What kind of guns do you wish you owned?

[Dblbass128]

Thanks for the condescending and elitist comparison/opinion Gemini.

Have a nice life in sheepdom!

Do you drink wine with your quiche, or is that also illegal in the UK?

BTW, I like straight whiskey with my cigars.

I think some of you guys mis-understand me, or maybe you're being a little sensitive

I'm a pretty good shot myself, though prefer archery. My point is not that there is anything wrong in having an interest in firearms and particpating in gunnery clubs etc. (heck, the episode of Mythbusters where the guys get up to mischief with a M134 and a tree is one of my fave episodes). My point is how some people consider them to be "cool", and not as deadly weapons which should be treated with respect.

*edit*
A little anecdote; while I was in school there was boy in the class who was a bit, well, nuts. One day he had to write something on the blackboard (I forget why). He wrote his sentence in a wavy line, a bit like a snake, and not with a more traditional straight line.

When he was asked why he wrote that way, his reply was "Because it's like my favourite missile, the Sidewinder".

*another edit*
Guns were quite "cool" in Matrix I suppose.

*edit and possibly a backtrack*
"AK-47... The very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every motherf****r in the room, accept no substitutes" is actually quite a cool quote, and it's about a gun.

I think some guns are VERY cool and consider them a hobby of mine

Although I think my AR is insanely cool I also respect it as a weapon and take full responsibility for my actions when handling it

 

[optimus prime]

Thanks for the condescending and elitist comparison/opinion Gemini.

Have a nice life in sheepdom!

Do you drink wine with your quiche, or is that also illegal in the UK?

BTW, I like straight whiskey with my cigars.

Why are you so defensive?

I can't think of many, if any, advantages to making guns legal in the UK. Funny enough, we get by.

Are you allowed fireworks? I don't get why some states ban fireworks and allow guns. Strange.

 

[Dblbass128]

[quote="Old Baldy"axaqov1]Thanks for the condescending and elitist comparison/opinion Gemini.

Have a nice life in sheepdom!

Do you drink wine with your quiche, or is that also illegal in the UK?

BTW, I like straight whiskey with my cigars.

Why are you so defensive?

I can't think of many, if any, advantages to making guns legal in the UK. Funny enough, we get by.

Are you allowed fireworks? I don't get why some states ban fireworks and allow guns. Strange.[/quoteaxaqov1]

You need a license to sell or use fireworks. You need a background check to purchase a gun and a license for handguns

I think we all need mad guns with thousands of rounds of ammo in case the new world order tries to microchip all of us with implantable gps tracking rfid chips

 

[Old Baldy]

[quote="Old Baldy":q5qu3u0x]Thanks for the condescending and elitist comparison/opinion Gemini.

Have a nice life in sheepdom!

Do you drink wine with your quiche, or is that also illegal in the UK?

BTW, I like straight whiskey with my cigars.

Why are you so defensive?

I can't think of many, if any, advantages to making guns legal in the UK. Funny enough, we get by.

Are you allowed fireworks? I don't get why some states ban fireworks and allow guns. Strange.[/quote:q5qu3u0x]

I'm defensive because I've become sensitive to people criticizing my way of life.

I expect it and understand why some people don't like firearms.

If anti's are going to make smart aleck remarks then I'm going to come back at them and let them know I think their philosophy towards firearms is utopian and unrealistic.

For me firearms aren't cool, they are a valuable tool. They keep me and many, many, many millions of people free in the true sense of the word IMHO.

Sure, firearms are cool in a Hollywood sort way. But, in reality, they are very seriouls dangerous tools designed for self-defense and, in a larger way, for overall true freedom IMHO.

Tell you what optimus, tell your military and police to give up their firearms. Let your country be truly firearm free. Otherwise, you are inconsistent IMHO. And inconsistent in a very, very, very dangerous way. (Your country will collapse just like all police states eventually collapse.)

 

[optimus prime]

Tell you what optimus, tell your military and police to give up their firearms. Let your country be truly firearm free. Otherwise, you are inconsistent IMHO. And inconsistent in a very, very, very dangerous way. (Your country will collapse just like all police states eventually collapse.)

Hmmm...The regular police don't hold guns. They only call in special armed police when someone else has an illegal gun.

I think our country is more likely to collapse from a financial melt down, and your country is just as likely as well.

Our country has been running a hell of a lot longer than yours, and just fine.

I wasn't criticising your choice to have guns, I was asking why you are so defensive and attack the UK, which is a very free country. (We are allowed fireworks without a licence) :whistle:

 

[Dblbass128]

From the armed citizen

Police believe an armed intruder may have used a sliding glass door to enter the home of Heath Miller, a popular middle school music teacher. Miller's dogs began barking, waking Miller and his wife. Miller retrieved his .38-caliber pistol and readied himself as the masked intruder approached the bedroom door. It is unclear who fired the first shot. When the exchange of gunfire ended, the intruder lay dead. The Millers were not injured. (Palm Beach Post, West Palm Beach, FL, 02/16/09)

 

[HughJass]

for every 'good' story you post, there's one of unlawful killing with a firearm, crime committed with a stolen firearm etc

 

[Dblbass128]

for every 'good' story you post, there's one of unlawful killing with a firearm, crime committed with a stolen firearm etc

post one lets have a story war

 

[Dblbass128]

those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither - Ben Franklin

 

[HughJass]

post one lets have a story war

how about those knuckledraggers in texas who tried to liquidate an entire family for what they perceived as trespassing...


*waits for somebody to post the inevitable 'if the family had been armed this never would have happened/they would have been more free/would have had more liberty' response :woot:

 

[Bryan]

Hmmm...The regular police don't hold guns. They only call in special armed police when someone else has an illegal gun.

That's always struck me as an insanely impractical policy. I can just imagine a radio dispatch from a British police station: "I say, old chaps, the regular unarmed cops we just sent to the jewelry store being robbed all got mowed-down by chaps with AK-47s, so you special police WITH GUNS please go and check it out, okay?" :shock:

 

[optimus prime]

Hmmm...The regular police don't hold guns. They only call in special armed police when someone else has an illegal gun.

That's always struck me as an insanely impractical policy. I can just imagine a radio dispatch from a British police station: "I say, old chaps, the regular unarmed cops we just sent to the jewelry store being robbed all got mowed-down by chaps with AK-47s, so you special police WITH GUNS please go and check it out, okay?" :shock:

LOL...spot on with the ancient old boy.

Strangely enough...not many police are ever shot. Armed response teams get there so quick. Police are very well trained in uk to deal with situations, even if they don't have a gun and the 'criminal' does.

Ahhh...yea...I forget, our police and military have training. :whistle: lol

 

[Dblbass128]

[quote="optimus prime":18e2701a]Hmmm...The regular police don't hold guns. They only call in special armed police when someone else has an illegal gun.

That's always struck me as an insanely impractical policy. I can just imagine a radio dispatch from a British police station: "I say, old chaps, the regular unarmed cops we just sent to the jewelry store being robbed all got mowed-down by chaps with AK-47s, so you special police WITH GUNS please go and check it out, okay?" :shock:

LOL...spot on with the ancient old boy.

Strangely enough...not many police are ever shot. Armed response teams get there so quick. Police are very well trained in uk to deal with situations, even if they don't have a gun and the 'criminal' does.

Ahhh...yea...I forget, our police and military have training. :whistle: lol[/quote:18e2701a]

Oh ours are receiving plenty of military style training...many are training with our military and engage in mock terror drills together

 

[Bryan]

Strangely enough...not many police are ever shot. Armed response teams get there so quick.

But what does response time have to do with it?? Isn't the very first indication that a bobby (do you guys still call them that?) sees that the situation actually _needs_ an armed response is when he sees a bad guy with a gun during a robbery or whatever, or (even worse) when a dangerous bad guy pulls a gun on HIM? Isn't it too late at that point to call in for the proper response??

Police are very well trained in uk to deal with situations, even if they don't have a gun and the 'criminal' does.

I'm probably starting to sound like Old Baldy now, but it seems CRAZY to me to expect an unarmed bobby (I don't care HOW well he may be trained) to be able to go up against bad guys as a regular part of his job. It seems like a suicide mission.

Ahhh...yea...I forget, our police and military have training. :whistle: lol

If that's a comment about my tendency to poke fun at British linguistic habits, I really don't get your point. We Americans would also say "police ARE well trained", same way you did. We consider "police" to be a plural entity.

But interestingly, that makes me aware of a subtle distinction we (Americans, at least...I don't know how you Brits would say it) make between "police" and "military", the first being plural and the second singular. We would generally say it this way for those two words:

"The police are well trained."
and
"The military is well trained."

Do you guys make the same distinction, or are BOTH words plural for you?

 

[optimus prime]

Isn't it too late at that point to call in for the proper response??

Clearly not. lol. They do call for armed response.

I'm probably starting to sound like Old Baldy now, but it seems CRAZY to me to expect an unarmed bobby (I don't care HOW well he may be trained) to be able to go up against bad guys as a regular part of his job. It seems like a suicide mission.

I'm not sure what your point is. It isn't a suicide mission. Police do their job.

 

[s.a.f]

Strangely enough...not many police are ever shot. Armed response teams get there so quick.

But what does response time have to do with it?? Isn't the very first indication that a bobby (do you guys still call them that?) sees that the situation actually _needs_ an armed response is when he sees a bad guy with a gun during a robbery or whatever, or (even worse) when a dangerous bad guy pulls a gun on HIM? Isn't it too late at that point to call in for the proper response??

[quote="optimus prime"vckqlcy]Police are very well trained in uk to deal with situations, even if they don't have a gun and the 'criminal' does.

I'm probably starting to sound like Old Baldy now, but it seems CRAZY to me to expect an unarmed bobby (I don't care HOW well he may be trained) to be able to go up against bad guys as a regular part of his job. It seems like a suicide mission.[/quotevckqlcy]

Luckily since we dont legalise guns here the chances of that scenario happening are a tiny fraction compared to the U.S.
British police are not armed because 99% of the time they dont need to be.
Why? because most UK criminals are not carrying firearms.

I'd prefer to live in a place where virtually nobody has guns compared to a place where lots of people are armed.

 

[ali777]

But what does response time have to do with it?? Isn't the very first indication that a bobby (do you guys still call them that?) sees that the situation actually _needs_ an armed response is when he sees a bad guy with a gun during a robbery or whatever, or (even worse) when a dangerous bad guy pulls a gun on HIM? Isn't it too late at that point to call in for the proper response??

I'm probably starting to sound like Old Baldy now, but it seems CRAZY to me to expect an unarmed bobby (I don't care HOW well he may be trained) to be able to go up against bad guys as a regular part of his job. It seems like a suicide mission.

First of all, bobby is not very common. I always percieve bobby as a Cockney word, and I don't speak Cockney. I just call them coppers or pigs... I'd like to applogise to anyone that has connections with the Home Office, but I have a very strong dislike for the police. I know they are hard working people who only do their jobs, but still....

On the subject of armed police officers, we have different mentalities and we will not understand each other. At least we can try to explain our points. Around here, self-defense is the only acceptable scenario for using guns. Protecting property, attempting arrest, etc are not valid excuses for shooting people. Protecting human lives and not taking risks is priority number one at all times. Not only the police force, but even the security guards that work for private companies are told NOT to take any risks on the job. If you think about it, businesses and homes should be insured, so any material damage is recoverable/replaceable but human lives are not.

From that point of view, it is not a suicide mission. On the contrary, they are supposed to avoid unncessary and risky confrontations. Guns can give a false sense of security and result in even riskier situations that were avoidable in the first place.

However, in the US, you see protecting your property as the number one priority, and sometimes you can be a bit trigger happy. This is a very different approach. In the UK, we aren't allowed to use excessive force against robbers, we would get prosecuted for causing bodily harm. Yes, even criminals have rights. Now you are thinking "what do they do to protect themselves against robbers". TBH, I don't know the answer. I guess, making my presence felt would be enough to scare them away most of the time, I mean robbers probably don't want confrontation, ie they want their identities to remain secret.

It would be extremely naive to suggest that there is absolutely no gun crimes in the UK, but the mortality rates are lower than the US stats. I think the difference comes partially from the prohibition of guns.

 

[optimus prime]

In the UK, we aren't allowed to use excessive force against robbers, we would get prosecuted for causing bodily harm. Yes, even criminals have rights.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/pros ... lders.html

Does the law protect me? What is 'reasonable force'?

Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in selfdefence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.

As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence.

I mean robbers probably don't want confrontation, ie they want their identities to remain secret.

Agree. Also, it is very unlikely for a burglar to break into a home using a gun as a weapon. IF guns are used, it is usually gang related.

 

[Slartibartfast]

But interestingly, that makes me aware of a subtle distinction we (Americans, at least...I don't know how you Brits would say it) make between "police" and "military", the first being plural and the second singular. We would generally say it this way for those two words:

"The police are well trained."
and
"The military is well trained."

Do you guys make the same distinction....

Yes. Well, I do....

 

[Old Baldy]

I just received my concealed carry permit from the County I live in. Yippee!!

A cop friend of mine has a federal firearms license and just picked up a S&W 442 Commemorative model for me from UPS.

I'm picking that up today after walking the dogs in the woods where I'll be carrying the 44 Magnum to guard against any coyotes. (Gotta protect my beloved doggies! Now I can do it....... nevermind. I'm getting too excited. Calm down Old Baldy.)

That Model 442 Commemorative should be a great little concealable revolver. (A laser etched tribute is on the revolver celebrating the Heller, Supreme Court gun victory for us pro-gunners.)

God I love the USA. This is freedom baby!! (Over 40 States recognize Michigan's concealed pistol licenses as legal authorization to conceal carry a pistol in their respective States.)

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/ ... sFirearm=Y

Now, that's what I'm talkin' about!! unk:

In in only one year I've had these victories:

1 - Supreme Court in Heller, supra, ruling for self-defense and guarding aganist tyranny.

2 - The Ninth Circuit incorporating Heller, supra, into the States governed by that Appellate Court via Nordyke, supra.

Now you have to remember this is the Ninth Circuit, the most liberal Appellate Court in the USA. And they strongly ruled for incorporation and acknowledged the 2nd Amendment stands for individual self-defense and a deterrent against tyranny. Unbelievable!! I'm so HAPPY!!

There is somewhat of a conflict in the Second Circuit with a case related to weapons but not firearms. So maybe, (or maybe not), this conflict could result in another 2nd Amendment decision from the Supreme Court, deciding whether the States have to follow Heller. (Should be a slam dunk IMHO.)

3 - Sixty five Democrats, I repeat - SIXTY FIVE DEMOCRATS in the House, wrote Attorney General Holder a very stern letter stating they did not support further gun control and would not support any anti-gun bills/regulations (i.e., that rabidly anti-gun Holder was pining for). Thus "killing" any outright gun bans, etc. Yeah baby!!

What a GREAT year for Old Baldy. After forty god da** years, I FINALLY WON!! And I won BIG!!

And to top it all off, recent polls taken by Gallup and Zogby resulted in 70 percent and 69 percent, respectively, of the responders stating they were for individual firearms ownership and DID NOT favor more anti-gun laws!

Someone pinch me, I'm giddy!!!!