Bought my 1st gun!

[peasant]

@icebergslim, that would be your baby would it, or just anyones, not that it would matter, not to you it would seem anyway.

Always a pleasure having an intelligent conversation with an intelligent person, unfortunately, I'll not ever be getting that with you, will I now.?

 

[ManBearPig]

@disgruntledvirus

"So, in other words you shouldn't even bring a knife to a gun fight? You should only bring your body to be a target? Errr wait, not a target b/c you'll have your hands!

Go tell people at Columbine, Fort Hood, or any other person who has had a gunman commit a violent act with a gun that they shouldn't have a firearm to defend themselves. "

On hindsight you may want to retract that idiotic comment. I've no wish to deter you from your legal rights, however, that argument you make, is in my opinion the very reason why some people should be excluded from the Gun Laws you American have, and in some cases abuse(Columbine,Washington State sniper, etc,etc the list is endless).Sometimes, you need to take a step back to move forwards.

Obviously no one would take a knife to a gunfight, I'm hoping though that maybe some Americans wish to move away from the Wild West, of you're not too distant history, into the 21st century, or even for some of you, a move into the 20th century, might be as far as you could reasonably be expected to move, given that you use past experience merely to validate your point of view, not to justify it or find an alternative, either to yourself, or to others.

Seeing as you have brought Columbine up, (in my opinion unnecessary and insensitive), I would appreciate you "validating" this article for me, using the same logic.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/westfield_police_release_name.html

err, isnt using past experience to validate your point of view a good thing? and whats he have to justify, he bought a gun because he wanted one and was allowed to.

that being said, i dont care for guns and would never own one personally, although i wouldnt mind shooting one sometime. ive met plenty of nice people who shoot guns...no killers either. in fact one was a doctor.

one last thing; your writing style is difficult to understand because you use so many commas. just curious, is english your native language? (not meant to be rude!)

 

[IceBergSLiM]

@icebergslim, that would be your baby would it, or just anyones, not that it would matter, not to you it would seem anyway.

Always a pleasure having an intelligent conversation with an intelligent person, unfortunately, I'll not ever be getting that with you, will I now.?

 

[peasant]

Yes, Kazaam, English is my native, first language. The difficulty you may be experiencing, could be due to the fact, I use , English english, or to coin a phrase, The Queens English, or even to another extent, Oxford English.

I do not use American English.I find it to be short and abrupt.In my opinion. I also find it to come across as rude. In some cases.

When one speaks, one does not punctuate every sentence with a breath, does one?

As an aside from that, I have stated, it is not my intention to disagree with anyones legal right to own a firearm. Alsne uses past experiences to learn from, not to validate past behaviour which could in fact be deemed to be a possible cause of the past behaviour.

All I have asked for is a justification, other than the worn thin ones expressed by some, that violence is a justification in it's own right. This isn't the mentality of a civilized nation, or citizen, what it does show, is a lack of will to break a vicious circle.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

@disgruntledvirus

"So, in other words you shouldn't even bring a knife to a gun fight? You should only bring your body to be a target? Errr wait, not a target b/c you'll have your hands!

Go tell people at Columbine, Fort Hood, or any other person who has had a gunman commit a violent act with a gun that they shouldn't have a firearm to defend themselves. "

On hindsight you may want to retract that idiotic comment. I've no wish to deter you from your legal rights, however, that argument you make, is in my opinion the very reason why some people should be excluded from the Gun Laws you American have, and in some cases abuse(Columbine,Washington State sniper, etc,etc the list is endless).Sometimes, you need to take a step back to move forwards.

Obviously no one would take a knife to a gunfight, I'm hoping though that maybe some Americans wish to move away from the Wild West, of you're not too distant history, into the 21st century, or even for some of you, a move into the 20th century, might be as far as you could reasonably be expected to move, given that you use past experience merely to validate your point of view, not to justify it or find an alternative, either to yourself, or to others.

Seeing as you have brought Columbine up, (in my opinion unnecessary and insensitive), I would appreciate you "validating" this article for me, using the same logic.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/westfield_police_release_name.html

So, are you saying that we should get rid of all guns and prohibit them nationwide (obviously if the second amendment didn't explicitly prevent this)? The thinking "well if nobody has guns, then gun crime will go down" is very poor logic for a few reasons. First, you won't be able to effectively take away all guns out there (which would be step 1 to a "gun free state"). Secondly, assuming you could remove all guns nations that permit guns have lower crime rates (source http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1564/). Third, criminals will always be able to obtain illegal things (guns, drugs, etc), so you're really only assisting criminals in their ability to do harm to law abiding citizens.

As for the effect of CCW on violent crime rates, I've seen studies that show all sides. That said, personally I'd rather have citizens armed (with proper training and proper background checks, etc) if they choose to be. Yeah, I'd love for humanity to live in some utopian society where weapons are not needed and we all just get along. There has never been anytime in human history where that has actually happened and then actually work. We have been fighting one another forever, the only difference now is we have found more effective ways to do it.

That article simply shows that there are stupid people in the world, that one just happened to be a gun owner who was irresponsible with their children and allowed a tragedy to happen. There is absolutely NO reason to give any child a fully automatic weapon, or a high caliber firearm. They should be trained in firearm safety, and I have no issues with allowing them to shoot something that they can control. There are a few issues with your news article to illustrate why "gun ownership is bad". One thing, the gun club shouldn't have allowed anybody under a certain age with experience shooting to shoot an Uzi. Secondly, there is no reason the parent should have given his 8 year old permission. Finally, once again that just is stupid people doing stupid things. Just like you wouldn't toss your car keys to a kid under 10 years old, giving that same kid a fully automatic gun is just as irresponsible.

 

[ManBearPig]

Yes, Kazaam, English is my native, first language. The difficulty you may be experiencing, could be due to the fact, I use , English english, or to coin a phrase, The Queens English, or even to another extent, Oxford English.

I do not use American English.I find it to be short and abrupt.In my opinion. I also find it to come across as rude. In some cases.

When one speaks, one does not punctuate every sentence with a breath, does one?

As an aside from that, I have stated, it is not my intention to disagree with anyones legal right to own a firearm. Alsne uses past experiences to learn from, not to validate past behaviour which could in fact be deemed to be a possible cause of the past behaviour.

All I have asked for is a justification, other than the worn thin ones expressed by some, that violence is a justification in it's own right. This isn't the mentality of a civilized nation, or citizen, what it does show, is a lack of will to break a vicious circle.

oh ok, i totally misunderstood what you were talking about earlier then. to each his own i guess.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

All I have asked for is a justification, other than the worn thin ones expressed by some, that violence is a justification in it's own right. This isn't the mentality of a civilized nation, or citizen, what it does show, is a lack of will to break a vicious circle.

This isn't a thread for justification or debate.

Here are some that will suit your interests:

http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=19589

now stop thread crapping n00b

 

[daniel1113]

@disgruntledvirus
Obviously no one would take a knife to a gunfight, I'm hoping though that maybe some Americans wish to move away from the Wild West...

The real Wild West wasn't like the movies you've watched. Almost across the board crime rates are higher today than they were during the "Wild" West period. Perhaps you should learn a thing or two about history, crime rates and firearms before you spout off about them.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

The real Wild West wasn't like the movies you've watched. Almost across the board crime rates are higher today than they were during the "Wild" West period. Perhaps you should learn a thing or two about history, crime rates and firearms before you spout off about them.

Too busy concealing his weak trolling in the "Queen's English"

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Yes, Kazaam, English is my native, first language. The difficulty you may be experiencing, could be due to the fact, I use , English english, or to coin a phrase, The Queens English, or even to another extent, Oxford English.

I do not use American English.I find it to be short and abrupt.In my opinion. I also find it to come across as rude. In some cases.

When one speaks, one does not punctuate every sentence with a breath, does one?

As an aside from that, I have stated, it is not my intention to disagree with anyones legal right to own a firearm. Alsne uses past experiences to learn from, not to validate past behaviour which could in fact be deemed to be a possible cause of the past behaviour.

All I have asked for is a justification, other than the worn thin ones expressed by some, that violence is a justification in it's own right. This isn't the mentality of a civilized nation, or citizen, what it does show, is a lack of will to break a vicious circle.

So your username explains a lot. You are a peasant and not a citizen. We here in America value our rights and don't do things in idiotic attempt to appease our dictator. God Save the Queen? God Fuck the Queen.
Let us know how that gun ban is doing over there on your side of the pond. Seems like the only people shooting others there are criminals with guns.
The earlier mentioning of Columbine and Ft. Hood are points that can be made, as why would you prevent persons from lawfully carrying a gun somewhere when it's blatantly obvious that person intent of committing crimes don't care about laws that prevent them from bringing an object somewhere. All it does is allows them to have a group of victims that can't fight back.
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. " It's nice to know your leaders think of you as children and have indoctrinated you into a level of retarded emotional maturity. This much can be seen by the constant riots at soccer, er football matches.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Which model HK?

HK P2000 V2 with night sights and 4 mags.

 

[Zenmervolt]

May I suggest you read which of the amendments/constitution applies to you that doesn't apply to me.

Since you are not a citizen of the United States, no amendment to the US Constitution applies to you.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Let us know how that gun ban is doing over there on your side of the pond.

In the ten years after England's handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime doubled, that's how it's doing.

ZV

 

[peasant]

Oh my, what a hornets nest.

In no particular order, and solely, for those who can't read.

A) I HAVE STATED THAT I DO NOT DENY ANYONE THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO FIREARMS.
B) PERHAPS, THE CRIME FIGURES/CAUSES NEED CLOSER INSPECTION THAN YOU'D CARE FOR IN THE USA.

Also, it would appear to me, from vary comments made here, that Americans themselves are the ones, wrongly directed at me, who lack maturity(emotional or sexual) in this matter. Whilst you constantly harp on about gun crime and street violence, the gun actually plays a greater part in male suicide than any other form of death.Perhaps the pychological state of mind of American males is on display here, and that on it's own is a good enough reason for the likes of some of the posters to have a gun, perhaps an ethnic cleansing of the American populace is the right direction for Americans to proceed?

"The earlier mentioning of Columbine and Ft. Hood are points that can be made, as why would you prevent persons from lawfully carrying a gun somewhere when it's blatantly obvious that person intent of committing crimes don't care about laws that prevent them from bringing an object somewhere. All it does is allows them to have a group of victims that can't fight back."

This one I find particularly confusing, on the face of it appears logical. But, let's just think about this one a lttle bit more. So the natural solution to this one then, would have been that all the students at Columbine should have been carrying firearms to protect themselves. So when the first shots ring out, there's x number of students, blasting away at each other, randomly, a) because no one knows what the hell is going on, and b) hell, I'm gonna defend myself no matter what, because it's my legal right. Or c) take cover, and let the professionals take care of it, which is what happened. Now I was deeply shocked and appalled by that incident, as I know, many Americans were.And then here's something else to think of, even as unpleasant as it is, what would have been the final death toll, if either solution a or b were in force? At this juncture, surely, you should be asking what lessons have neen learnt from that, and has the correct solution been applied and any further incidents like that been prevented. Only you Americans can truthfully answer that.

Surely, a better solution to that would be, no firearms at all.

FOR ALL YOU ABOUT TO SCREAM, please note the use of the word better, it isn't advocated as the solution, just an alternative.

For the person who mentioned UK gun crime, you show little knowledge, knife crime is by far a greater risk to the UK population than gun crime. Guns are not freely available in the UK, and as such gun crime is actually very limited in the UK. (note the word limited please, it is not a denial of existence)

 

[Zargon]

yes, because no matter how much anyone tries

you cannot remove all firearms.

I read an atricle about kids in london wearing knife-proof kevlar to school EVERYDAY because all they did was trade gun crime for knife crime when they banned guns

 

[daniel1113]

This one I find particularly confusing, on the face of it appears logical. But, let's just think about this one a lttle bit more. So the natural solution to this one then, would have been that all the students at Columbine should have been carrying firearms to protect themselves. So when the first shots ring out, there's x number of students, blasting away at each other, randomly, a) because no one knows what the hell is going on, and b) hell, I'm gonna defend myself no matter what, because it's my legal right. Or c) take cover, and let the professionals take care of it, which is what happened. Now I was deeply shocked and appalled by that incident, as I know, many Americans were.And then here's something else to think of, even as unpleasant as it is, what would have been the final death toll, if either solution a or b were in force?

Americans carry concealed weapons in almost state and neither your A nor B scenarios ever occur, so why would they occur on a college campus?

If you don't want to stir the hornet's nest, don't post about subjects of which you have no knowledge.

 

[Zargon]

x2.......

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

... I don't keep the gun loaded. Hell, I don't even have ammo at home. It's locked with a gun lock. I want to have my own so I can take it to the range and shoot. What's your problem?

You are one of the very few who don't live in utmost fear that people will barge into your home and you will require a gun to fend for yourself. (i've lived in Brixton without ever living in fear and Brixton is worse than anything you have in the US).

BTW, theflyingpig isn't being sarcastic, he kills people just for laughing at him.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Oh, that and the P226 is the best handgun made in all of eternity.

 

[nick1985]

this thread is funny

 

[daniel1113]

Oh, that and the P226 is the best handgun made in all of eternity.

John Browning and my 1911 disagree with that statement

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

In the ten years after England's handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime doubled, that's how it's doing.

ZV

Still, the US reigns king over all gun related accidents, homicides or crime.

Most of them are stolen legally purchased firearms.

The "gun ban" didn't really do much but institute the laws of the US for licenses for firearms, Blair had a hard on for GW, we all know that.

And yeah, the UK took it up the arse for as long as Blair the fucking traitor was our PM.

Now we're all Brown.

I'll go with the liberal Democrats.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Oh my, what a hornets nest.

In no particular order, and solely, for those who can't read.

A) I HAVE STATED THAT I DO NOT DENY ANYONE THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO FIREARMS.
B) PERHAPS, THE CRIME FIGURES/CAUSES NEED CLOSER INSPECTION THAN YOU'D CARE FOR IN THE USA.

Also, it would appear to me, from vary comments made here, that Americans themselves are the ones, wrongly directed at me, who lack maturity(emotional or sexual) in this matter. Whilst you constantly harp on about gun crime and street violence, the gun actually plays a greater part in male suicide than any other form of death.Perhaps the pychological state of mind of American males is on display here, and that on it's own is a good enough reason for the likes of some of the posters to have a gun, perhaps an ethnic cleansing of the American populace is the right direction for Americans to proceed?

"The earlier mentioning of Columbine and Ft. Hood are points that can be made, as why would you prevent persons from lawfully carrying a gun somewhere when it's blatantly obvious that person intent of committing crimes don't care about laws that prevent them from bringing an object somewhere. All it does is allows them to have a group of victims that can't fight back."

This one I find particularly confusing, on the face of it appears logical. But, let's just think about this one a lttle bit more. So the natural solution to this one then, would have been that all the students at Columbine should have been carrying firearms to protect themselves. So when the first shots ring out, there's x number of students, blasting away at each other, randomly, a) because no one knows what the hell is going on, and b) hell, I'm gonna defend myself no matter what, because it's my legal right. Or c) take cover, and let the professionals take care of it, which is what happened. Now I was deeply shocked and appalled by that incident, as I know, many Americans were.And then here's something else to think of, even as unpleasant as it is, what would have been the final death toll, if either solution a or b were in force? At this juncture, surely, you should be asking what lessons have neen learnt from that, and has the correct solution been applied and any further incidents like that been prevented. Only you Americans can truthfully answer that.

Surely, a better solution to that would be, no firearms at all.

FOR ALL YOU ABOUT TO SCREAM, please note the use of the word better, it isn't advocated as the solution, just an alternative.

For the person who mentioned UK gun crime, you show little knowledge, knife crime is by far a greater risk to the UK population than gun crime. Guns are not freely available in the UK, and as such gun crime is actually very limited in the UK. (note the word limited please, it is not a denial of existence)

Scenario A or B has yet to happen, and I don't believe it would.

First off columbine was a HS, and as such they couldn't carry except faculty over 21. So, you would have had teachers and administrators who voluntarily got trained and carried legally. You might have had 5 faculty who had CCW's, and would respond to the situation. Instead of a multi-hour situation, with many deaths the situation could have been resolved a lot sooner with less innocent victims.

People that choose to have CCW's are few, and those who do are generally very responsible. They have saved many lives over the past few years, and that trend will only increase. I don't know about you, but I'd rather rely on a person having a CCW then waiting 5+ minutes it can take police to get on scene let alone resolve the situation.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

John Browning and my 1911 disagree with that statement

You can disagree all you want, but there is probably a reason why ALL special forces have chosen the P226 for a sidearm.

Well not just the special forces, most Army, Navy, Air Force units around the globe has chosen the P226.

It's full size and it has excellent balance, it's easy to handle and easy to maintain, it pretty much never clicks and if you ever were to take aim and hold with a gun, the P226 is the one you'd want to hold.

Of course, i'm pretty old school, despite other alternatives, i cling to the G3.