PDA

View Full Version : This Is My Boomstick!


duckula
31-07-2004, 03:30 PM
Gun control. Second Amendment. Thoughts?

Hazzle
31-07-2004, 03:31 PM
I posted this elsewhere before this thread was created so I'll just copy and paste.

Perhaps, but the Americans have gun control also. What was being spoken of was even tighter control. Also, since the enaction of the latest firearms regulations in Britain the amount of violent crimes using firearms has increased (possibly due to social changes but hardly a great advert for gun control.

Yes, new thread time.

As pointed out the Swiss gun controls ARE tighter :).

And yes, it's almost ENTIRELY due to social changes...I mean the Swiss situation is ALSO entirely due to their society...they don't have much of a standing army, as I'm sure we're all aware of...the US by contrast has a huge army.

duckula
31-07-2004, 03:35 PM
Are you saying it's society that's the problem, not the guns?

Hazzle
31-07-2004, 03:37 PM
No, I'm saying society is largely responsible for the slight increase (and AFAIK it is just a slight increase) in the rate of firearm crime in this country.

And also that society is the reason why relatively loose gun laws work in Switzerland but do not work in the US...the yanks are thick hot-heads, the Swiss are intelligent and neutral (lest we forget they're BORN sat on top of a fence).

duckula
31-07-2004, 03:41 PM
So why don't we address the social problems instead of controlling guns?

Hazzle
31-07-2004, 03:42 PM
So why don't we address the social problems instead of controlling guns?

Why don't we do both?

duckula
31-07-2004, 03:43 PM
Because you don't just ban things. It leads to a rather undesirable state of affairs. There are also other reasons why the Americans and us should have guns.

Hazzle
31-07-2004, 03:47 PM
Because you don't just ban things. It leads to a rather undesirable state of affairs. There are also other reasons why the Americans and us should have guns.

Preytell...go on...

And seemingly you do just ban things...seen the drugs thread?

Anyway, who said ban guns? I simply said better control...I simply think it's idiotic for a country that doesn't need it to have people having the right to hold arms...the Swiss are an exceptional case as it's their only means of having a force capable of defending their country, but why does the US, with its huge military, NEED its citizens to have the right to have a gun?

Abolish the right, and ALLOW people to have guns subject to control...it's a technical change, but one that would allow effective control. Once the constitution grants the right, it's VERY hard to control it. Having read case law about how a gun law that simply said carrying firearms in a school zone was not allowed was STRUCK DOWN...I just think that's crazy. I don't oppose people having guns, but the government SHOULD be able to say that people can't carry them in school areas.

duckula
31-07-2004, 03:52 PM
The reason for the right to have guns is entirely because of that standing army, it allows the population to defend itself against the government.

Elijahfan
31-07-2004, 03:53 PM
michael moore's movie, bowling for columbine, talked about the issue of firearms in america and compared it to canada. canada had more guns but less deaths from firearms, which i thought was really interesting. moore pointed out it was probably because of society fear in the US.

Hazzle
31-07-2004, 03:56 PM
The reason for the right to have guns is entirely because of that standing army, it allows the population to defend itself against the government.

The army isn't merely a tool of the government...if you mean it allows us to protect ourselves from the army you ARE having a laugh...us...untrained...amateurs...against a highly trained military...sod the fact we outnumber them they'd ANNIHILATE us if it came to that. So that argument fails...sorry...try again.

duckula
31-07-2004, 04:02 PM
Standing army of 500,000 fighting men (give or take). Population capable of fighting 200,000,000 (approximately). Nice maths. Your knowledge of asymetric warfare is sorely lacking my friend. Even a small group of dedicated individuals (talented amateurs) can cause significant damage to a modern military (see vietnam, afghanistan, iraq, checnya, northern ireland and a multitude of godforsaken hell holes the world over). Try again please.

Hazzle
31-07-2004, 04:07 PM
Standing army of 500,000 fighting men (give or take). Population capable of fighting 200,000,000 (approximately). Nice maths. Your knowledge of asymetric warfare is sorely lacking my friend. Even a small group of dedicated individuals (talented amateurs) can cause significant damage to a modern military (see vietnam, afghanistan, iraq, checnya, northern ireland and a multitude of godforsaken hell holes the world over). Try again please.

Or we could just list the ENTIRE history of warfare in which talented amateurs have been massacred...a few examples your point does not make, but I'll just fucking concede it as I'm too bloody lazy to list every single invasion that ever succeeded...

And this means people should have a constitutionally guaranteed, and all but uncontrollable right to bear a gun? What's wrong with a government law that people can't have guns in school zones? Also you fail to point out how NOT having the right to bear arms would harm anyone...even CONCEDING your point about all those guerilla wars, most of those people severely lacked training, and since if law and order broke down to that extent we have no obligation to obey the law, we could all pick up arms and we'd be in the EXACT same position as all those guerilla forces.

So even by your own logic you've yet to make your case out. Try again :p

duckula
31-07-2004, 04:11 PM
Not having the right to have guns would mean that the government who did could exert total control over you. The other reasons for having guns is hunting, sport and self defence.

Hazzle
31-07-2004, 04:14 PM
Not having the right to have guns would mean that the government who did could exert total control over you.

Err...nope...because once the government become a threat to you you have no reason to obey the law...the fact it's illegal wouldn't stop people. My only point was people should be ALLOWED to bear arms, not ENTITLED to without ANY control, which is more or less the status in the states (and don't give me the "Guns are controlled" bs because statistics show what little controls exist simply don't work, things fall through the cracks and USEFUL controls like no guns in places like schools can't be passed...how logical is that?!)

The other reasons for having guns is hunting, sport and self defence.

And I said you should be allowed to have guns...just not entitled to. Why do you need to hunt in school? Or for self-defence? I mean ffs if people had guns in UK schools you'd be dead by now ;) You'd be a RIGHT pain to go to school with :mad:

duckula
31-07-2004, 04:19 PM
Why shouldn't you be able to defend yourself in a school zone?
Guns are controlled. The regulations are fairly tight infact.
The reason it is a right enshrined in the constitution is so that the government cannot disarm you legally. The other reason for not allowing gun control is to maintain the sanctity of the constitution.

Hazzle
31-07-2004, 04:35 PM
Why shouldn't you be able to defend yourself in a school zone?

Because a) There's no need to b) It causes a fair amount of rather famous incidents where bullied kids kill a fair few people and c) people like you and I would either be dead or murderers :p

Guns are controlled. The regulations are fairly tight infact.

I know they're controlled...nowhere NEAR tight enough though...or the plethora of gun related deaths wouldn't be occuring, would they?

The reason it is a right enshrined in the constitution is so that the government cannot disarm you legally.

Nope...no need for that..what you fail to realise is once people are armed, if the government tried to disarm you, with the view to oppressing you, you have no obligation to obey the law, and once you're armed they cannot FORCE you to, because, as you so rightly pointed out, you could fight back...so you lose...sorry mate :p. Once a stature enables people to hold arms, that right will be hard to exitinguish, but easy to regulate...although what do I know, I'm only someone who's studied law...including US constitutional law...of course an Engineer knows better about how to regulate and use law ;)

The other reason for not allowing gun control is to maintain the sanctity of the constitution.

Circular argument...sorry...always a loser. The Constitution has to be an evolving document so that it can suit the society of its time...the consistution HAS been an evolving document, look at prohibition, look at abortion rights, look at gay sex, flag burning...I could go on. However the 2nd Amendment seems to the be the ONLY one where the Supreme Court refuses to allow it to be modified to suit modern society's needs.

duckula
31-07-2004, 05:01 PM
On the constitutional point, any gun control that runs contrary to the second amendment but is allowed to stand (you can argue this as any gun control) means that the text has been undermined. If you wish to enact gun control, amend the constitution.

On the matter of keeping the right to bear arms a right I say this. If you make them a privilege it is easy to whittle down the privileged until they are an easily contained group. You impose yourself (you being the government) incrementally (first they came for the jews and all that). Then you have a population that is almost entirely unable to resist your control. This is not to suggest that current governments would wish to do that, merely that future ones should be prevented from doing it. The current fad for liberal democratic governments may only be a historical blip. The road to the darkness is long and well lit.

As for the plethora of gun deaths, the majority are suicides or carried out with illegal weapons (the gangs in LA and other places did not pick up their Tec-9s at the local Guns R Us).

On defending yourself in a school zone. First it is my understanding that these laws extend to a region outside the school in a manner similair to drug free zones where drug offences are more harshly dealt with. This area usually extends a thousand feet or so (my memory on this is a little hazy). Should we deny those that live near schools the right to protect themselves?

And if we are talking about the high school shootings, how far would the kids at Columbine got if the rest of the students were armed or the teachers were. The only way a person would be allowed a gun on school property would be with a concealed carry licence which only adults can have (open carry is often treated under breach of the peace statutes).

Finally, on American gun laws. There are limits to who can buy guns (no kids, no felons, no wife beaters). Waiting periods for guns. Controls on what features a gun has (barrel length, bayonet lugs etc.). In order to possess fully automatic weapons and silenced weapons you require permission from local law enforcement and a sign off from the BATF.

Hazzle
31-07-2004, 05:25 PM
On the constitutional point, any gun control that runs contrary to the second amendment but is allowed to stand (you can argue this as any gun control) means that the text has been undermined. If you wish to enact gun control, amend the constitution.

Consitutions are not textual documents...they have spirits...they are to be read purposively not literally...this is shown in the Supreme Court rulings on Substantial Due Process, Abortion, Privacy (there is NO right of privacy in the TEXT of the constitution). Thus one has to read the PURPOSE of the consitution and the context of it...and when one does that the consitution CAN be allowed to evolve to match society. Amending the constitution is a drastic step that should ONLY be taken if you wish to remove the right entirely.

On the matter of keeping the right to bear arms a right I say this. If you make them a privilege it is easy to whittle down the privileged until they are an easily contained group. You impose yourself (you being the government) incrementally (first they came for the jews and all that). Then you have a population that is almost entirely unable to resist your control. This is not to suggest that current governments would wish to do that, merely that future ones should be prevented from doing it. The current fad for liberal democratic governments may only be a historical blip. The road to the darkness is long and well lit.

So your case is that there should be NO gun control AT ALL? Because restricting gun ownership at ALL already makes it a privilege...so your argument would actually argue that American gun control goes too far? Is that your intention? So convicted felons should be allowed to possess them, after all, they can be oppressed by their government too, and like you argue, it's simply a slippery slope. What about parolees? See where your argument fails now?

As for the plethora of gun deaths, the majority are suicides or carried out with illegal weapons (the gangs in LA and other places did not pick up their Tec-9s at the local Guns R Us).

Which is an argument for even tighter gun controls. Thank you. It simply proves that having the gun controls at present isn't doing enough to prevent the possession of illegal weapons...

On defending yourself in a school zone. First it is my understanding that these laws extend to a region outside the school in a manner similair to drug free zones where drug offences are more harshly dealt with. This area usually extends a thousand feet or so (my memory on this is a little hazy). Should we deny those that live near schools the right to protect themselves?

No, some were restricted simply to the school itself and the sidewalk outside. These too were held unconstitutional.

And if we are talking about the high school shootings, how far would the kids at Columbine got if the rest of the students were armed or the teachers were. The only way a person would be allowed a gun on school property would be with a concealed carry licence which only adults can have (open carry is often treated under breach of the peace statutes). [quote]

So you're saying the kids at Columbine should've been killed? Y'see I'd much rather ensure NOONE at that school had been killed...this is where we differ. I'd much rather there were no weapons present at the school...

[quote]Finally, on American gun laws. There are limits to who can buy guns (no kids, no felons, no wife beaters). Waiting periods for guns. Controls on what features a gun has (barrel length, bayonet lugs etc.). In order to possess fully automatic weapons and silenced weapons you require permission from local law enforcement and a sign off from the BATF.

Aye...but surely this ALL runs afoul of your EARLIER point that the need for consitutional basis is based upon ensuring it's a right open to all...but it's not...hah...so you see you can only argue one of two ways...either it shouldn't have a consitutional basis...as I argue...or it should and there should be NO gun control...is that what you argue?

I sincerely hope not.

Oh...and do you know what causes the huge volume of illegal weapons in the US? It's actually the fact that there IS a right to bear arms AND drug controls...having the two together creates the problem, because people who are NOT entitled to bear arms will insist on bearing them anyway.

Dyce_Blue
31-07-2004, 05:28 PM
The only reason we ever needed to carry guns in America in the first place was to be protected from wild animals and the French.

If no one else had a gun, we wouldn't need them for protection. There have been two shootings within a 3 mile radius of my house in the past day. Even if harsher gun control is put into effect, one can still buy them out of the back of a car in a dark alley if it was necessary. I see this everyday when I drive through the crime-ridden neighborhood that surrounds UH.

In a rural setting, there is a need for guns. There are all sorts of things that can happen out there. In a perfect world though, guns wouldn't be necessary in urban areas. They are really only used now to protect from other guns. I would never buy a gun, because there is all sorts of paperwork needed to acquire one legally. Plus, I am pretty proficient in the art of the baseball bat (farthest homerun: 404 ft.).

My house has been broken into a couple of times and my family's cars have been vandalized or burgled a half dozen times. If these people would have been carrying guns, and I went out there with a Louisville Slugger, I would have been shot.


Gun control is increasingly more important these days because of the unnecessarily deadly ammunition and whatnot. Armor piercing (cop-killer) bullets are more prominent now, as well as bullets with hollow tips. Hollow tip bullets leave a very small entry wound, but the exit wound is up to a foot in diameter depending on the range of the shot. With all of these dangerous acoutrements available, ammo, as well as guns should be tightly controlled.

Rappers talking about their Desert Eagles (illegal gun), cop-killers, hollow tips, and gats doesn't really alleviate the situation either. It just seems a little hopeless...

duckula
31-07-2004, 05:48 PM
I think that the right to bear arms should be like the right to vote. No kids, no felons. Thats me looking at the spirit of the text. The spirit of the text also seems to be pro gun.

Also, why would greater gun control help with illegal weapons? They aren't getting any more illegal. If you want to deal with them, you use the current laws, don't enact more, that's just sloppy.

My position is fundamentally this: You can vote, you can have a gun. The laws as they stand need no additions and so anyone running on a gun control ticket is just pandering. Finally, if I was in America I know for damn sure I would want a gun.

Hazzle
31-07-2004, 06:12 PM
I think that the right to bear arms should be like the right to vote. No kids, no felons. Thats me looking at the spirit of the text. The spirit of the text also seems to be pro gun.

That makes it a privilege, not a right :D

Also, why would greater gun control help with illegal weapons? They aren't getting any more illegal. If you want to deal with them, you use the current laws, don't enact more, that's just sloppy.

The current laws aren't working, clearly.

My position is fundamentally this: You can vote, you can have a gun. The laws as they stand need no additions and so anyone running on a gun control ticket is just pandering. Finally, if I was in America I know for damn sure I would want a gun.

You want a gun anyway...you wanted a gun from the armed cop at Heathrow...you just love guns...doesn't make your argument any more logical :)

Kelsey
31-07-2004, 06:34 PM
I don't think guns should be banned because that would be pointless, but I do think they should be harder to get. They're sold at K-Mart and Wal-Mart for god's sake. Some places where there is a lot of gang activity, or out in the country, I can understand owning a gun. But I think people are too leniant with their guns. I hate those all too common stories of the ten year old bringing his dad's gun to school and shooting the kid who wouldn't pick him for his team (or some other stupid reason). There also needs to be more gun control and safety awareness aimed at children.

Hazzle
31-07-2004, 06:45 PM
What Kelsey said...oh dear...am I agreeing with her AGAIN?!?! :icon_jaw:

duckula
31-07-2004, 06:51 PM
Enforce the laws you have, don't get any more. Maybe teach some responsibility to gun owners. Or just accept the modern face of evolution. Dumbasses always find a way to die.

Kelsey
31-07-2004, 06:58 PM
Duckula, I agree....we don't need any "no gun" rules or anything like that....we need more awareness. I hardly ever see anything aimed at children that tells them the effects of shooting a gun and the dangers of it.

hasselbrad
21-02-2008, 04:48 PM
How did I manage to not post in this?
Sorry for the bump, but maybe we can have some more discussion here, which couldn't possibly do any harm, right?

I realize Haz is a lawyer and all, but Ducks is right. Banning firearms runs contrary to both the literal and spiritual context of the Second Amendment. Many of the founding fathers felt that the federal government should never be more powerful than the states, and one of the ways of ensuring this was to make sure the populace was armed. Many felt that if the federal government became too powerful and began to trample on the rights of the individual, that armed revolution would be the only solution. These men had few qualms about spilling a little blood in the name of freedom.

It may seem silly to think about a bunch of Americans armed with nothing more than a rifle and a box of ammunition going up against an army as well equipped as ours, not to mention a navy and airforce. However, one has to remember the context of the time in which the document was written. The armed citizen had roughly the equivilent firepower of an English infantryman. It would be well over one hundred years before man figured out how to fly, let alone mount weaponry on the aircraft.

Likewise, as Ducks pointed out, the founding fathers couldn't have fathomed that the population of the United States would be one hundred and twenty times what it was. In 1776, the population of the United States was roughly 2,500,000. Now, it's over 300,000,000. The total population of the United States in 1776 wouldn't rank among the top twenty metropolitan areas now. That's a lot of people, and with proper motivation, that could be a mighty tough force to go up against, regardless of technology. Add to that, the fact that many in the military would probably desert once they found out they might be attacking their own family, and I don't see why this scenario couldn't happen.

And, as has been pointed out, most crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons anyway. Seriously, as the '64 Impala is rolling up on a rival gang's house, do you really think anyone in the car is thinking, "jeepers, this AK-47 might not be completely legal"? Take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, and you have no deterrent to criminals whatsoever.

Leonie
21-02-2008, 05:52 PM
I'm tempted to post something about all the rhetorical fallacies Haz employed while pointing Duckula's ones out, but I won't :P

duckula
21-02-2008, 05:57 PM
Go for it. We were young and foolish, carried away by the heat of the moment. Also, the timing of the bump is quite apposite what with the Supreme Court finally looking at the 2nd Amendment (see Heller v. DC).

Leonie
21-02-2008, 08:46 PM
Is it just me or is it scary to think how long ago that was? I was just out of secondary school at the time of this thread...

As for Haz's argument that if no one had guns, we wouldn't need guns for self-defence either -- let's face it, we don't live in utopia. There are guns. You can outlow them, but there are guns and there will be guns. We might as well be well-prepared to deal with them.

That said, I do think there should be some way of regulating gun licenses so that those with a criminal convinction to their name - and with the more severe ones, I don't care how long ago it was - can be excluded. I don't know enough about legal systems in different countries to decide where the line should be drawn, but I think we can all imagine the general gist of the idea.

Also, Ducks, Heller v. DC - link pretty please?

duckula
21-02-2008, 10:49 PM
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller

Jacoby
21-02-2008, 10:56 PM
Can it be about the Evil Dead series, instead? I mean, since I've now actually seen the movies and get the reference.

Ranman
21-02-2008, 11:11 PM
everyone who votes in this country should have a gun? Have you seen some of the people here who vote. I will give you a visual, "The hillbillys in the movie Deliverance "

duckula
21-02-2008, 11:16 PM
The hillbillys already have guns.

Ranman
21-02-2008, 11:23 PM
exactly, and they say " Duckula sure does have a purty mouth" Is that what you wanna hear from someone holding a gun?

Leonie
21-02-2008, 11:32 PM
I can't believe that the Supreme Court ruled that only Heller had shown sufficient interest in the case to have standing to sue. Does it then all come down to money again? If you can afford to sue, we'll let you have a gun?

duckula
21-02-2008, 11:54 PM
You only need to rule on one case to set precedent for the rest. This case is likely to determine whether the 2nd amendment is an individual or a collective right. Which is quite important. If it is an individual right there isn't going to be much chance of more gun laws barring a further constitutional amendment and some existing laws may be ruled unconstitutional. It's interesting stuff.

On Ranman's point I suppose that if I found myself in such a position I would like to be equipped to get out of it.

Ranman
22-02-2008, 01:07 AM
On Ranman's point I suppose that if I found myself in such a position I would like to be equipped to get out of it.

lipgloss? chapstick? :D

duckula
22-02-2008, 07:58 AM
Glock?

hasselbrad
22-02-2008, 12:46 PM
Glock?

Much more effective.

I want a .45 Thompson.

Katielondon
22-02-2008, 10:07 PM
im going to buy one when i move over there, why not? most other people have one, as embarassing as it sounds i want one that looks pretty too:$ the one i fired on a shooting range when i was over there last was like that but all black, all black is dull :(

http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/sig/sig_226_2tone.jpg

hasselbrad
25-02-2008, 02:12 PM
http://www.fmft.net/thompson_3.jpg
I prefer something with a bit more...you know, cut a home invader in half..."stopping power".
:D

Leonie
25-02-2008, 03:14 PM
Hey, if you run out of ammo you can always beat them over the head with it. :icon_lol:

Vladimir Vodka
25-02-2008, 04:35 PM
Much more effective.

I want a .45 Thompson.

I completely agree with you. The weapon is very necessary thing. Unfortunately in Russia it is impossible to buy the weapon. But I like to shoot. Not in air as you in America and even on a target. I assort АК-74 for 41 second. And here is the best pistol you ever find in all world!
Russian TT (10x32T!) exactly!
And american weapons sucks
http://armsgroup.ru/upload/133.jpg

hasselbrad
25-02-2008, 06:04 PM
Do you think all we do is shoot in the air? Shit, we shoot each other.

Oh, and by the way, the 1911 Colt .45 Automatic, Thompson and Garand M1 rifle are three of the finest, most battle tested weapons ever produced.

Katielondon
26-02-2008, 06:52 PM
Do you think all we do is shoot in the air? Shit, we shoot each other.

Oh, and by the way, the 1911 Colt .45 Automatic, Thompson and Garand M1 rifle are three of the finest, most battle tested weapons ever produced.

just curious then but why are none of them in service by um.................anyone?

hasselbrad
26-02-2008, 07:45 PM
just curious then but why are none of them in service by um.................anyone?

Because they are old. The Colt .45 automatic was, as the name implies, first introduced in 1911. The Thompson .45 sub-machinegun was originally designed as a trench sweeper in response to World War One. Its design dates from 1917. The Garand M-1 was designed in 1932.
Now, they are mainly collector's items, although the M-1 is still used in some capacity by drill teams.

Katielondon
26-02-2008, 07:55 PM
so if we were to talk a modern home protection wepon am i making the right choice in your opinion?, my reasoning is that if loads of the worlds military,special forces as well as loads of US agiencies and police forces use it there must be a good reason for it.

hasselbrad
26-02-2008, 07:59 PM
Oh yeah, a Sig, Glock or Beretta can't really be a bad choice.
A Thompson .45 wouldn't be the most practical choice. :D Alot more fun though.

Liam
26-02-2008, 08:05 PM
The M1 ceased service operation with the US military in 1963. It was developed into the M14 rifle which saw widespread use in Vietnam and is still popular today amongst military marksmen.

The Colt M1911 pistol is still the default sidearm for many militaries around the world.

Just cause a weapon is old doesnt mean its no good :P

Katielondon
26-02-2008, 08:07 PM
Oh yeah, a Sig, Glock or Beretta can't really be a bad choice.
A Thompson .45 wouldn't be the most practical choice. :D Alot more fun though.

im definatly going to go with a Sig,because its the only thing ive tried when ive gone to a range over there.

hasselbrad
26-02-2008, 08:12 PM
The M1 ceased service operation with the US military in 1963. It was developed into the M14 rifle which saw widespread use in Vietnam and is still popular today amongst military marksmen.

The Colt M1911 pistol is still the default sidearm for many militaries around the world.

Just cause a weapon is old doesnt mean its no good :P

The United States only went away from it to standardize with NATO.
As for stopping power, nothing you can hold with one hand has more than the M1911 Boomstick.

Of course, all of this was the result of my response to the nimrod who said American guns are shit.

Liam
26-02-2008, 08:19 PM
I'd probably take a .50 desert eagle for stopping power (just in case I ever need to plug someone through an engine block), but the M1911 for reliablility (and retro cool factor :D)

American guns are a long way from shit, so whoever said that has no idea what they are talking about.

duckula
26-02-2008, 11:07 PM
1911 is still in use with the US military, Delta Force most notably.

hasselbrad
27-02-2008, 01:02 AM
I'd probably take a .50 desert eagle for stopping power (just in case I ever need to plug someone through an engine block), but the M1911 for reliablility (and retro cool factor :D)

American guns are a long way from shit, so whoever said that has no idea what they are talking about.

Yeah, but I did mention in one hand and I'm pretty sure Katie would need both hands to pick it up, let alone aim it.
And I'm not being sexist here...I'm pretty sure I'd need two hands too.

Vodka boy thinks our guns suck. Too bad the best AK-47s aren't made by Kalashnikov.
Valmet > Kalashnikov.

Liam
27-02-2008, 03:52 AM
Hah, look up 'skinny girl gets owned by desert eagle' on youtube. Perfect example of what you are saying.

Mandy
27-02-2008, 04:00 AM
lmao.

wwLQewe4TrY


fucking ouch.

Ranman
27-02-2008, 05:14 AM
looks like JenR

hasselbrad
27-02-2008, 02:05 PM
http://www.sigsauer.com/images/catalog/product/220Compact2ToneLeft.jpg
If your heart is set on a Sig, get this one.
P220 Compact. It's a .45, so it'll give you more stopping power, and it's compact so it's easier to carry.

Katielondon
27-02-2008, 10:55 PM
i kind of had my heart set on a 226 or 229 .40 :( i wont be buying a gun for quite a while when i move, its not on the top of my priority list, really i dont need one but my thinking is if i got burgled i would rather have one than not.

Leonie
28-02-2008, 12:28 PM
I remember we were once given a workshop on what to do in case of a robbery back when I worked at a supermarket.

They had four or five guns and asked us to tell him which ones were real. I remember the guy being really quite worried when I pointed out one of the guns and said "that one, that's very real, it's a Walther." Hee. Turned out it wasn't a Walther, but it's brother or something. Either way, it looked a lot like my dad's (police) gun. Workshop Guy was most disturbed I recognised the type.

I ended up talking to him and he explained that he'd also been part of the police force, and that the weapons were indeed very much alike. Good enough for me.

It's not that scary though. If your dad brings them home, you know what they look like. And ammo was either left at work or stored somewhere childproof - to this day, I have no idea.

Dad's recently been talking about how he's concerned that weapon training for the police force is now generally undertaken with all sorts of ear plugs and things to protect the hearing of the officers. He's had years of training without, to ensure that the people firing the guns won't accidentally shoot themselves in the foot from the shock of the sound. Apparently, if you've never heard one fired by yourself without protection before, you're in for a surprise when that day comes around.

acliff
28-02-2008, 12:59 PM
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/720/720859/gears-of-war-20060725103816433.jpg

Leonie
28-02-2008, 04:48 PM
Have you tried testing it out in the shop? I mean, you can buy it online, but it's heavy and if you're not comfortable with the grip, you won't end up carrying it around... :icon_razz

Jacoby
28-02-2008, 05:15 PM
Have you tried testing it out in the shop? I mean, you can buy it online, but it's heavy and if you're not comfortable with the grip, you won't end up carrying it around... :icon_razz


:icon_lol: nice

acliff
28-02-2008, 07:23 PM
Sometimes you just have to read the reviews, believe the internet hype and pull the trigger...

Mandy
28-02-2008, 07:29 PM
That gun would blow a hole in the wall, steal your girlfriend, AND trim those overgrown hedges.

Jacoby
29-02-2008, 01:18 AM
That gun would blow a hole in the wall, steal your girlfriend, AND trim those overgrown LOCUST SCUM!

this is how I read that