Bought my 1st gun!

[Zargon]

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.

never touched a 226, but I shot a baby eagle in 40s&w and thing BEGGED to be held.

shot alright, but boy did it feel GREAT in your hand

 

[peasant]

@disgruntledvirus

"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."

I find some of your logic very very confusing, firstly you say a situation hasn't/won't occur then you use Columbine, the very place it did occur, as an example of why it would never occur.

For me, personally, I would rather have a situation, where nobody had a firearm, thus eliminating any of the possible could/couldn't occur scenarios from being a possibility all together.

I have still seen no argument that breaks the false perpetuation of the reliance on handguns to protect ones self. In fact the only way to truly protect ones self is not to get into a situation where one needs to protect ones self to begin with.

Leave the guns to the professionals, an everyday citizen has no need for a firearm, only the paranoid and afraid need protection to that level. Those that do, I'm afraid, doesn't make them a man, it makes them a coward.

Violence only begets it's bedfellow, more violence.

 

[werepossum]

Congrats on your purchase. Any S&W is going to shoot better than the vast majority of us, and your pistol, while not as fancy or expensive as some, should give you decades of service and shooting pleasure.

 

[daniel1113]

@disgruntledvirus
For me, personally, I would rather have a situation, where nobody had a firearm, thus eliminating any of the possible could/couldn't occur scenarios from being a possibility all together.

Aside from being completely unattainable (there will always be firearms), you make the assumption that firearms lead to violence when firearms are merely a tool used for violent purposes. Even without firearms there would still be violence. Hell, you already mentioned that knife violence was a huge problem in the UK, as are violent crimes in general. Firearms may not be as prevalent, but violence is the same.

@disgruntledvirus
I have still seen no argument that breaks the false perpetuation of the reliance on handguns to protect ones self. In fact the only way to truly protect ones self is not to get into a situation where one needs to protect ones self to begin with.

So the women that get raped in their homes shouldn't live in their homes? And the students that get shot while sitting in class shouldn't attend class? And the men that get robbed walking down the street shouldn't use public streets?

@disgruntledvirus
Leave the guns to the professionals, an everyday citizen has no need for a firearm, only the paranoid and afraid need protection to that level. Those that do, I'm afraid, doesn't make them a man, it makes them a coward.

Who are these "professionals"? The cops that show up 10 minutes after the crime has already occurred? I also find it interesting that you consider the police, or government in general, to be the professionals when it comes to firearms. At least here in the US, countless studies have shown that the average gun owner is more proficient with firearms than the average cop.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I find some of your logic very very confusing, firstly you say a situation hasn't/won't occur then you use Columbine, the very place it did occur, as an example of why it would never occur.

For me, personally, I would rather have a situation, where nobody had a firearm, thus eliminating any of the possible could/couldn't occur scenarios from being a possibility all together.

I have still seen no argument that breaks the false perpetuation of the reliance on handguns to protect ones self. In fact the only way to truly protect ones self is not to get into a situation where one needs to protect ones self to begin with.

Leave the guns to the professionals, an everyday citizen has no need for a firearm, only the paranoid and afraid need protection to that level. Those that do, I'm afraid, doesn't make them a man, it makes them a coward.

Violence only begets it's bedfellow, more violence.

What happened at Columbine was different then your notion of a college campus where the majority of people could be armed if they wanted (b/c AFAIK most CCW's require you to be over 21). Columbine was a HS, which means only faculty/teachers/staff could have firearms. If they had been permitted to conceal carry, then Columbine might not have lasted as long as it did with as many deaths. Teachers/faculty with weapons on them could have responded and could have ended the situation sooner with less injuries/deaths of innocent victims.

I completely agree that I'd rather have a situation where firearms were not needed, but that's a fantasy world and not reality. It's not possible to remove all firearms from the non-LEO/military community (i.e. civilians). So, this utopian world of no firearms can't exist. Just as the nuclear genie cannot be put back in it's bottle, the gun genie cannot be bottled again.

You're right, that the only way to truly be protected is to not get in that situation in the first place. That said, do you think people at Columbine, Fort Hood, in the Washington sniper case, or any other tragedy involving guns killing people planned to get in that situation or wanted to be in it? No, they weren't. How many links do you want to stories about CCW permit holders saving lives (their own and/or others)?
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-...self-defense-by-concealed-carry-permit-holder

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/gene...d-one-injured-miami-burger-king-shooting.html <- original article is no longer up on miamiherald.com's site

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-...self-defense-by-concealed-carry-permit-holder

There's 3 that show how CCW/guns can save lives. To speak to your last paragraph, the CCW permit holders in these cases are cowards? Seems to me these people are prime examples why citizens should be allowed to carry firearms.

Violence is always the last resort, but in situations like these sometimes violence is the answer unfortunately. Yeah it might not be ideal, but it does save lives of possible innocent victims.

 

[nick1985]

@disgruntledvirus


Leave the guns to the professionals, an everyday citizen has no need for a firearm, only the paranoid and afraid need protection to that level. Those that do, I'm afraid, doesn't make them a man, it makes them a coward.

Violence only begets it's bedfellow, more violence.

You are dumb as fuck.

What do you say about all the stories of people defending their homes from criminals breaking in? Are they cowards? Are the women who prevented themselves from being raped and murdered cowards?

Do you have brain cells? I seriously cannot grasp why people like you cant understand that firearms have been used successfully for self-defense on numerous occasions. Do you plug your ears and yell "LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU" when someone links you cases of successful self-defense stories?

 

[Adrenaline]

... 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?

I don't understand having a gun at home and not having it loaded, sorry.

I plan on grabbing a glock next year for my first gun and keeping it loaded at home.

 

[KMc]

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

I want one really really really bad.

 

[peasant]

Daniel, it is quite possible to follow a debate without having to pull each others post's apart line by line. Although for some being able to follow a thought proves difficult and the need to pull apart a post line by line indicative, not of a debateful approach, but of a bullying attempt to transpose their own views into someone elses view. You have yours fine, I have mine, equally fine, is that ok by you? And that's rhetorical, you don't have to pull it apart or over analyse it.

You are using some emotional arguments which are very hard to justify with either view point, mine or your's. Am I saying that the existence of handguns or knives, is the reason for vile and heinous crimes being committed, no I'm not. Are you saying that the ownership of guns or knives, has prevented these vile and heinous crimes being committed, because they obviously haven't, and I don't for one second imagine, that having the gun or knife is going to prevent them either.

The real problem is the crime itself, and that is something else to be debated, gun or no gun is going to change that. The very slippery slope of private gun ownership morality that I have problems with, is the negativity of it. The whole approach to it is negative, from the very first moment that you think to yourself, that you need/want a gun for whatever reason, your whole mentality takes on a negative approach to everything in life.

It is a very vicious circle, and one that is hard to break, as you say, one form of violence replaces another, one tool for another, something more effective, soon this pistol won't be enough, I need an Uzi. F+++ this knife is only a 6 inch blade, I need at least 12, or maybe even a f+++ off Samurai sword or something. WHY?

The only thing to be afraid of in life, is fear itself. Papers and TV sensationalise bad news, it's how they make their living, Gun companies will sell you guns based on your fear, it's how they make their living. Nobody is going to be able to sell you a gun based on the fact, oh things aren't that bad really, only 2 people got shot in New York last week, and who wants to buy a newspaper that tells you teddy bear sales were up in Las Vegas last week, because 3 couples had babies.

You live in a self perpetrating climate of fear, and that is going to be one hell of a tough cookie to crack, unless you start doing something pro-active about it, change your climate of fear, loose your negativity, get rid of the tools of violence, try something different.

 

[peasant]

@disgruntledvirus, I glad you agree with something, instead of setting me more and more challenges to try and please you, please attend to the one I set you, I am still eagerly interested in your validation/justification of that, it is very hard trying to have a one way street discussion. Instead of just disagreeing with me, try to show me, why I'm wrong, don't just take me apart, offer something of yourself in return.

 

[peasant]

@nick1995, I've already answered your post, in my last post to Daniel, if you can't carry out a conversation with me, without resorting to crude abusive language expect the same in return.

 

[JJ650]

@disgruntledvirus

I find some of your logic very very confusing, firstly you say a situation hasn't/won't occur then you use Columbine, the very place it did occur, as an example of why it would never occur.

For me, personally, I would rather have a situation, where nobody had a firearm, thus eliminating any of the possible could/couldn't occur scenarios from being a possibility all together.

I have still seen no argument that breaks the false perpetuation of the reliance on handguns to protect ones self. In fact the only way to truly protect ones self is not to get into a situation where one needs to protect ones self to begin with.

Leave the guns to the professionals, an everyday citizen has no need for a firearm, only the paranoid and afraid need protection to that level. Those that do, I'm afraid, doesn't make them a man, it makes them a coward.

Violence only begets it's bedfellow, more violence.

Your logic isn't much better I am afraid. The problem is, there is no perfect world where your scenarios of "no more firearms ever again and therefore no one gets shot..unless by an officer of the governing law" (not necessarily your exact words, but pretty much what you are implying) . Firearms are around for good and will be here for a while, legal or not.

Another problem is, sometimes trouble can find you, no matter how safe or cautious one is. It's just a fact of life or the laws of statistics.

You automatically assume that if one owns a gun, he/she is some sort of a violent, emotionally unstable menace to the rest of society. A deviant if you will. I see you have provided nothing that would back up that statement.

I own firearms. They range from rifles, pistols to shotguns. I have a CCW permit. Do I use it? Yes. It makes purchasing other firearms loads easier.
I hunt, I sport shoot and I trade firearms for hobby or financial gain. I also find I'm the same guy now compared to over 10 yrs ago. It's in no way impacted my life, or anyone elses.

Many of your arguements are just counter points to an arguement that's been haggled over endlessly. You have nothing new to contribute.

You'll garner no respect from many on these forums by outright calling gun owners cowards, but I suspect you don't really care.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

 

[BabaBooey]

Wow, your FIRST gun. How many more do you intend to get? Isn't one enough?

Still, it's nice to know, now you'll never have to "buy" anything ever again.

I look forward to your first "I shot a N+++++, today" post with the utmost anticipation.

Does a gun make you "more" of a man then, or is it a kinda penis envy sort of thing?

Awesome post kid....

Enjoy your new piece....

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

@disgruntledvirus, I glad you agree with something, instead of setting me more and more challenges to try and please you, please attend to the one I set you, I am still eagerly interested in your validation/justification of that, it is very hard trying to have a one way street discussion. Instead of just disagreeing with me, try to show me, why I'm wrong, don't just take me apart, offer something of yourself in return.

I'm not "just disagreeing with you", and have tried to show why you're wrong with statistics, news articles, and facts about the use of violence to respond to violent crimes.

If you're referring to the article you linked to about the 8 year old shooting himself with the Uzi, I responded to that many posts ago. My response was that it wasn't the fault of guns being legal to own and shoot, but instead it was stupid people who enabled the situation to happen (the gun club and the father). If there was something else you wanted me to "validate/justify", please let me know and I'll respond to it. Unless I missed something (I don't think I did), you only wanted me to "validate/justify" that one thing.

 

[daniel1113]

You are using some emotional arguments which are very hard to justify with either view point, mine or your's. Am I saying that the existence of handguns or knives, is the reason for vile and heinous crimes being committed, no I'm not. Are you saying that the ownership of guns or knives, has prevented these vile and heinous crimes being committed, because they obviously haven't, and I don't for one second imagine, that having the gun or knife is going to prevent them either.

No, I'm using logic. I have two very simple arguments: 1) private ownership of firearms does not have a negative effect on crime levels, 2) even if it did, a person's right to protect himself in any single situation outweighs the societal considerations. It doesn't matter what you believe, if you would do some basic research you would know that firearms are used millions of times each year in the US for defensive purposes.

The real problem is the crime itself, and that is something else to be debated, gun or no gun is going to change that. The very slippery slope of private gun ownership morality that I have problems with, is the negativity of it. The whole approach to it is negative, from the very first moment that you think to yourself, that you need/want a gun for whatever reason, your whole mentality takes on a negative approach to everything in life.

How is that a negative approach? Just because you say it's negative doesn't make it so. I keep several fire extinguishers around my house, but I don't have a negative attitude towards fire. It's called being prepared because shit happens.

It is a very vicious circle, and one that is hard to break, as you say, one form of violence replaces another, one tool for another, something more effective, soon this pistol won't be enough, I need an Uzi. F+++ this knife is only a 6 inch blade, I need at least 12, or maybe even a f+++ off Samurai sword or something. WHY?

This is dumb question. There will always be criminals, and criminals will also do bad things. Telling non-criminals that they don't have the right to defend themselves does not get rid of criminals and violence. Owning a firearm for defensive purposes is not violence.

The only thing to be afraid of in life, is fear itself. Papers and TV sensationalise bad news, it's how they make their living, Gun companies will sell you guns based on your fear, it's how they make their living. Nobody is going to be able to sell you a gun based on the fact, oh things aren't that bad really, only 2 people got shot in New York last week, and who wants to buy a newspaper that tells you teddy bear sales were up in Las Vegas last week, because 3 couples had babies.

I don't own a fire extinguisher because I'm afraid of fires, and I didn't buy a gun because some big gun company and media company scared me into doing so.

You live in a self perpetrating climate of fear, and that is going to be one hell of a tough cookie to crack, unless you start doing something pro-active about it, change your climate of fear, loose your negativity, get rid of the tools of violence, try something different.

For never meeting me before in your life, you sure make a lot of generalizations about how I live my life. Preparation is not fear no matter how many times you repeat the mantra in your head. Even if every law abiding gun owner got up tomorrow and decided to get rid of their firearms to counter your delusional "climate of fear", there would still be gun crime and violent crime because, once again, these people are not the problem. Criminals don't give a shit.

 

[Manchimp]

@ Peasant. Guns and knives are not the reason for crimes commited. You will always have bigger thugs picking on women or smaller men who would otherwise be unable to defend themselves. How can you accuse them of being shamefull?

Why does buying a gun automatically make that person fearfull? What about just being prepared because you know there are some bad people out there?

Would you call those who appreciate shooting guns for sport or general fun, immature as well?

I think you are sidestepping some of the logical arguments of gun ownership and just picking the ones you think you can win.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

 

[peasant]

"You'll garner no respect from many on these forums by outright calling gun owners cowards, but I suspect you don't really care."

@JJ, the only part of your post that I truly agree, and do you know what else, I don't need a gun to back me up, and everytime that trouble has found me, it has always been possible to resolve without resort to violence, or even needing the mental support of knowing, that if I couldn't handle the situation, that I've got my "piece" as a backup, as indeed I think you'll find is a regular occurrance throughout most of the world for most normal people.

"My response was that it wasn't the fault of guns being legal to own and shoot, but instead it was stupid people who enabled the situation to happen (the gun club and the father"

This is why I find your logic extremely hard to follow Disgruntledvirus, even with your own words you manage to defy your own thought process, now if you could just let go of your preconceptions, and just follow through on the one valid thought process you have started, we might begin to see some light in this topic.

"No, I'm using logic. I have two very simple arguments: 1) private ownership of firearms does not have a negative effect on crime levels, 2) even if it did, a person's right to protect himself in any single situation outweighs the societal considerations. It doesn't matter what you believe, if you would do some basic research you would know that firearms are used millions of times each year in the US for defensive purposes."

Daniel, again making the same mistakes as Disgruntledvirus, indeed point 1 makes extremely poor justification for your argument.

"How is that a negative approach? Just because you say it's negative doesn't make it so. I keep several fire extinguishers around my house, but I don't have a negative attitude towards fire. It's called being prepared because shit happens."

Again Daniel, a poor reference when considered that the primary purpose of a Fire extinguisher is save lives, whereas the primary purpose of a firearm is to extinguish life.

In regards to the last paragraph, I am not making a statement about you, I am making a statement about living in a climate of fear, and how the perpetuation of that climate of fear is used to manipulate you.It wasn't meant as a personal reference to you, perhaps we're at cross purposes with this particular concept, maybe you don't fully understand the pressure that is put on you to conform to a certain way of thinking by political forces outside your control, mainly through propaganda tools, in this case by a business, whose sole purpose is to sell death.

"This is dumb question. There will always be criminals, and criminals will also do bad things. Telling non-criminals that they don't have the right to defend themselves does not get rid of criminals and violence. Owning a firearm for defensive purposes is not violence."

Daniel, the very word defense is the partner in crime of offense, if you're saying you only want a handgun/firearm for defensive purpose, you are already in a negative mindset.You are already expecting the worse, you have given up hope, that maybe there is an alternative perhaps?. I don't get that impression, you seem to be quite an intelligent chap, I think you know that there is a different way, as yet you seem in-articulate enough to express it, but one way or another, eventually you will make your mind up, stop coming at me with weak, emotional reasons, and floor me with a solid case based on fact, not supposition, or what if. And either way, it won't offend me, nor will I feel the need to be intimidated into some one elses point of view by holding a meteaphorical gun to someones head, to make them comply with an opinion that is repugnant, not because I don't like it, but because it is morally wrong, and totally unjustifiable.

 

[daniel1113]

I tried my best, but I'm not wasting any more time. I hope for your sake that IceBergSLiM is correct and you're just a troll, because the alternative is much more disheartening.

 

[alphatarget1]

I don't understand having a gun at home and not having it loaded, sorry.

I plan on grabbing a glock next year for my first gun and keeping it loaded at home.

My gun doesn't have safety. The most I would do is probably keep clips loaded so I can put it in really quick, release (?) the barrel and it'll be ready to fire.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I tried my best, but I'm not wasting any more time. I hope for your sake that IceBergSLiM is correct and you're just a troll, because the alternative is much more disheartening.

the alternative?

 

[sourceninja]

Plus, without my guns, how can I defend myself from my own government should they attempt to remove my rights?

The second amendment is not about personal self defense. It is about national self defense. I remember watching Defiance and thinking that the resistance fighters could not have existed without private ownership of firearms. It allowed them to defend themselves against the germans and to hunt and feed themselves and most importantly, secure more powerful weapons to defend themselves.

Private gun ownership is a very small check of the many checks and balances that keep the US from becoming a tyranny.

 

[daniel1113]

My gun doesn't have safety. The most I would do is probably keep clips loaded so I can put it in really quick, release (?) the barrel and it'll be ready to fire.

The only problem is that when you're caught off guard and under pressure, even a simple task like chambering a round can be difficult (or at least take longer than you expect) unless you've trained to the point where racking the slide is secondary.

But, to each his own. You do what feels right for you.