start a "My favorite long rifle is..." thread, though. I wonder how the gunaphobics would handle that?They'd join in with "I'd go with the M4/AK-47, because that's good in Counter-Strike", etc. Which, all things considered, is not much worse than "I'd go with the AR-15 because it's made in the US and looks cool", and both are silly reasons compared to "AK-47, because it sits well in my hands, and I feel comfortable wielding it."

Now, if you are into serious self-defense or world domination, I think a carbine like the AR-15 would be a good choice. A thousand rounds of ammo weighs less that the 308 stuff, you can load thirty round mags, you can carry more loaded mags, there are a lot of neat add-ons to the rifle...Yeah, those infrared lasers, 4x ACOG sights, 30-round magazines and ability to pack several hundred rounds of ammo are very important for self-defense. If you'd have to create an army from scratch to dominate the world, you'd be rather silly to pick the AR-15 family of weapons.

They'd join in with "I'd go with the M4/AK-47, because that's good in Counter-Strike", etc. Which, all things considered, is not much worse than "I'd go with the AR-15 because it's made in the US and looks cool", and both are silly reasons compared to "AK-47, because it sits well in my hands, and I feel comfortable wielding it."

The M-16 got a really bad reputation in it's early days. It never had the acclaim that the M1 Garand did, as the "best battle implement ever devised", as George Patton described it. But it is a pretty good carbine. Aimed rounds are what win battles. The M-16 can put lead on target very well at some pretty decent ranges, too. Been there, done that. I'm sure a Kalishnikov can do the same thing, but the guys on the other side with the AK-47s didn't do as well. It's the aimed rounds, not the rifle.

Yeah, those infrared lasers, 4x ACOG sights, 30-round magazines and ability to pack several hundred rounds of ammo are very important for self-defense. If you'd have to create an army from scratch to dominate the world, you'd be rather silly to pick the AR-15 family of weapons.

What did I say about exaggeration? How quick we forget. Besides, who are you do limit the terms of my self defense?

The only advantage a M-16 has over the AR-15 is the burst capability. I'd rather have the auto sear, but I don't think I ever used it. Like I said earlier, aimed rounds win battles. Especially if the aimed rounds come from Marines. More than a couple shots at a time is a waste of ammo. You don't want to do that. Trust me on this.

I'm sure a Kalishnikov can do the same thing [...]Not really. The original AK-47s have a horrible sight setup -- it works fine in CQB, but I certainly wouldn't want to be stuck with it where the expected engagement ranges are greater 100 meters. Also, most AKs and clones are inherently inaccurate to a significant degree, because reliability was a bigger issue -- loose parts, internals shake around a bit. A well made AK-clone with decent sights can be quite accurate at range, especially if it's chambered for something other than 7.62x39mm.

What did I say about exaggeration? How quick we forget. Besides, who are you do limit the terms of my self defense?I'm not limiting them. I'm just thinking about what is usually considered "self-defense", and I don't see where the stuff mentioned above factor into it. Long engagement ranges, night-time engagements with NVG and high ammunition consumption is usually not considered to be an integral part of self-defense, so I thought I'd say why I found that particular bit funny.

Like I said earlier, aimed rounds win battles. Especially if the aimed rounds come from Marines. More than a couple shots at a time is a waste of ammo. You don't want to do that. Trust me on this.I've had 9 months of military training and I've read my share of combat reports, I think I've got a decent clue of what types of things do and don't work in actual combat. I'd absolutely want the fully automatic capability for a weapon with relatively tame recoil, because of its importance in CQB. For me, within 10-20 meters with the RK-62 (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as43-e.htm), recoil isn't nearly as great a problem as my inability to reliably swing the weapon to accurately aim at an enemy in a very short time. I assume that's a major reason why you'd rather have a SA/FA trigger group assault rifle as well.

http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com

I've had 9 months of military training and I've read my share of combat reports, I think I've got a decent clue of what types of things do and don't work in actual combat. I'd absolutely want the fully automatic capability for a weapon with relatively tame recoil, because of its importance in CQB. For me, within 10-20 meters with the RK-62 (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as43-e.htm), recoil isn't nearly as great a problem as my inability to reliably swing the weapon to accurately aim at an enemy in a very short time. I assume that's a major reason why you'd rather have a SA/FA trigger group assault rifle as well.

I don't want to be 10 yards away from someone else that wants to kill me. I really feel for the guys that are doing the house to house fighting in Iraq right now. A couple well thrown grenades would definitely tip the balance in their favor.

Remember the AR-15 we were talking about? That's just a civilized version of the M-16. We need to spend a lot of money in the USA to own a machine gun, so people go buy the semi-auto version. The M-16, on the other hand, does have a burst firing capability. Three shots and you need to relax the trigger and squeeze it again. I think that's really better than full auto because the barrel doesn't tend to rise as much after three rounds of auto as it does after thirty. Plus, you just don't waste as much.

Still, I never was put in a position where even the bursts made sense, so I consider myself lucky. Of course, you make your own luck, to a large extent. We weren't stupid, either, and the Republican Guards weren't all that talented.

Pop quiz. I was just in Israel to do some work. Not military work, we design, build, and install tracking systems. We were installing it on a base near Haifa, what's that valley where the "end of days" will happen....Meggido, right? Anyway, what's the main battle rifle of the Israeli Army? Hint, it says 'Made in USA'. My point is that these guys have some practical experience, too. That, and we shove things down their throats, sometimes.

http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha...

I just looked at it again. That is pretty damn funny! Almost as good as the Onion was, before it turned into a bed-wetting liberal humor rag.

I don't want to be 10 yards away from someone else that wants to kill me.Nor do I, but that's rarely a choice you can make, neither in self defense or in the military as a grunt. Plus I was trained as an MP, who would in wartime do most of the MOUT in the Finnish DF.

Three shots and you need to relax the trigger and squeeze it again. I think that's really better than full auto because the barrel doesn't tend to rise as much after three rounds of auto as it does after thirty. Plus, you just don't waste as much.In situations where fully automatic fire is not very useful, burst fire is better. At very close range, I rather just concentrate on pointing the weapon at the enemy and not thinking about the trigger.

Anyway, what's the main battle rifle of the Israeli Army? Hint, it says 'Made in USA'. My point is that these guys have some practical experience, too. That, and we shove things down their throats, sometimes.Their main battle rifle is the Galil 7.62x51mm -- battle rifle referring mostly to fully/semi-automatic rifles firing full-power rifle cartridges. This crap about naming the XM-8 a "battle rifle" to evade the possible publicity problems of an "assault rifle" is utterly moronic.

Yes, the IDF mostly uses M4s, M177s, M4A1s and M16s. That doesn't mean a whole damn lot, since they got most of those dirt cheap (or free) from the US during a time when they needed a lot of weapons fast. Had they had the time and the money to use any possible weapons, let alone if they could make those choices now, I dare say they'd change around a few things. First, getting a weapon with a gas piston instead of a direct gas action, and then possibly choosing a caliber like the 6.8mm Remington SPC with better terminal ballistics without relying on the fragmentation effect.

Yes, the IDF mostly uses M4s, M177s, M4A1s and M16s. That doesn't mean a whole damn lot, since they got most of those dirt cheap (or free) from the US during a time when they needed a lot of weapons fast. Had they had the time and the money to use any possible weapons, let alone if they could make those choices now, I dare say they'd change around a few things. First, getting a weapon with a gas piston instead of a direct gas action, and then possibly choosing a caliber like the 6.8mm Remington SPC with better terminal ballistics without relying on the fragmentation effect.

I was around the IAF, so my perception was probably wrong. That's the problem with using personal anecdotes as fact.

There is one time when I think automatic fire is absolutely essential. That's when you are in a defensive position. But not from rifles. I wouldn't ever want to set up a defensive position without a bunch of machine guns. Fifty cal machine guns, if I could. I don't know about MPs, but the infantry is pretty well trained in this. You don't want to lose an hard won position because you can't consoldiate it properly.

Anyway, each individual is assigned a field of fire. That's his responsibility and well planned fields of fire should interlock. The machine guns are placed so that they can have the most effect and when properly done, aiming isn't as important as keeping up the rate of fire. It's all pretty impressive at night.

Riflemen should still aim at targets, though. And all of them should carry some machine gun ammo.

Didn't I mention something about the gas system in a M-16 a ways back? I thought so. It sucks, compared to an M1 or M14. Those were well made, simple rifles and are completely out of place today. Not light enough, I think. Pretty accurate, though. That's why I really like shooting the M1 at service rifle matches. Even with that clumsy en-block clip, it's a pretty nice rifle to shoot. Then again, first place at the Camp Perry nationals was won with a AR-15. This year, last year, the year before, the year before that...Says something, doesn't it?

Then again, first place at the Camp Perry nationals was won with a AR-15. This year, last year, the year before, the year before that...Says something, doesn't it?It says some of the best competition riflemen in the US use AR-15s to a good effect. It is an accurate rifle, no doubt easy to maneuver and nice to handle, and certainly reliable enough for most uses -- especially competitions. Even if such competitions were international, the rifle it would be won with would mostly depend on which country the winning person/team is from. Compared to what actually works in combat, the results get skewed immensely by things like you not needing to kill/incapacitate your target but only hit it (in a particular spot).

As I'm sure you can imagine, you get to do a number of defensive combat simulations with live ammunition at night in 9 months of infantry training. The difference is that you rarely get a good field of fire further out than 50-100 meters in your basic Finnish terrain (thick forest after thick forest) even when the area is cleared beforehand. Heavy machineguns are a lot less useful in those conditions. HMGs are very, very fun to shoot, though. There's a certain something about the noise they make -- especially when the bullets skip off water, that ripping sound is in a whole another class than what you get with assault rifles.

Still, the weapon I would most like to have plenty of in a defensive battle in prepared positions is directional mines.

serial murders and this are different cases, in serial killer cases its generally some random guy who pops up and starts killing people, they have to work to find suspects. he has stated that the exhusband has beat his wife on numerous occasions and has been reported and has a restraining order against him. who the hell do you think would be the FIRST suspect if she died?
Actually, most serial killers start with someone they know. Further, it would be reasonable to assume that a whole family might just happen to be located in one house at the time, allowing for the fact that the police have yet to perfect teleportation technology, mind control machines, or crystal balls, that doesn't boad well for the unarmed citizen does it?

im sure a dog the size of a chair would too...
And then you have a guard dog that is trained to kill/maul strangers.
Oh yes, look it the 150 pound doggy! Good doggy, Good doggy, goo- OH DEAR GOD ITS GOD MY LEG!!! Of course, his kid probably only needs one arm to go through life, and I am ssure he won't miss that left hand to much if he knows he can live in safety relying on the fact that only criminals have handguns.

It says some of the best competition riflemen in the US use AR-15s to a good effect.

I was thinking about the fact that the glory days for 30.06 Springfield rifles are long gone. I'm referring to a type of ammo, not a type of rifle, by the way. That isn't a common type of cartridge outside the US, is it? Most of the world seems to be set on 7.62 mm or so.

I have never done this type of shooting, but I see a lot of the benchrest shooters using a 6 mm PPC round. That's Russian, isn't it? I favor the service rifle competitions because we have four ten-round strings of rapid fire.

IStill, the weapon I would most like to have plenty of in a defensive battle in prepared positions is directional mines.

I think our engineers always had some Claymores. I don't think I ever saw any, outside of training. The mines make a good signal to start an ambush, I've heard. We always prepared a hasty defense whenever we had to consolidate. The R/G was retreating too fast to even do that for most of the battle. And you're right about trees, but I'd still rest a little easier with some machine guns set up with interlocking fire.

I'm trying to picture some dense woods that I've been in. I think I'd want to have some cleared area around me. If only to keep some SA about the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. The WWI battles in the Argonne must have been pretty confusing.

I was thinking about the fact that the glory days for 30.06 Springfield rifles are long gone. I'm referring to a type of ammo, not a type of rifle, by the way. That isn't a common type of cartridge outside the US, is it? Most of the world seems to be set on 7.62 mm or so.Yeah, the .30-06 is pretty much a US phenomenon, the .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm NATO and others mostly replace it in Europe. The glory days of full-power rifle cartridges in standard issue infantry weapons were over by the 70s, that's hardly new. And, like I said, competition shooting like that will favor less powerful rounds because terminal ballistics don't come into play.

I have never done this type of shooting, but I see a lot of the benchrest shooters using a 6 mm PPC round. That's Russian, isn't it? I favor the service rifle competitions because we have four ten-round strings of rapid fire.I remember seeing something about the 6mm PPC a long time ago, but I can't remember any specifics. It doesn't seem too uncommon, since Google gives a lot of hits like this (http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/6ppc.html).

It seems to be significantly more powerful than the 5.56x45mm, launching a 90gr bullet at 3000fps for 1799 ft-lbs (vs. 62gr @ 3000fps for 1239 ft-lbs). With a bullet diameter of only 6mm, though, I don't personally see how that would solve the terminal ballistics problems of the 5.56x45mm. The 6.8mm Remington SPC (http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammunition/remington_0303/) is more powerful yet with 115gr bullets at 2800fps for 2002 ft-lbs of kinetic energy at the muzzle.

For reference, the 7.62x39mm Russian is usually around 123gr @ 2400fps for 1574 ft-lbs and the 7.62x51mm M80 Ball round (for M14/M60/M240) launches a 146gr bullet at 2750fps for 2452 ft-lbs. Firing a fully automatic rifle in 6.8mm SPC is not going to be nearly as controllable as those in 5.56x45mm, but that's the price you pay for increased lethality, penetration and range.

I think our engineers always had some Claymores. I don't think I ever saw any, outside of training. The mines make a good signal to start an ambush, I've heard. We always prepared a hasty defense whenever we had to consolidate. The R/G was retreating too fast to even do that for most of the battle. And you're right about trees, but I'd still rest a little easier with some machine guns set up with interlocking fire.The mines can be set up pretty quickly when necessary, and are hideously effective. The Finnish light directional mine weighs 1.9kg and fires about 900 fragments in a 60 degree area with 0.9kg of high explosives, effective range 50 meters. Every infantry platoon will have about a dozen of those. Not only will they perforate anybody not behind serious cover within the 50 meters, but they also clear the underbrush quite magnificently.

Machineguns certainly come in handy in any case, it's just that heavy machineguns are less so in areas of low visibility. We got to play around with the KK-62 (http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg31-e.htm) a lot.

I'm trying to picture some dense woods that I've been in. I think I'd want to have some cleared area around me. If only to keep some SA about the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. The WWI battles in the Argonne must have been pretty confusing.Clearing some parts of the firing lane when in well prepared positions is indeed SOP, it's just that they can't be cleared too well or the enemy will suspect they have been cleared for just this purpose. And then the Russ... err, sorry, "Soldiers of the Yellow Enemy Nation" will call in lots and lots of artillery.

That "Modern Firearms" link is pretty good. I had a little higher opinion of the M-60 machine gun, but otherwise it seems pretty factual.

I just prefer the thought of living in a country were any idiot cant walk into a superstore and leave with enough weaponary to kill a bus load of people...

Your country doesn't have shops that sell cars? Or knives? Or fertilizer? Or petrol? Matches?

Wierd.

That "Modern Firearms" link is pretty good. I had a little higher opinion of the M-60 machine gun, but otherwise it seems pretty factual.That particular article does seem a bit biased. Sure, a barrel that can be quickly and easily replaced in battlefield conditions is a must have on a GPMG, and the lightened barrel guarantees that it's more of a LMG than a MMG or GPMG -- but you can see videos of the newest version of the M60 firing over 800 rounds before barrel failure here (rtsp://rm001.infi.net:80/~atpco/realserver/04bw_m60_mod1.rm), so the 200-300 round limits certainly no longer hold.

Still, the M60 was largely phased out in favor of the M240 in the GPMG role, so there has to be some truth to that article.

World.Guns.Ru is one of the best sources for basic information about a lot of guns, especially for those guns on which it might be more difficult to find information on the maker's/designer's website.

Now, if you are into serious self-defense or world domination, I think a carbine like the AR-15 would be a good choice. A thousand rounds of ammo weighs less that the 308 stuff, you can load thirty round mags, you can carry more loaded mags, there are a lot of neat add-ons to the rifle...
Meh, I'd take a bunch of guys with a mixture of M14's and their SOCOM variants. Maybe a few M25 snipers as well.

We always had a series of "Janes" books around the squadron. I don't think there is a better unclassified source of information about anything military. Too bad the online version is by subscription. Not that I don't want them to be profitable, it would just be nice to have a free "teaser" with links to the paid info.

We always had a series of "Janes" books around the squadron. I don't think there is a better unclassified source of information about anything military. Too bad the online version is by subscription. Not that I don't want them to be profitable, it would just be nice to have a free "teaser" with links to the paid info.Jane's absolutely rocks, no doubt about it. But not only are they subscription-only, they're hideously expensive. Jane's Defense Weekly Online is a sweet $1,110 or about 827€ per annum.

The other interesting source for free trivia about the world is the CIA world fact book. It doesn't go into much detail, but if you want an estimate of how many cell phones are in Afghanistan, for instance, it's there.

The other interesting source for free trivia about the world is the CIA world fact book. It doesn't go into much detail, but if you want an estimate of how many cell phones are in Afghanistan, for instance, it's there.Yep, also in my bookmarks.

An exhaustive list of useful links if you're interested in firearms and anything related (http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/downloads/bookmark.htm) (not mine).

Nice list. If it includes my baby, you know it's complete. Spent a lot of time in the right seat.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-6.htm