Which do you believe?

I own:

(2) .22 rifles
(1) .22 pistol
(1) .45 pistol
(2) .44 black-powder muzzle-loading pistols
(1) .32 pistol
(1) .44 magnum pistol
(1) .58 caliber 1853 Enfield rifle musket
(1) 7.62x39 SAR-1
(1) Winchester Model 12 shotgun
(1) Winchester Model 21 shotgun
(1) Remington 1100 shotgun
(1) Beretta CX4
(1) .243 Weatherby

What does this indicate about me, and why?

(2) .22 rifles
Man killers
(1) .22 pistol
super man killer
(1) .45 pistol
extra super man killer since 1911
(2) .44 black-powder muzzle-loading pistols
old man killer
(1) .32 pistol
man wounder
(1) .44 magnum pistol
Dirty Harry wannabe man killer
(1) .58 caliber 1853 Enfield rifle musket
out dated man killer
(1) 7.62x39 SAR-1
communist man killer
(1) Winchester Model 12 shotgun
evil pump shotgun man killer (BTW what ga? I have a 16ga Model 12)
(1) Winchester Model 21 shotgun
man killer
(1) Remington 1100 shotgun
modern man killer shotgun
(1) Beretta CX4
home carbine man killing pistol caliber rifle (45 or 9?)
(1) .243 Weatherby
long distance sniper rifle man killer

See you have nothing but man killing machines....why are you so attracted to these devices of death? :)

That was great.

I especially love the old 1904 .32 being a "man wounder". :)

My Model 12 and Model 21 are both 12 GA. My 1100 is 20 GA.

The CX4 is in 9mm. I wanted to use 15-round magazines so as to not have to reload so often.

Of 32, he come in on leave one Christmas we shot 200 rounds of the stuff at our "range" on the farm. I recovered several of the lead slugs from the dirt that looked like they'd never been fired except for the rifling grooves.

A friend of mine got a mint S&W a few years ago off his father, it had never been fired. His exact words....I'm not a collector hell lets see how she shoots.
We went out and shot it 20 or so times, what a wonderful pistol. He cleaned it up and put it back in it's brittle old box and paper and put it up.

Firearms are tools. They are sometimes artful tools and wonderful examples of the engraver/carver/machinists art (something anti-gunners often deny, the art of the firearm) but still tools. They should be used.

That was good...

"man wounder"...hehehe

You need a Glock?

Which the vast majority don't.

;)

There are two "types" of firearms:


- those that have been involved in the commission of a crime
- all the rest

that they would willingly advocate and work to deprive others of their constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties..

it's that they expect your exercise of your civil liberties be done in accordance with their standards of "taste" and "suitability". For conservatives, that means I'm not supposed to wear shirts with messages that offend them, or support 2 gay men holding hands while they walk down the street. For those authoritarians who think they're liberals, it means I'm only supposed to own guns that don't look scary to them, and I should only be allowed to carry at times and places they feel are "unsafe'.

The broad interpretation of freedom is a very liberal idea, and those who don't support such an idea really aren't liberals in my opinion.

along with a couple 1911's, a revolver, a shotgun, a MAK90, a GSG-5, and a few others. Aside from the occasional trip to the range to put holes in paper, they reside in my safe. The only exception is the 1911 I carry on my hip, which spends most of the day in a holster instead of the safe.

I am a big fan of ergonomic controls and modularity, and come from a long line of military and LEO's, hence the attraction to the AR15 and 1911.

My go-to gun is a S&W Model 60-15 with a 3" bb. This is a 5 round .357 double action revolver. This is carried for personal protection from dangerous animals bearing from 0 to 4 legs, as well as keeping the ground squirrel population under control on the farm.

I also own and use an AR-15 pattern rifle, a number of .22 LR firearms with various kinds of actions, a couple of shotguns ranging from an old bolt-driven .410 up to a 28" bbl full choke (fixed) 12 ga.

You may now proceed to tell me more about myself than I know.


Edit: Your arrogance knows no bounds, does it?

Because the possession of firearms do make some people dangerous to themselves or to others -- in a way that no other object, including a sharp knife, can.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

a knife or even martial arts training.

That's a simple fact that is often totally ignored by those who oppose firearm ownership. If you were able to develop a spell and wave your magic wand making all firearms in civilian hands in the United States disappear the results would not be totally positive.

A big young thug in good condition can easily overpower a smaller individual or an older one. Criminals would no longer fear armed citizens and would be able to invade occupied homes with little fear. Street crime and muggings would increase.

Yes firearms are dangerous. In the wrong hands they are often misused. But there are two sides to the issue. Firearms in the right hands often stop criminal attacks and are also used for legitimate sporting purposes.

I have a rule.

"Be the most dangerous person in the room."

Why? Society is better off if people like me, who have no desire to foist our wills upon others, are the most dangerous. Think about it. People essentially echo this sentiment when they give the "only ones" line.

Unfortunately, sheep have a difficult time telling wolves from shepherd dogs.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...only by being shot with one. Said effect usually reduces the violence as you don't tend to get very violent when you've been shot.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:rofl:

Well, s/he's efficient. It usually takes a few hundred posts to reduce most anti RKBA positions to some variation of, "Because I don't like it, so there".

it's best to make the bait obvious.

So far, the wrong species seems to be taking it.

I'm wondering how long it will take for the links to these posts as examples of all the outrageous things that nobody ever actually says to show up.

Mission will then be accomplished, I expect.

I dunno. I just don't know.

...and they've been "effected" by firearms. ;)

And, actually, I believe people who carry guns do things they might not do otherwise. The gun owning bigots where I grew up -- and even today -- reflect that.

Finally, I believe most who carry in public have a degree of violent behavior -- otherwise they would not carry a deadly weapon.

A) Sometimes people may need the ability to kill other people. Self defense comes to mind.

2) What is a "gun owning bigot"?? A "bigot who happens to own a gun" or "people whose bigotry is somehow connected to guns"? At any rate, the former depiction is not necessarily mutually inclusive as one can be a bigot with or without a gun and the latter depiction needs some clarification to make sense. I've seen people bigoted against firearm owners (cough*hoyt*cough*cough)... but I'm not sure what a "gun owning bigot" is supposed to oppose. :shrug:

IV) I would hope that people who choose to carry a lethal weapon are resolved to use it if they have no other alternative. Why is this a bad thing? I think an unresolved person carrying deadly weapons would be much more of an unintentional threat to themselves or others.

based on those you knew where you grew up. Perhaps you need to meet a larger number of gun owners. I grew up in Northeastern Ohio surrounded by very conservative and very religious Republicans. In fact an English teacher called me a Communist because I dared to support Social Security. I don't form opinions of all religious people and say that they are Republicans based on my experience growing up.

If you were correct that most who legally carry in public have a higher level of violent behavior why do the statistics show that those with concealed carry permits commit far less violence than citizens who do not have carry permits?

You may argue that most people who have permits do not carry on a regular basis but my experience shows me that most people with a carry permit do carry. I would estimate that 75% of those I know with permits carry everyday everywhere. They got the permit so that they could carry, not just to show it to people to impress them.

...carry permits are like underwear; assume everyone has it, but don't be showing it around. (My apologies to Madonna) ;)

that anyone "was stereotyping all gun owners as 'bigots'," because you'd be on ice so thin you'd better chuck that hunk of steal out of its holster before it drags you down and you can't find the hole to get back up through.

"gun owning bigots" -- if the term had been "pizza eating bigots", what would you all be saying now?

Pretending to think that someone was being called a bigot because they ate pizza?

:eyes:

Right, because having a firearm gives you options you otherwise didn't have.

"Finally, I believe most who carry in public have a degree of violent behavior -- otherwise they would not carry a deadly weapon."

Of course. I freely admit I am capable of violence, everyone is. The question is not a matter of ability, but of exercise.

they realize that the real world and their reality-distortion field built upon pillars of ignorance do not in any way coincide.

Of course, this scenario is due to the effect of firearms present in society... although sometimes that society is in an entirely different nation and those antigunners can't help but play the part of the nosey neighbor. At any rate, it's the fault of the firearm, so option #1 is valid if you do enough mental gymnastics ;)

the first is also?

their reality-distortion field built upon pillars of ignorance

Of what am I ignorant?


Of course, this scenario is due to the effect of firearms present in society... although sometimes that society is in an entirely different nation and those antigunners can't help but play the part of the nosey neighbor.

Yeah, it all happens in your bedroom and there's just no effect on the neighbours at all.

If only that were true, there'd be some basis for your allegation of nosiness.

Stop your domestic gun trafficking, control your guns, and watch the neighbours lose interest.

Kinda like if you were to stop burning your garbage on the front lawn upwind of the neighbours and dispose of it in a sanitary way; the neighbours would have no complaints.

Of course, if you were to keep on singing the praises of garbage burning and misrepresenting the effects of garbage burning and agitating for more garbage burning, well, any person of integrity anywhere might think it reasonable to point it out ...


At any rate, it's the fault of the firearm, so option #1 is valid if you do enough mental gymnastics

What kind of "gymnastics" does it take to persist in misrepresenting people with whom you disagree so thoroughly and so distastefully?

The second paragraph was not about you, or at least you were not whom I had in mind... Carly Simon would be proud.
However, now that I think about it, the apropos application of the 2nd paragraph to multiple parties (in this subforum, nontheless) is just delicious.

But I digress... no the second paragraph was not intended to be directed at you.

I'll bet there are some who would even (claim to) believe that.

or if you're more offended that you're not actually the object of the post...

:rofl: :rofl:

If it makes you feel any better, I won't stop you from claiming to being the victim here.

access to firearms can change situations with the result that harm occurs where no harm would have occurred (or a crime is committed where no crime would have been committed), or harm that occurs in a situation where harm is intended is worse than it would have been absent a firearm - yes

a firearm is a powerful weapon, regardless of the intention (real or claimed) of the person in possession of it, and as such is inherently dangerous, since no one's intention (real or claimed) regarding the use of an object governs how it can and might actually be used by that person or someone else - yes

firearms present significant risks in many situations, to the extent that stringent controls on access are appropriate, and in the case of handguns in particular the risks (criminal or other harmful use by a lawful owner, transfer by the lawful owner to someone or a subsequent transferee who uses it to commit crime or cause harm, theft from the lawful owner by someone with the same intent, access by children who use it to harm themselves or someone else ...) outweigh the claimed benefits - yes


There you are.

Fixed them for you.

:puke:

no thanks

I wonder what other objects they think can alter a person's will to nefarious ends.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if all four of them were Uncle Omar ...

I'm sure I'm missing out on something special, though.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A firearm can't "make" someone violent. They either are or are not.

If you want to discuss if a firearm empowers people to otherwise act violently, in certain circumstances, then you have my attention.

In fact, the only one who would say that firearms make anybody anything is, of course, somebody pretending that somebody else said that.

You need to get to know your Guns forum and its posters. ;)