dksuddeth

I'm mixed on this point. for novice firearm owners/enthusiasts, I'd agree that the shotgun is a better home defense weapon, however, handguns can be just as effective in the hands of more experienced people by choosing the type of round and the grain used and still be safe from over penetration.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

You are being presumptuous and are missing the point. You wanted to take out a chunk of data to make an unequal comparison. Why is this?

Don't worry about my homework, I'm fine with it as always. Why not do yours? Are you going to answer my question or not? I would prefer statistics with a fair comparison, such as a rate per 1,000 or 100,000 people.

If you don't want to do this, then fine. It was a rhetorical question because your suggestion was weak. Why take gang violence out of the U.S. equation to compare it to the U.K. equation with it intact?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

Not only did you have help last time, but ended up being wrong. Now you're on your own and acting like "oh well I already proved my points elsewhere *link missing*" and then do an end-zone dance.

Plan9

I'll bust a cap in ALL your asses.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

JStrider

cool website.


I don't want to get on which weapon is best for self defense... because I think its mostly personal preference/comfort with the chosen weapon


Before I took the class for my CHL I was talking with my uncle(hes a class III FFL) and he said to practice shooting in situations like what you would encounter in a self defense situation... at night/evening, varying distances, varying shooting positions, and without ear protection(just once tho)

all I have to say about the no ear protection is DAMN guns are loud... those little yellow foam bits sure make a world of difference... shooting a pistol feels so much more intense and concussive without the earplugs. I'm glad I did it so I know what to expect... I dont think asking the baddies to wait while I stick fluorescent colored foam in my ears will work
*shrug* just a neat little aside...

__________________
-=JStrider=-

~Clatto Verata Nicto

Plan9

You get over flinching from recoil, muzzle flash, and noise.

You tune out the noise and the ringing in your ears.

Think a pistol hurts? Try shooting an M249 indoors!

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

moot1337

my ears are ringing just *thinking* about that. Guns are so damn loud - really makes the movies seem absurd

__________________
And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be
banana-shaped.
This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again
how sheeps' bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
Oh, certainly, sir.

Ustwo

I'm thinking the shotgun is the way to go. I've got pretty damn good aim but at close range potentially in the dark, why take a chance with missing. Also a bit harder to take a shotgun from someone.

Thanks for the advice.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Plan9

Mosserg 500. Remington 870. Winchester 1300.

Check out www.GunBroker.com for ideas on price.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

MSD

That's the basis of my statement that .223 will penetrate less than most pistol rounds.

ziadel

I cant hear for shit anymore.

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

Fire

what part of box o truth are you getting that from- they forund that drywall stops nada, and that 12 pine boards will not stop 5.56, where 8 or nine stopped the pistol rounds they tested..... where on that site are you finding that 5.56 does not penetrate more than a pistol round?

__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens

Fire

I should say, after exhaustive searching, that there is quite a debate on the penetration of 5.56, and it seems to hinge on weight of the bullet- the idea being that normally because the projectile is so light, and the energy so high, the 5.56 will get busted up and spend most of its energy on whatever it hits first, become unstable as hell in flight, and either hit the ground or break up into very small fragments- though some sources say the 62 grain steel core will not reliably do this, and tends to stay intact and use the much greater than a pistol round energy that it has to go through quite a bit of stuff...... the fbi likes the 5.56, as their tests showed it was less likely to overpenetrate than most pistol rounds- No one should think, however, that any rifle, pistol, or buckshot round will not go through several rooms in your house, however.......

__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens

Plan9

Sure... Hornady TAP .223 is fine for CQB. Fancy pants ammo is great. Military steel core ball? Not so much.

I'd rather have a heavier bullet for up close, myself. Odds are ya only get a single shot. Make it count.

This whole ammo versus platform debate? I like two-handed weapons in pistol calibers for home defense (Bushmaster 9mm CAR). A rifle caliber pistol would be the exact opposite of my first choice. A straight pistol (H&K USP 45) followed by a straight rifle (CAR-15) would be next preference, then maybe something like my cute little ProOrd Type 97 CAR-15 pistol.

Meh, I was worried more about maximum range than penetration. Penetration is rarely an issue when drywall / flat windows are involved but how far a 9mm will fly versus how far a .223 will fly isn't any mystery.

I think this silly sub-debate is less caliber-size concerned and more projectile-type concerned.

Using prefragmented rounds (preferred) or hollowpoints for home defense is a good idea.

"In buckshot we trust."

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

allaboutmusic

I'm glad there is gun control here in the UK. The violent crime that we do get (largely from young idiotic louts) would be much worse if the perpetrators had easy access to guns.

Fire

perhaps, but here, if someone kicks in my door to rob me, I can shoot them, while you guys are forced to cower in fear, and can be sent to prison if you oppose them with force, even in self defense- and here my 5 foot tall wife can effectively defend herself against a 7 foot tall attacker- more than you poor brittons can say- So I guess I would rather be a citizen than a subject......

__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens

dksuddeth

news flash, if the perps already have guns, what does it matter whether they have easier access? The only thing your UK gun control has done is eliminate your right to defend yourselves.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Plan9

Because most ignorant citizens blame the hardware for crime activity and wouldn't confront your above fact unless they outlawed thumbs, too.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Baraka_Guru

This logic, applied differently, sounds like this:

If the terrorists already have networks and resources, what does it matter whether they have more? The only thing the American war on terrorism has done is eliminate Americans' civil rights.

Explosives, small arms, and biological & nuclear weapons don't kill people, terrorists do.

Seriously, this binary absolutism doesn't sit well. Also, I always found "perps" to be a funny word. Kinda like "pervs."

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

...have deadlocks, security screen doors, double pane windows, big dogs, mase, tasers, clubs, knives, axes, swords, and a PLETHORA of other options that don't involve cowering. But it's really inconvenient for people to ignore these options because guns are really hard to excuse outside of some bizarre and unlikely situation involving self defense, such as a violent home invasion.

Most crime in the UK is either petty or drug related.

Oh, I almost forgot alarm system. Did you know that 9 of 10 convicted burglars agreed that they would avoid a house protected by an alarm system?(US Department of Justice, 1999) That's a funny statistic when compared with that which addresses how many would avoid a house protected by a gun, which is decidedly less. But again, these are inconvenient facts when one is trying to excuse being armed just in case.

Plan9

Oh, let's get down the REAL problem:



This damn finger. It's dangerous. It should be regulated or banned.

DID YOU KNOW: This finger caused well over 75% the deaths during WWII. From machine guns triggers to grenade pins to tank levers to flamethrower buttons to the finger that dropped the atomic bombs on Japan.

DAMN YOU, FINGERS.

...

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

funydjane

This would be why the US has such a low rate of crime compared to other comparable gun-controlling countries, right?

Plan9

Gun crime? Sure. We'll give you that. We actually HAVE guns.

...

Crime in general? Get real. The US is pretty damn safe.

Let's not even talk about Asia / Africa.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Baraka_Guru

Why not?

Total Crime per capita

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Dominica: 113.822 per 1,000 people
#2 New Zealand: 105.881 per 1,000 people
#3 Finland: 101.526 per 1,000 people
#4 Denmark: 92.8277 per 1,000 people
#5 Chile: 88.226 per 1,000 people
#6 United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
#7 Montserrat: 80.3982 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
#9 Netherlands: 79.5779 per 1,000 people
#10 South Africa: 77.1862 per 1,000 people
#11 Germany: 75.9996 per 1,000 people
#12 Canada: 75.4921 per 1,000 people
#13 Norway: 71.8639 per 1,000 people
#14 France: 62.1843 per 1,000 people
#15 Seychelles: 52.9265 per 1,000 people
#16 Hungary: 44.9763 per 1,000 people
#17 Estonia: 43.3601 per 1,000 people
#18 Czech Republic: 38.2257 per 1,000 people
#19 Italy: 37.9633 per 1,000 people
#20 Switzerland: 36.1864 per 1,000 people

Data's a little old (2000), but you get the idea.

Maybe you're thinking about crime and poverty?

. . . . .

And about the finger: Good analogy. This is what I'm talking about. We look at guns vs. no guns, and meanwhile we forget about all the in-betweens.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Plan9

#59 India: 1.63352 per 1,000 people

Wow. Hard to choke that one down.

...

But, yeah, I just clowned myself in this thread.

Research prevails, ignorance strikes again!

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

MSD

We need more good guys with guns and less bad guys with guns. We're doing pretty well in the legitimate market, the black market is the problem. Responsible and legal gun ownership is a good thing and the fear of guns and gun owners by a large segment of the population, combined with lack of knowledge of these things is a problem. I don't think everyone should have a gun, hell, I don't think 90% of the people out there should even be allowed to drive, but when someone is willing to train to use a gun and carry it for protection of self and others, violent crime will decrease, not increase.

As we scale up inspections of imported goods, more illegal guns will be found entering the country. Norinco took a huge hit when the ATF found the big undeclared shipment of giggle-switch AKs a few years ago, it's going to be another year or two before they can get anything other than a few shotguns back on the US market, and only because someone signed a contract to manufacture in the US for them. When it's on that scale, one or two finds can put a big dent in the black market.

The biggest demographic of illegal gun buyers and owners is gang members. With crackdowns on gangs increasing (at least in my area,) illegal guns are being seized constantly and taken out of the hands of people who will cause harm with them. Violent criminals should be punished very severely when they have tools that allow them to commit violent crimes. I would support heavy recommended sentences for anyone who has a gun in their possession during the commission of a violent or coercive crime.

Willravel

Here's a question that never gets answered: what happens between production and illegal ownership? What goes wrong?

MSD

In 1994, Norinco was caught shipping 2000 AK47s to the US; these were determined to be headed to Oakland, CA for sale to gang members. Since automatic weapons are still found in the possession of gang members, it's reasonable to think that this kind of thing has happened repeatedly and not been discovered.

Some dealers knowingly sell to criminals or turn a blind eye to shady sales, and those dealers are typically shut down by the ATF. Some guns are stolen, some bought privately from people who either don't know or don't care about the legality of the buyer owning a gun. Some are bought by gang members who keep clean criminal records so they can straw purchase guns for the gang. Crime guns are passed around and sold to other gangs to disrupt the evidence trail.

The biggest gun violence demographic is gangs, both perpetrators and victims, and it seems logical to me that they should be the largest target of investigations and prosecutions. I would consider it reasonable to study the feasibility and potential effectiveness of adding convictions for gang-related activity to the list of disqualifications for legal gun purchases. Investigations into gangs should look at the sources of illegal guns and focus on ways to shut down those channels without affecting legal owners.

Willravel

Very good information, MSD. I wasn't aware that Norinco had such a blatant role in providing guns to criminals. Were they punished in any way?

dksuddeth

define illegal ownership?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

You know the hypothetical people who invade your home with guns and threaten your family? The ones you own guns to protect your family from? Them. Criminals. Gang members. People who buy guns from the trunks of cars.

dksuddeth

There is a problem with that. I can legally buy a weapon from the trunk of a car. I believe you can also do so in the states of louisiana, mississippi, new mexico, arizona, and a host of others. In fact, any state that does not require a 'purchase permit', does not regulate private sales, as it should be.

As to the other categories you stated, wouldn't it be of higher prudence to make the criminal use of a weapon illegal instead of mere ownership?

So i'll ask again, how do you define illegal ownership? Why should ownership of anything be regulated?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

If the guns in the back of a car were obtained illegally, which is implied, then the sale is not covered by the lack of a purchase permit. The idea is that people who would not pass background checks are bypassing that system in order to obtain weapons. Did you even read this:
Would you take issue with this situation or allow it? Because it's starting to seem as if you're okay with gang members being armed.
I'll tell you what, why don't we take all of the ex convicts who were convicted for using firearms in their crimes move into your neighborhood and let them have guns. Then you can tell me about how gun ownership shouldn't be regulated.

dksuddeth

If the guns were stolen, then they wouldn't belong to the seller anyway, so the implication is really false.

There are many ways to bypass a background check, which is why there shouldn't even be one. All the system does is retard the ability of decent people to buy guns.

Again, why are we criminalizing mere possession? Possession should not be a criminal act, the actual crime of violence with the weapon is what we should be pursuing.

You are seriously deluded if you think that every ex-con avoids possessing a gun. They are doing it in your very own neighborhood as you type and all with the current regulation there in california as strict as it is. In reality, the only ones the regulations affect are the law abiding people who wish to protect themselves.

To add to this thought, WHY should an ex-con, who has supposedly paid his debt to society, be denied the right to effectively defend his own life, home, and family?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

The implication is that the guns are "illegal", so it's not only not false, but it's perfect.
Bias impacted opinions aside, that's the worst reason to get rid of a law in history. "Some people get around it, so it should be abolished".
You're right. If the FBI finds an Islamic fundamentalist group in the US with a nuclear weapon we're SOL because they only have the weapon. It's just possession, which shouldn't be a criminal act. Just because they came upon it by illegal means and they're likely to use it to kill people doesn't mean that our police should be pursuing it.
Stop right there, hot shot. If you're going to head in this direction I'm leaving the thread along with all my perfectly valid points because we all know how this conversation goes once it turns from factual discussion to personal insults. Are you capable of having this discussion without insulting people?
Unless you have evidence that ex-convicts who were convicted of gun crimes can pass background checks, I'll have to ask that you reexamine your answer or post some rather serious evidence.
Because paying one's debt is not the same as earning trust.

dksuddeth

guns are not illegal, therefore your implication is false.

Thats not what I said. Because the law affects ONLY law abiding people, it should be abolished and that those who commit criminal acts with guns should then be prosecuted.

a nuke is not a gun, this is a worthless argument and only shows your desperation.

before you get all insulted, read the rest of the statement as it applies perfectly.

A background check should not be required for the exercise or enjoyment of a right and if said convict cannot be trusted on the outside, why is he outside?

so we're back to only letting people exercise rights when YOU trust them? can I have that power also?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

The guns are stolen property. It's illegal to be in possession of stolen property. This isn't complicated.
You think background checks don't effect people that don't pass?
A nuke is a weapon and the only way that you seem to register the seriousness of the situation is by comparing it to it's ultimate interpretation.
"You're delusional if you believe *insert exaggerated and incorrect interpretation of what I said here*" is still an attempt t call me delusional.
Why? because you can't be imprisoned because you could commit a crime. Intent alone cannot convict and that's as it should be. The funny thing is that if you read into your argument, either people are trustworthy or they should be in jail. Do you understand the concept of why black and white thinking is wrong?
You trust an ex convict found guilty of using a gun to have a gun. I call bs.

Plan9

This thread belongs in politics.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Ustwo

Mmmmmm lets see

Shot gun or a sword wielding dog with bees in its mouth armed with little tasers.

I'm still getting the shot gun.

Dogs crap all over.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

dksuddeth

Lets try this again.
You defined illegal ownership as 'People who buy guns from the trunks of cars', therefore you must be stating that all guns sold out of trunks are illegal. I then told you that private sales are not regulated in the state of texas, therefore if someone sells me a gun out of the trunk of his car, this does not make the gun illegal. You then restated that you are implying that guns sold out of trunks of cars are illegal, which I again told you is false. This must be more complicated to you than it is to me if you're unable to understand that.

No, because people that couldn't pass a background check can buy guns just about anywhere else.



do you believe that all ex-cons strictly obey gun laws? If you do, then guess what? You would be delusional. That's not an insult, that's reality.

First off, you should know better than anyone that intent alone can convict. You've posted about these things under the Bush admin many times. Are all of your claims then false? Secondly, whether people are trustworthy or not is irrelevant. It's all about actions so I'm hardly on the black and white line with this argument.

call whatever you like. I've known a few that I would trust with a gun, simply because i've actually got to know them, but that's beside the point. Whether they are trustworthy or not is also irrelevant because if the ex-con really wants a gun, he's going to get a gun. Nothing you, or the government, can do to stop him.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."