As a gun owner, how do you feel about...

ironeagle2006

ironeagle2006

Active Member
Gun Bans do not work to stop Criminals Just look at the City of Chicago. They for years had the one of the Highest Gun Crime rates in the Nation in a City that BANNED all Private Gun Ownership. Yet even when they lost a case to allow Guns into the Hands of Private Citizens in the Supremem Court. What did King Daley do imposed such Severe Restrictions on what you could own and how it must be kept that it is not even feasible to have a gun in Chicago. Like It must be kept Disassembled at all times in a Locked box. There must not be any Ammo in the house. Kinda destroys the purpose of having a gun for Personal defense doesn't it.
I feel and I am a Gun owner just have a .22 Bolt Action so nothing to big however if I want to own say a Glock or get a Semi Auto Shotgun later on I should be able as long as I do not make any illegal mods to it. I have a Buddy here in town that has the Class 3 License now he is the one that has the Firepower.
 
1snapple

1snapple

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about#post_3348555
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Snapple http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about#post_3348552
a Sig Mausquito is awesome, (i know it's spelled wrong) it's a .22 LR with a 10 round mag and 1 in the chamber. You just pull the trigger and there is almost no recoil, it's just a great gun to go shoot. A gun that suck to shoot is a S&W .375 mag snub nose, It kicks terribly.
My dad had a Ruger 22 auto. Trouble was is was worn out and when you pulled the trigger most of the time it would unload the clip. It was a sweet shooter, even in ghetto full auto mode it didn't kick much.
disassemble and tell me which part is worn out?
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member

 
Under current law, if the sheriff of Pima county had done his job, the shooter would not have been able to purchase the firearm in the first place. Apparently, there were previous death threats and calls to 911 about this kid. These may have been ignored as his mother works for the county. This is what I have heard and read. I have not been able to independently confirm, but if the reports ate correct, the sheriff is in big trouble. The reports are also saying that the 911 calls and other information about this kid's brushes with the law are not being released.
Me thinks he doth protest too much.
Personally, I do not use more than the original magazines. In a defense/concealed carry situation I use a snub nose 5 shot 38 special revolver. The aftermarket magazines can jam more easily, and the last thing you want in a life and death situation is a malfunctioning firearm.
I feel that one bans start, then they snowball. Assault rife bans (by original definition NFA fIrearms) become AR-like bans, then magazine fed bans to the point where a WWII M-1 Carbine is banned under some of the AR bans
The slippery slope.
We do not need more gun control, we need the current laws to be enforced, and enforced well and imparially.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Snapple http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348603
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about#post_3348555
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Snapple http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about#post_3348552
a Sig Mausquito is awesome, (i know it's spelled wrong) it's a .22 LR with a 10 round mag and 1 in the chamber. You just pull the trigger and there is almost no recoil, it's just a great gun to go shoot. A gun that suck to shoot is a S&W .375 mag snub nose, It kicks terribly.
My dad had a Ruger 22 auto. Trouble was is was worn out and when you pulled the trigger most of the time it would unload the clip. It was a sweet shooter, even in ghetto full auto mode it didn't kick much.
disassemble and tell me which part is worn out?

He got rid of that thing years ago. I think he threw it in the trash.
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Snapple http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348603
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about#post_3348555
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Snapple http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about#post_3348552
a Sig Mausquito is awesome, (i know it's spelled wrong) it's a .22 LR with a 10 round mag and 1 in the chamber. You just pull the trigger and there is almost no recoil, it's just a great gun to go shoot. A gun that suck to shoot is a S&W .375 mag snub nose, It kicks terribly.
My dad had a Ruger 22 auto. Trouble was is was worn out and when you pulled the trigger most of the time it would unload the clip. It was a sweet shooter, even in ghetto full auto mode it didn't kick much.
disassemble and tell me which part is worn out?

I haven't had this particular model apart, but my 2 guesses are: 1. disconnector or sear, or 2. slamfire.
If it fires more than 1 rd per squeeze, no matter what the reason, it's a bad thing. Popo can come get you.
If the report of ignored warning signs by county officials turns out to be true...heads are gonna roll.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Could explain the crazy comments by the Sheriff but so far there's nothing to suggest he should have been sent to the rubber room.
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about#post_3348466
I have a single .22 at home, which is simply for protection, which I shoot maybe twice a year. So I by no means am an expert on handguns...
If you are serious about using it for home protection, I would choose a different round. A .22 can kill, but it just doesn't transfer enough energy to be real effective in a situation where you need it to protect your life or someone elses life. Great for target and plinking, but not so great for stopping an intruder with 1 shot. Just something to think about.
 
J

jstdv8

Guest
My dad has a S&W PD329 .44 titanium airlite.
That little gun is pure power packed in a super lite frame. We carry it for bear protection. It might kick a bit more than the next gun (Not as bad as most make it out to be) but at least with it being so small and light you don't hesitate to pack it on you. where as a larger gun can be a burden.
 
slice

slice

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by oscardeuce http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348621
We do not need more gun control, we need the current laws to be enforced, and enforced well and imparially.
After the Columbine shooting, I read that those kids broke 17 local, state and federal laws. If the first one had been enforced, the shooting would not have happened. If the second law had been enforced...and so on.
What do we do in response? Make a new law, make ourselves feel much better for having done....something. (Sidebar: "Never mistake activity for achievement" - John Wooden)
I wondered then why anyone thinks 18 is a magic number? I can see it now, those kids huddled in a dark garage plotting the attack, and one says:
"Hey guys, I was OK with breaking those first 17 laws, but that 18th one, ummm...I dunno...I can't do it, I'm out."
********
As for targeting the weapon to eliminate violence, the first murder (according to the Bible) was when Cain killed Able with the jawbone of an ass.
What if Cain had not found that bone? Might he have used a pointy stick? No stick? How about a big rock? No rock? Use your bare hands.
Able died because Cain wanted him dead. Criminal Intent kills people, not rocks or pointy sticks or jawbones of an ass, or even guns.
In an episode of All In The Family, Sally Struthers went on and on how horrible it was that a friend of hers was killed with a gun.
Archie asked "Would you feel better if he had been thrown out a window?"
Classic...
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by oscardeuce http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348621
Under current law, if the sheriff of Pima county had done his job, the shooter would not have been able to purchase the firearm in the first place. Apparently, there were previous death threats and calls to 911 about this kid. These may have been ignored as his mother works for the county. This is what I have heard and read. I have not been able to independently confirm, but if the reports ate correct, the sheriff is in big trouble. The reports are also saying that the 911 calls and other information about this kid's brushes with the law are not being released.
Me thinks he doth protest too much.
Personally, I do not use more than the original magazines. In a defense/concealed carry situation I use a snub nose 5 shot 38 special revolver. The aftermarket magazines can jam more easily, and the last thing you want in a life and death situation is a malfunctioning firearm.
I feel that one bans start, then they snowball. Assault rife bans (by original definition NFA fIrearms) become AR-like bans, then magazine fed bans to the point where a WWII M-1 Carbine is banned under some of the AR bans
The slippery slope.
We do not need more gun control, we need the current laws to be enforced, and enforced well and imparially.
I've seen various reports, saying that the sheriff had multiple dealings, and major issues with this kid. Assured many people that the mental health department was closely monitoring him... And he still got a gun... The sheriff is refusing to release the records.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/12/20110112gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-pima-county-wont-release-jared-loughner-records.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348745
Quote:
Originally Posted by oscardeuce http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348621
We do not need more gun control, we need the current laws to be enforced, and enforced well and imparially.
After the Columbine shooting, I read that those kids broke 17 local, state and federal laws. If the first one had been enforced, the shooting would not have happened. If the second law had been enforced...and so on.
What do we do in response? Make a new law, make ourselves feel much better for having done....something. (Sidebar: "Never mistake activity for achievement" - John Wooden)
I wondered then why anyone thinks 18 is a magic number? I can see it now, those kids huddled in a dark garage plotting the attack, and one says:
"Hey guys, I was OK with breaking those first 17 laws, but that 18th one, ummm...I dunno...I can't do it, I'm out."
********
As for targeting the weapon to eliminate violence, the first murder (according to the Bible) was when Cain killed Able with the jawbone of an ass.
What if Cain had not found that bone? Might he have used a pointy stick? No stick? How about a big rock? No rock? Use your bare hands.
Able died because Cain wanted him dead. Criminal Intent kills people, not rocks or pointy sticks or jawbones of an ass, or even guns.
In an episode of All In The Family, Sally Struthers went on and on how horrible it was that a friend of hers was killed with a gun.
Archie asked "Would you feel better if he had been thrown out a window?"
Classic...
Look who you're dealing with? You're not going to get a logical response to gun ownership. (look at the other thread for an example)...
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about#post_3348466
So after reading about as much as I can stomach about the Tuscon shooting, I've really only come up with one conclusion as far as "would different gun laws" change things.
What is the purpose of an extended magazine? From what I read, his weapon was equipped to hold 30 bullets plus one in the clip. Also from what I read, he was finally stopped after he had to reload. So, from a gun owner/supporters point of view, is there any legitimate reason to have an extended magazine in a hand gun? And if not, would you be opposed to banning the selling of extended magazines? Sounds like in this particular case, he may have done a lot less damage had he only gotten off 10 shots as opposed to 30...
To me it seems like one of those things with a big upside and not much of a downside? Again, I have a single .22 at home, which is simply for protection, which I shoot maybe twice a year. So I by no means am an expert on handguns...
What is the purpose of having your vehicle able to drive 150 MPH. Lets governor all vehicles to reduce high speed fatality crashes. actually lets also lower the speed limit back to 55.....save more lives that way as well.
 
theclemsonkid

theclemsonkid

Member
I'm sorry but I don't even come close to buying into this whole "If he wanted her dead he would have done it with something else if a gun wasn't available".
So by that logic, we should have never went after Saddam for his weapons of mass destruction, because let's face it, if he wanted to kill us infidels he would have found other ways to do it. Same with the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. I mean just like guns, if most of what nuclear power is used for is good, then we shouldn't have to worry about those few bad apples who want to use it for something else.
The bottom line is guns will always do more bad than good. (Unless killing animals and shooting fifty billion rounds at the range is considered "good")
 
aquaknight

aquaknight

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348812
I'm sorry but I don't even come close to buying into this whole "If he wanted her dead he would have done it with something else if a gun wasn't available".
I think you're straying from your original point. Had large clips been banned (if he did infact use one) I do believe that he still would have gone through with the act, but only with a standard clip, and yes, since those guys that finally jumped the shooter did so when he had to reload, some lives would probably have been saved.
Like 95% of the issues, it just takes a little rational thought from both sides. If there are current laws in place that would have prevented this guy from having a gun in the first place, what would more laws really do? The answer, at least IMHO, is what I said above, it wouldn't have saved everyone, but possibly some others. However as oscardeuce pointed out, you'll never get logical gun laws passed in the current system, without a bunch of ridiculous laws trying to be tacked on.
For the "don't want, but need" it's just a matter where society draws that line. We don't need cars that do 150mph, but for the most part they don't impact society enough to cause a total banning. I'm sure there's a few people out there who would love to an a nuclear weapon, but obviously society wouldn't allow that. Does large number clips for handguns fall under the former or latter?
 
scsinet

scsinet

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348812
The bottom line is guns will always do more bad than good. (Unless killing animals and shooting fifty billion rounds at the range is considered "good")
Let me indulge you on that statement for a moment.
Do me a favor... can you provide a simple test of good and bad? In the realm of gun use, what simple test can be universally applied to a particular gun use activity to determine if said use is "good" or "bad" ??
 
J

jstdv8

Guest
Tell that to our forfathers, the great men who molded our counrty into a world power. They knew we should have the right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves from threats both foregn and domestic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348812
I'm sorry but I don't even come close to buying into this whole "If he wanted her dead he would have done it with something else if a gun wasn't available".
So by that logic, we should have never went after Saddam for his weapons of mass destruction, because let's face it, if he wanted to kill us infidels he would have found other ways to do it. Same with the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. I mean just like guns, if most of what nuclear power is used for is good, then we shouldn't have to worry about those few bad apples who want to use it for something else.
The bottom line is guns will always do more bad than good. (Unless killing animals and shooting fifty billion rounds at the range is considered "good")
 
theclemsonkid

theclemsonkid

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jstdv8 http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348837
Tell that to our forfathers, the great men who molded our counrty into a world power. They knew we should have the right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves from threats both foregn and domestic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348812
I'm sorry but I don't even come close to buying into this whole "If he wanted her dead he would have done it with something else if a gun wasn't available".
So by that logic, we should have never went after Saddam for his weapons of mass destruction, because let's face it, if he wanted to kill us infidels he would have found other ways to do it. Same with the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. I mean just like guns, if most of what nuclear power is used for is good, then we shouldn't have to worry about those few bad apples who want to use it for something else.
The bottom line is guns will always do more bad than good. (Unless killing animals and shooting fifty billion rounds at the range is considered "good")
Oh let's not start the constitution argument. Any rational person can tell you that the constitution drafted over 200 years ago was clearly written for that time period. There are certain things that are and always will be timeless, i.e. The right to free speech, unreasonable search and seizure, defense against cruel and unusual punishment, etc. However, there are clearly some ones that were written for the time period, including:
2nd amendment - Right to bear arms. Written to protect themselves from foreign soldiers and anyone else who may directly endanger their lives in a new country that was worried about security. It was never intended for people 200 years later to own crazy assault rifles and the like.
3rd amendment - Prohibits the forced quartering on soldiers. Self explanatory.
14th amendment - Born here, you're considered a citizen. Anchor babies were never meant to be part of this.
You really feel all these are still needed and/or interpreted as something we need in 2011?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top