Ok I know most of you guys think guns are evil, but this right here is just nasty!

[VirusType2]

So in this hypothetical situation that the armed forces, law enforcement and all government has been eradicated by some Enemy, leaving only a civilian militia this Enemy would leave media outlets alone and allow them to organise a resistance? Right...

Yeah, they can't magically destroy every radio antenna and every TV station at once. All ~600,000 of them scattered throughout the US. Wake up. They also confiscate all of our telephones, two ways, and cell phones or shoot all satellites out of space and make us all wear tin foil hats. EDIT - And don't forget about the internet.

Well in that case a million american geurillas trying to live off the land like a lone japanese soldier would mostly starve to death.

Hello, We got guns, stores, farms, wildlife to hunt - we won't starve. What in the hell?

And the only reason you don't like it is because you don't like guns?


it's funny because when I go someplace like wal-mart during hunting season, 90% of the people in the store are wearing full camouflage.

**** with us bitch.

 

[Jintor]

One day you'll be p-passing notes and talkin' bout the prom, and then suddenly you look out the window and there are Russian Paratroopers here to kick your ass! What are you gonna do?

 

[Eejit]

The comment about going against a battalion is kinda stupid. I have no plans to organize against a batallion and seriously doubt it would every come to that. I do think that millions of Americans fighting using guerrilla tactics could effectively cripple any invading military. We have more guns here than any where in the world. I don't have deluded fantasies about Red Dawn happening though like some gun nuts. I just want to be a dentist and keep to myself.

Here's a good quote:

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (the chief planner of the Pearl Harbor attack) spoke warningly of "a rifle behind every blade of grass" when discussions of invading the USA came up.

The idea of land invasions of a first world country is so pre-nuclear age anyway.
If your armed forces are all gone they've been a) nuked or b) owned by some biological weapon.

Yeah, they can't magically destroy every radio antenna and every TV station at once. All ~600,000 of them scattered throughout the US. Wake up. They also confiscate all of our telephones, two ways, and cell phones or shoot all satellites out of space and make us all wear tin foil hats. EDIT - And don't forget about the internet.


Hello, We got guns, stores, farms, wildlife to hunt - we won't starve. What in the hell?

Stores? Lol.This is a convoluted fantasy you have where all law enforcement and armed forces are gone but all infrastructure continues untouched.

And the only reason you don't like it is because you don't like guns?


it's funny because when I go someplace like wal-mart during hunting season, 90% of the people in the store are wearing full camouflage.

**** with us bitch.

Like I said, the very idea of a ground invasion of a major power is entirely obsolete anyway. Hell, you guys couldn't occupy Vietnam successfully and they were hardly an military powerhouse.
The very idea of a militia against external or terrorist threats is absurd.

 

[SIGbastard]

Like I said, the very idea of a ground invasion of a major power is entirely obsolete anyway. Hell, you guys couldn't occupy Vietnam successfully and they were hardly an military powerhouse.
The very idea of a militia against external or terrorist threats is absurd.

That has alot to do with politics more than anything. Certain strategic areas were off limits for bombing for awhile for political reasons in Vietnam. I think the outcome could have been different if we were really in it to win, but we were to worried about what we would look like if we fought like it was a full scale war. We haven't fought a war and been fully in it because of politics in a long time.

 

[Operational]

That has alot to do with politics more than anything. Certain strategic areas were off limits for bombing for awhile for political reasons in Vietnam. I think the outcome could have been different if we were really in it to win, but we were to worried about what we would look like if we fought like it was a full scale war.

Gun debate aside you've got to be kidding me. 58,151 US Military deaths in Vietnam making it the fourth highest bloodiest war in American history and you think they weren't "in it to win"?

 

[VirusType2]

Eeijit you aren't going to end up with the same imaginary invasion that never happened as I would have.



Also made a ... huge mistake. I said the USA has about 3.5 million people, it's actually about 350 million.

so Anyway, to correct myself for the second time, it's actually somewhere around 117,000,000 civilians that own guns.

And indeed I disagree Eeijit. I think it is significant. Your total population is about 6 million but the US has 117 million civilians that own guns.

 

[Jintor]

You know, from my point of view, the country with 117,000,000 civilians that own guns is a pretty damn threatening nation.

Good thing we're friends, right?

...right?

 

[VirusType2]

Like brothers!

Can Australia even do any wrong?

 

[Baserape>]

Quoting the 2nd amendment is like quoting from the Bible. It is outdated and no longer serves a purpose.

 

[VirusType2]

Perhaps:

if everyone had a gun, there would be no crime.

If every country had nukes, there would be no war.

 

[xcellerate]

if everyone had a gun, there would be no crime.

... ... ...

I'll bundle that statement up with:
1.) Guns on campus would prevent school shootings
2.) Claw-like device inserted into the vagina prevents rape

 

[Kamikazie]

You know, from my point of view, the country with 117,000,000 civilians that own guns is a pretty damn threatening nation.

Good thing we're friends, right?

...right?

:hmph:

For now. The only way you can better yourself is if you send hot Australian chicks here.

 

[Shift]

Like I said, the very idea of a ground invasion of a major power is entirely obsolete anyway. Hell, you guys couldn't occupy Vietnam successfully and they were hardly an military powerhouse

Actually just to make a point, the Vietcong and NVA during the Vietnam war was one of the most intelligent, disciplined and effective fighting forces of the 20th century. And it was mainly severe unrest at home that forced them to withdraw because of the increased presence of the media in conflicts showing the American atrocities, had they had full support back home they would just kept flooding troops in until they overwhelmed and beat them by attrition.

 

[SIGbastard]

Gun debate aside you've got to be kidding me. 58,151 US Military deaths in Vietnam making it the fourth highest bloodiest war in American history and you think they weren't "in it to win"?

Ok maybe I shouldn't have said "in it to win". The fact remains though that politics most certainly crippled us. There were many strategic targets off limits to bombing for political reasons. We could have fought that war in a much more aggressive manner. If we had taken it to North Vietnam like we should have the outcome may have been different though collateral damage would have been alot higher. Oh and I am not saying I supported it in any way.

 

[SIGbastard]

Actually just to make a point, the Vietcong and NVA during the Vietnam war was one of the most intelligent, disciplined and effective fighting forces of the 20th century. And it was mainly severe unrest at home that forced them to withdraw because of the increased presence of the media in conflicts showing the American atrocities, had they had full support back home they would just kept flooding troops in until they overwhelmed and beat them by attrition.

According to the Vietnamese government, 1,100,000 North Vietnamese Army and National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam military personnel died in the conflict

The Army of the Republic of Vietnam ARVN lost approximately 184,000 servicemen during the war, with some estimates as high as a quarter of a million.

That's from Wiki which I know can have errors. That doesn't really sound like an incredibly effective force to me. They were largely ignorant peasants and farmers that were not well trained.

 

[Jintor]

Perhaps:

if everyone had a gun, there would be no crime.

If every country had nukes, there would be no war.

No there would be a ****load of crime and war.

According to the Vietnamese government, 1,100,000 North Vietnamese Army and National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam military personnel died in the conflict

The Army of the Republic of Vietnam ARVN lost approximately 184,000 servicemen during the war, with some estimates as high as a quarter of a million.

That's from Wiki which I know can have errors. That doesn't really sound like an incredibly effective force to me. They were largely ignorant peasants and farmers that were not well trained.

I'm not sure if you can judge the effectiveness of a fighting force by taking the enemy's casualites, subtracting your casualties, and if the answer is positive then you win. There's a whole boatload of other factors. However I agree that the Northern forces probably were farmers and peasants who were poorly trained and armed, although ignorant isn't the word I would have used.

 

[SIGbastard]

No there would be a ****load of crime and war.



I'm not sure if you can judge the effectiveness of a fighting force by taking the enemy's casualites, subtracting your casualties, and if the answer is positive then you win.

I was not implying that either but at a North Vietnamese death rate of about 19:1 to the US I'd say they really weren't all that effective except in the numbers they had.

 

[VirusType2]

No there would be a ****load of crime and war.

No, the truth is sometimes unbelievable.

I can't attest for the nuke comment I added, but the 'everyone had a gun' thing is a statement based on facts.

The nuke? It's logic. Nobody want's to fight a war that can't be won. You keep each other in check.

Unless you are an extremist. Then you don't care obviously.

 

[xcellerate]

I can't attest for the nuke comment I added, but the 'everyone had a gun' thing is a statement based on facts.

You know you can't say something is based on facts and then fail to share them.

 

[SIGbastard]

Ok the original intent was to show off a friggen sweet shotgun magazine. I'm just going to post some more pics to reiterate that........

I used to have pic of my son helping me trim some rifle brass. He NEVER handles guns or ammo at his age but he helps out with tasks that are not dangerous and he loves to help his daddy. It would be impossible for him to get hurt with my trimmer and I am right there with him. He also loves to pull the handle on my reloading press. When I am doing rifle I size the brass completely seperate from the rest of it so there is no powder or primers etc. So there is nothing that can go boom. The worst thing he could do is screw up some of my brass. He would pull that lever for an hour if I let him.

 

[VirusType2]

Research into the effects of concealed carry laws on crime

There have been many studies and papers published in academic journals regarding the effects of various concealed carry laws on crime rate. Academics have also taken the discussion to books, blogs, and oral debates.

In his book, 'More Guns, Less Crime', University of Maryland scholar John Lott's analysis of crime report data has shown statistically significant effects of concealed carry laws. One major conclusion was that locations which enacted more permissive concealed carry laws had a decrease in violent crime but an increase in property crime. The possible reasons for this rise in property crime are twofold:

* Property crimes include trespassing, and concealed-carry statutes that include prohibited-area laws introduce the possibility of trespass where the individual would otherwise be in violation of a weapons law by carrying concealed (e.g. unlawful carry) or would not carry and be lawful.
* Concealed carry allows potential victims of violent crime to prevent such crime; as a result, the assailant, if not fatally shot, is instead charged with a property crime such as burglary instead of homicide.

In both cases, crime is reduced overall, and criminal activity that does occur is recategorized as to type and severity because of the effects of the change in law.

Don Kates summarizes the consensus reached by criminological research into gun control thus:

"Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem. Irresponsible and criminal owners, whose gun possession creates or exacerbates so many social ills, are the ones most difficult to disarm."

Regardless of the interpretation of statistics, the trend in the United States has been towards greater permissiveness of concealed carry. In Florida, which introduced the "shall-issue" concealed carry laws used as a model for other states, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses

In 1991, the Luby's massacre prompted Texas lawmakers to pass a concealed carry law that came into effect in 1995.

Research comparing various countries' violent crime rates, murder rates, and crimes committed with weapons, have found that legal ownership of guns, including concealed carry guns, generally reduces crime rates.

University of Washington public health professor Brandon Centerwall prepared a study comparing homicide rates between Canada and the U.S., as the two countries are very similar, yet have different handgun ownership rates. He reported "Major differences in the prevalence of handguns have not resulted in differing total criminal homicide rates in Canadian provinces and adjoining US states." In his conclusions he published the following admonition:

"If you are surprised by my findings, so are we. .."


Sources

 

[Ennui]

I think guns are evil and I'm for reasonable gun control but I can totally see being into guns as a hobby. If I have the money one day I might. Come on, all of you are FPS gamers, you know that shooting guns is fun. Personally I have a blast every time I have that opportunity. Owning guns isn't always gung-ho defend my land kill kill kill, it's just because people think guns are cool (as machines, they really are) and love to shoot them. IMO making your own ammunition sounds pretty cool too.

Plus, when the apocalypse comes, you'll be ready, man.

 

[Jintor]

No, the truth is sometimes unbelievable.

I can't attest for the nuke comment I added, but the 'everyone had a gun' thing is a statement based on facts.

The nuke? It's logic. Nobody want's to fight a war that can't be won. You keep each other in check.

Unless you are an extremist. Then you don't care obviously.

Well, to be fair, it only takes one war with nukes to **** up the world.

See, you only need one extremist (or group of extremists, or whatever).

 

[CptStern]

In his book, 'More Guns, Less Crime', University of Maryland scholar John Lott's analysis of crime report data has shown statistically significant effects of concealed carry laws.

Lott has an agenda to push ..and stats to cook up it seems

Lott must grapple with an emerging controversy -- brought to the public eye by the blogosphere -- that goes to the heart of his academic integrity.

The most disturbing charge, first raised by retired University of California, Santa Barbara professor Otis Dudley Duncan and pursued by Australian computer programmer Tim Lambert, is that Lott fabricated a study claiming that 98 percent of defensive gun uses involved mere brandishing, as opposed to shooting. When Lott cited the statistic peripherally on page three of his book, he attributed it to "national surveys." In the second edition, he changed the citation to "a national survey that I conducted."

He has also incorrectly attributed the figure to newspaper polls and Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck. Last fall, Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren volunteered to investigate the claimed existence of Lott's 1997 telephone survey of 2,424 people. "I thought it would be exceedingly simple to establish" that the research had been done, Lindgren wrote in his report (posted online here).

It was not simple.

Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash. He financed the survey himself and kept no financial records. He has forgotten the names of the students who allegedly helped with the survey and who supposedly dialed thousands of survey respondents long-distance from their own dorm rooms using survey software Lott can't identify or produce. Assuming the survey data was lost in a computer crash, it is still remarkable that Lott could not produce a single, contemporaneous scrap of paper proving the survey's existence, such as the research protocol or survey instrument. After Lindgren's report was published, a Minnesota gun rights activist named David Gross came forward, claiming he was surveyed in 1997.

Some have said that Gross's account proves that the survey was done. I think skepticism is warranted. Lott now admits he used a fake persona, "Mary Rosh," to post voluminous defenses of his work over the Internet. "Rosh" gushed that Lott was "the best professor that I ever had." She/he also penned an effusive review of More Guns, Less Crime on Amazon.com: "It was very interesting reading and Lott writes very well." (Lott claims that one of his sons posted the review in "Rosh's" name.) Just last week, "Rosh" complained on a blog comment board: "Critics such as Lambert and Lindgren ought to slink away and hide."

By itself, there is nothing wrong with using a pseudonym. But Lott's invention of Mary Rosh to praise his own research and blast other scholars is beyond creepy. And it shows his extensive willingness to deceive to protect and promote his work. Some Second Amendment activists believe there is an anti-gun conspiracy to discredit Lott as "payback" for the fall of Michael Bellesiles, the disgraced former Emory University professor who engaged in rampant research fraud to bolster his anti-gun book, Arming America. But it wasn't an anti-gun zealot who unmasked Rosh/Lott. It was Internet blogger Julian Sanchez, a staffer at the libertarian Cato Institute, which staunchly defends the Second Amendment. And it was the conservative Washington Times that first reported last week on the survey dispute in the mainstream press.

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2003/02/05/the_other_lott_controversy

 

[xcellerate]

.....................

 

[VirusType2]

Lott has an agenda to push ..and stats to cook up it seems



http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2003/02/05/the_other_lott_controversy

Interesting. And this certainly discredits Lott quite a bit. However, there are other, assumed credible sources in that wiki as well.

Fact is, that in the US, concealed carry laws have spread to most states, and it doesn't look like long before it's legal in every state. Surely there must be something to this, no?

After a massacre in Texas, they immediately passed a concealed carry law. Therefore, there must be evidence to support that it would be helpful in lowering murder rates, if not crime itself.

 

[CptStern]

there are few gun stats (both for and against) that arent biased as it's such a long standing and contentious issue that both sides regurarily cook stats to suit their agenda

 

[Kase]

Let people have there guns just outlaw the ammo

 

[VirusType2]

Let people have there guns just outlaw the ammo

"If bullets cost $1,000,000 each, there would be no such thing as an innocent bystander being shot." - Chris Rock

 

[SIGbastard]

Rather than start up a new gun thread which would turn into an incredibly long boring debate again. I wanted to update this thread. I know most of you won't care but I think this new toy of mine is friggen cool. I decided to get this now in case gun control becomes a prime target after this election. I am not worried about post-apocalyptic scenarios like many here will imply, but simply the fact that stuff like this may be banned soon and thus become way more expensive and hard to come by. I have always wanted one also. I actually think my preferred candidate has a good chance of winning though, but in all honesty congress as a whole is more important. I have better things to spend money on right now but it's a habit of mine to by a nice gun before any national election.

Anyways all that BS aside I just picked up my new Barrett M-99A1 (.50 BMG) and a Super Sniper scope. I don't have the scope mounted yet. This thing weighs a TON for a rifle!! I am just posting someone elses pic that is exactly the same setup as mine aside from the rings used. I may update my pic this weekend when I get a chance to mount my scope. It is a thing of beauty:

 

[Dog--]

IF you think guns are evil, you are a bitch. Guns fo life yo

How can you not think someone strapped to the teeth with like 500 guns isn't cool as ****? Like Neo when he went through the metal detector. He ****ed those security guards right up.

 

[kineaesth]

... Ohhhkay that's a pretty ****ing sexy looking wifle.

 

[VirusType2]

It looks nice. Too nice to bring into battle. It looks like it would explode an elephant.

 

[morgs]

Do want! Only allowed to have rifles here in New Zealand, and only with a license in a range. No hand guns allowed, even on ranges.

 

[Krynn72]

IF you think guns are evil, you are a bitch. Guns fo life yo

How can you not think someone strapped to the teeth with like 500 guns isn't cool as ****? Like Neo when he went through the metal detector. He ****ed those security guards right up.

I'd think someone dressed up and equiped like a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle would be far cooler. Guns are for pussies.
























But I'm not even joking.

 

[MJ12]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are so overrated these days.

Damn you Hot Topic and scene kids.

 

[Eejit]

It is a thing of beauty:

It's a pretty ugly looking gun imo.

 

[Gray Fox]

Rather than start up a new gun thread which would turn into an incredibly long boring debate again. I wanted to update this thread. I know most of you won't care but I think this new toy of mine is friggen cool. I decided to get this now in case gun control becomes a prime target after this election. I am not worried about post-apocalyptic scenarios like many here will imply, but simply the fact that stuff like this may be banned soon and thus become way more expensive and hard to come by. I have always wanted one also. I actually think my preferred candidate has a good chance of winning though, but in all honesty congress as a whole is more important. I have better things to spend money on right now but it's a habit of mine to by a nice gun before any national election.

Anyways all that BS aside I just picked up my new Barrett M-99A1 (.50 BMG) and a Super Sniper scope. I don't have the scope mounted yet. This thing weighs a TON for a rifle!! I am just posting someone elses pic that is exactly the same setup as mine aside from the rings used. I may update my pic this weekend when I get a chance to mount my scope. It is a thing of beauty:

To be honest

 

[mechanicallizard]

holy shit i need to get my hands on one of those things-- no problem though im joining the marine corps in january!!! GET SOME!!!

 

[CptStern]

holy shit i need to get my hands on one of those things-- no problem though im joining the marine corps in january!!! GET SOME!!!

dont become a marine corpse