Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Street Shots  (Read 8808 times)
Riaan van Wyk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 682



WWW
« Reply #40 on: August 02, 2011, 12:43:29 AM »
ReplyReply

It saddens me that you believe you live in a world where you have a need to carry a firearm in the normal course of your life.

I don't "believe" I live in such a world, I know. If it wasn't for the firearm that I carry in the normal course of my life, I would have been dead in the first hijack attempt. Also the other two incidents would have had a different outcome- if I was not armed.   
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #41 on: August 02, 2011, 07:58:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob, Ordinarily I'd be downtown by now, shooting pictures, but it's hotter than blue blazes out there, so I'll stick around and philosophize.
An easy supply of guns isn't the problem. The problem is people who use guns to perpetrate crimes.
Humans have armed themselves since long before the beginning of recorded history, and they're not about to stop now. The arrival of guns -- even ancient wheellocks and flintlocks, made a huge difference in human interactions. The gun revolution was even more striking than the introduction of the English longbow, which revolutionized warfare. Then we progressed through a series of minor revolutions such as breech-loading, rifling, etc., etc., and finally developed the Gatling gun, the water-cooled machine gun, the tommy gun -- so Chicago criminals wouldn't be left out of the march of progress, and Wegee would be able to get his gory pictures -- and eventually learned how to produce the ultimate weapon by disrupting atoms.
There's no way to limit the number of guns. If you make gun manufacture and possession illegal in one country, guns will be manufactured in another country and smuggled in by criminals for criminals. If you make gun manufacture and possession illegal in every country in the world only criminals will manufacture guns, but you can be sure they'll manufacture them just as they manufactured booze during U.S. prohibition.
When a jurisdiction tries to limit the ability of honest people to arm themselves, what they're actually doing is trying to make sure only criminals have guns, though in sane jurisdictions they insist that their enforcers -- the cops -- are armed. But what's the difference between an armed cop on the corner and an honest man who's firearm trained, alert, and carrying a weapon? The only difference I can see is that the cop is "sworn." When I was mayor, during big downtown events we'd sometimes use a group of volunteers called the Colorado Mounted Rangers to help keep the peace. My police chief would grumble about "hobby cops," but the Rangers were well-trained and responsible. One of them was a deacon in my church.
You're right. Only people in combat need assault weapons. But people who don't know anything at all about guns will call any rifle -- semi-automatic or even single-shot -- with a flash suppressor or a pistol grip an "assault" weapon because it looks hairier than the semi-automatic rifle next to it that's mechanically identical. I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S., full automatic weapons of any kind, and rocket launchers, are outlawed.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people -- either deliberately or by "accident" through ignorance. And people kill people with guns, knives, garrottes, baseball bats, crowbars, shovels, automobiles, etc., etc. If you lock up or execute all the people who want to kill, you'll solve the problem, but you won't solve it by futilely trying (to) rid the world of guns.



Well said. I've carried a Glock 15-clip .40 cal for years (under my car seat when I am driving, in my back pocket when I am hiking, etc.), and have yet to kill someone, for the simple reason I have no desire to. In the same fashion, I have never tried to rob someone or wrongly deprive them of their possessions, because I know right from wrong and have no desire to do so. I simply carry my pistol for self-defense, not the intent to harm another person (or animal for that matter) without cause.

"The right to keep and bear arms" is every man's right in a free society. In fact, Florida just passed a law legalizing concealed weapons on all of the Florida State Parks, which is as it should be. Lots of things can happen out in the middle of the wild, and IMO only a fool would go miles out into the wilderness without a gun. Same thing in a so-called "civilized" major city.

Sure, a gun is a lethal weapon, this is nothing new. But it takes a human decision to make it so (that, or human stupidity, in the case of accidental shootings/suicides). I have never in my life wanted to kill an innocent person. Never would such a thought or impulse cross my mind, because I do not have an evil heart or an addled mind. However, if I were presented with a very real danger to me or my familiy, I would unhesitatingly pull the trigger defending my own life, property, or loved ones--and wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it. The way I see it is if my own life, or the lives of my loved ones, or if everything that I have worked hard for, were being put into jeopardy by a social deviant intent on taking what is not rightfully his to take ... that it's the aggressive deviant who needs to be culled, not the person minding his/her own business and lifestyle.

As much as we like to think otherwise, this world is as potentially brutal as it is beautiful. A person of sound mind and strong heart appreciates and strives for the beauty, but is aware of and prepared for the brutal. By contrast, only a person of addled mind or weak heart cannot see/appreciate that the need for preparedness is as real as the capacity to appreciate the beautiful. Therefore, this "Oh my gosh!" reaction to the sight of a man with a gun is nothing but the de-masculinization of men in our society. This is, after all, the end aim of "big society" is to create sheeple out of men, not to give them a sense of empowerment. Depending on the authorities of society to protect onself is a fool's form of protection, for unless you have a cop posted to every man, in every place, there is no real protection. And it's not about "living scared" either; again it's simply about preparedness. And as far as being "caught" with a gun, I would rather explain to any officer "why" I have my gun ... than for him to have to explain "what happened" to my next-of-kin because a situation arose where I really needed to have it onhand but did not.

And as for guns being "responsible" for accidents and suicides, this is patently false. Guns do not move and they don't make decisions, only people do, therefore all such tragedies involve follies in human decision-making, not because "guns exist." IMO such foolish people who "accidentally" kill themselves or others are nothing but the culls of life, eliminated by the unsoundness of their own minds (or the unsoundness of their parents' minds, in the unfortunate cases where stupid parents leave their guns accessible for their under-aged/untrained children). Thoughtlessness is a defect in an adult, that often comes with serious consequences. So why get rid of the "guns," and disarm the intelligent and vigilant in the process, as a "cure" for either evil or thoughtless stupidity in defective people? Further, and as has been pointed out many times before, when any person is hell-bent on either murder or suicide there are plenty of other ways to achieve these ends besides using a gun. (And I say that as a person whose best friend shot himself 16 years ago. I sure do miss my friend, but it was his bipolar disorder that prompted him to commit suicide , not "his gun." For another fact is I know of a different man ... with the same bipolar disorder ... who killed himself by jumping off a bridge.) Therefore, here again, we see that the disordered mind was the problem, not any gun.

Because these same kinds of undeniable facts will always add-up in the same way, if analyzed properly, I will never agree with the belief that intelligent, vigilant people of sound mind and character should be "disarmed" by society ... as some kind of alleged "prevention" for evil (or disturbed) people from harming others or themselves. Such evil/disturbed people will always find another way, while the innocent person will be robbed of his best defenses. And the great irony is, this kind of "reasoning" (of limiting the freedom of the sane and the good, to achieve a false reprieve for the evil/defective) is its own form of addled thinking ...

Jack

PS: Sorry for the rant ... oh, and nice photo of the old-timer & his dog Russ Grin

.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6210



WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 02, 2011, 10:29:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Russ ... that's silly.  There is absolutely no reason for 'civilians' to carry guns in New York City.  You don't want to get caught with one, either, the mandatory minimums for simple possession are steep!

It saddens me that you believe you live in a world where you have a need to carry a firearm in the normal course of your life.  That's very Eastern of me and very Western of you, I guess.

Jeremy, I saddens me too, but that's the way the world works. You're about ten years younger than my youngest son and I have no idea where you've been and what you've been exposed to but if my arithmetic is right you were about 24 when Guiliani came on board in NYC and began to terminate the catastrophe started by Lindsay, carried on by Beame and Koch and intensified by Dinkins. I'd guess you must have been aware that walking in NYC at night in those days was almost a guarantee of being mugged -- at least it sounded that way from what was published in national newspapers and magazines during the Dinkins days. Frankly, I'm surprised you're surprised people would want to carry weapons for self-defense. But even under the worst conditions you're reasonably safe in US cities compared with most non-Western cities and even a lot of European cities.

As far as penalties for possession in NYC are concerned, yes, I know that NYC wants to make sure that only criminals can be armed. I can't imagine a drug dealer or serial rapist being too concerned about mandatory minimum penalties for gun possession, but I'm sure honest citizens who'd like to be able to protect themselves must be very concerned. I'm also quite sure that eventually NYC's gun laws will be brought before the Supreme Court and found unconstitutional.

But, to each his own. As I said, I haven't carried or even owned a weapon since late in 1965. If I were to start walking at night or traveling cross-country by myself a lot I'd get a concealed weapon permit and arm myself again -- reluctantly.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5798


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 02, 2011, 10:41:02 AM »
ReplyReply

... As I said, I haven't carried or even owned a weapon since late in 1965. If I were to start walking at night or traveling cross-country by myself a lot I'd get a concealed weapon permit and arm myself again -- reluctantly.


Russ, I understand your pro-gun reasoning, as I understand the reasoning of many gun-carrying proponents (though not necessarily agreeing with all of it). The part I am most interested in, however, is the word "reluctantly". Why?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6210



WWW
« Reply #44 on: August 02, 2011, 10:48:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Russ, I understand your pro-gun reasoning, as I understand the reasoning of many gun-carrying proponents (though not necessarily agreeing with all of it). The part I am most interested in, however, is the word "reluctantly". Why?

Because it's a responsibility I'd rather not have at this point in my life, Slobodan. A gun gives you a kind of authority, but responsibility always goes along with authority. When I was younger I often needed the authority and was willing to accept the responsibility that went with it. I'm not willing any longer.
Logged

jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #45 on: August 02, 2011, 01:18:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't "believe" I live in such a world, I know. If it wasn't for the firearm that I carry in the normal course of my life, I would have been dead in the first hijack attempt. Also the other two incidents would have had a different outcome- if I was not armed.   

I was talking directly to Russ about the US, not South Africa which ain't the same thing at all ...
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #46 on: August 02, 2011, 01:29:28 PM »
ReplyReply

In the end, it all comes back full circle. On the one hand there's the camp (my own) that believes that getting rid of all of the guns in civvy street is the only hope for citizens, facing the opposite one that insists that carrying a gun is some blessed right that's a proof of masculinity at the very least (really? how neatly that fits in with car-as-penis-extension thinking!).

Claiming that a gun kills no-one is silly, too; of course that's a given - it has to be the user, but what if he can't find one to use? Self-defense is indeed a great reason to own one, and I think it should be allowed within every home where it's desired. But outside, I think not. Okay, you have a gun in your pocket or in a holster under your armpit, inside your jacket. But the thug already has his out. You think he's about to give you the opportunity to try to pull yours out in a moment when you are already in great fear? I think you might as well not have it, because if you go for it, you push him to kill you and time's on his side.

As for finding yourself in the wrong part of town: why be there in the first place?

(Riaan. I understand your situation very clearly. But your culture is not exactly what's the norm in Europe nor, I imagine, the USA. I also believe that anyone moving around in a wilderness where there are killer animals/snakes should have the necessary protection, but that must surely preclude western city life? I can tell you of an experience in Kenya. We had flown around to a couple of safari camps for a shoot and the last leg was a drive back from Buffalo Lodge to Mombassa. Apart from the fact that Kilimanjaro, across the border, seemed to remain the same size for hours on end, another remarkable thing was that the road was sometimes magically strewn across with large stones that caused the driver to abandon it and detour off onto the rough. When we eventually hit the highway, he stopped at a stall on the side of the road and bought a large knife which he then put underneath him on the driving seat. Nobody spoke for a while, and then when we did, he explained that the trouble was that he belonged to a different tribe to the one he was about to find in Mombassa. Hey soos! And it's not even football.)

I'm not sure that cities are that much less dangerous in daylight; if you are high on something, do you know the difference, or care? As for gang warfare - apart from 'collateral damage' I suspect their guns are reserved for higher business purposes and not for molesting the man in the street...  I expect their business is somewhat more important/profitable than stealing one's watch or wallet.

Rob C
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6210



WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 02, 2011, 04:20:22 PM »
ReplyReply

...there's the camp (my own) that believes that getting rid of all of the guns in civvy street is the only hope for citizens...

Rob, If you believe that then you must also believe it's possible to do that. Do you? Do you actually believe it's possible, with laws, to keep criminals from having guns? Seems to me the question answers itself.
Logged

tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 869


WWW
« Reply #48 on: August 02, 2011, 05:30:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Russ ... that's silly.  There is absolutely no reason for 'civilians' to carry guns in New York City.  You don't want to get caught with one, either, the mandatory minimums for simple possession are steep!

It saddens me that you believe you live in a world where you have a need to carry a firearm in the normal course of your life.  That's very Eastern of me and very Western of you, I guess.

That got me thinking, is it a East/West, North/South, Republican/Democrat, Death Penalty/No Death Penalty, Lock-em-all-up/Don't-lock-em-all-up or Gun-tote/no-gun-tote situation that has a solution. I grabbed some maps showing relevant stats for each of the states.

I'll let you draw your own conclusion, no amount of writing is going to change anyone in the States mind. As a casual observer I have my own opinion.

Cheers,
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6210



WWW
« Reply #49 on: August 02, 2011, 05:49:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, Tom. That first map's going to blush a lot more late next year, but my conclusion is that the term "firearm deaths" is pretty amorphous, and pretty meaningless unless it's attached to some more data. What would be more meaningful would be a map showing firearm murders by legal firearm carriers, followed by another map showing firearm murders by illegal firearm carriers, and a third map showing rapes, a fourth showing burglaries, a fifth showing home invasions, etc., etc. We might actually be able to conclude something from maps like those.

My DA grandfather used to tell a story about a guy in Saginaw, Michigan a little after the turn of the century who was asleep in bed when he woke up and saw a guy on a ladder trying to get in through his bedroom window. He reached over to the nightstand next to his bed, pulled out his pistol, shot the guy between the eyes, put the gun back in the drawer, closed the drawer and went back to sleep. In the morning he got hold of the cops. My granddad said the guy was never indicted. Believe it or not, it's a true story.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5798


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #50 on: August 02, 2011, 05:56:40 PM »
ReplyReply

... I grabbed some maps showing relevant stats for each of the states...

Very interesting. One does not need sophisticated statistical techniques to see the very visual high correlations between Republicans, gun ownership and firearm deaths. No matter how you might spin it, more guns = more deaths.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 869


WWW
« Reply #51 on: August 02, 2011, 06:07:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Like I wrote this was not meant to change anyone in the States mind, that ain't going to happen. More for us folks elsewhere to get a snapshot of what is going on.

Cheers,
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6210



WWW
« Reply #52 on: August 02, 2011, 08:29:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Very interesting. One does not need sophisticated statistical techniques to see the very visual high correlations between Republicans, gun ownership and firearm deaths. No matter how you might spin it, more guns = more deaths.

No, Slobodan, that's not what it says and I'm sure you're familiar enough with statistical method to know that's not what it says. Here's a different way to look at it: What the maps show is that in states with guns, more criminals are killed in the act by citizens defending themselves. In the other states the criminals get away with their crimes, and as a result we can conclude that there's more crime -- rapes, robberies, burglaries, home invasions, etc., -- in states with gun restrictions. Try to disprove that on the basis of the maps. And I haven't even mentioned the fact that the maps come without any indication of where the data come from, or what outfit developed them.

I say again, "firearm deaths" is as meaningless a statistic as, say, "disease deaths," and when a statistic that meaningless is used it's always used as part of somebody's agenda. I wouldn't even venture a guess as to who's agenda that might be. But as I said, liars figure.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5798


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #53 on: August 02, 2011, 08:40:16 PM »
ReplyReply

... Here's a different way to look at it: What the maps show is that in states with guns, more criminals are killed in the act by citizens defending themselves...

Ha! You wish! If that were true, then the next map (incarceration rates) would show inverse correlation with Republicans/guns/deaths. That is, where more criminals are killed, less would be in jails, right?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6210



WWW
« Reply #54 on: August 02, 2011, 08:49:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Ha! You wish! If that were true, then the next map (incarceration rates) would show inverse correlation with Republicans/guns/deaths. That is, where more criminals are killed, less would be in jails, right?

Not at all. (As you damned well know, Slobodan.) In order to show that, you'd have to produce a map showing the number of criminals in each state. I'd suggest that what that correlation shows is that Texas, for instance, puts a larger proportion of its criminals underground and in prison than, say, California. There's a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that supports that conclusion -- at least with respect to California.
Logged

tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 869


WWW
« Reply #55 on: August 03, 2011, 12:44:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, Tom. That first map's going to blush a lot more late next year, but my conclusion is that the term "firearm deaths" is pretty amorphous, and pretty meaningless unless it's attached to some more data. What would be more meaningful would be a map showing firearm murders by legal firearm carriers, followed by another map showing firearm murders by illegal firearm carriers, and a third map showing rapes, a fourth showing burglaries, a fifth showing home invasions, etc., etc. We might actually be able to conclude something from maps like those.

My DA grandfather used to tell a story about a guy in Saginaw, Michigan a little after the turn of the century who was asleep in bed when he woke up and saw a guy on a ladder trying to get in through his bedroom window. He reached over to the nightstand next to his bed, pulled out his pistol, shot the guy between the eyes, put the gun back in the drawer, closed the drawer and went back to sleep. In the morning he got hold of the cops. My granddad said the guy was never indicted. Believe it or not, it's a true story.


Eight years of the last Republican government got us the GFC, our treasurer predicted it a year before it happened. As a result there was more belt tightening here in NSW and I was forced into early retirement. I lost about $150 000 on the deal. I see that $30 billion has just been wiped off our share market as a result of US infighting. As most superannuation funds invest in stocks, failure by European and US governments means that my friends have to work longer before they retire on less money.

Successive Australian governments have brought in major financial regulations. One was Australians could not buy into the toxic home loan schemes. As a result and due to government spending we did not go into recession though government revenue is down. The USA's failure to introduce legislation to prevent this recurring leaves me very uneasy. More of the same Republic Party policy leaves me speechless. Dr Phil, "Remember, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior".  Really I don't give a toss about America's politics except when they hit me and my friends in the hip pocket.

The anecdote just makes me glad to be here in Sydney.

Cheers,
« Last Edit: August 03, 2011, 12:55:22 AM by tom b » Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #56 on: August 03, 2011, 03:40:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob, If you believe that then you must also believe it's possible to do that. Do you? Do you actually believe it's possible, with laws, to keep criminals from having guns? Seems to me the question answers itself.



Believing one part doesn't imply the second at all.

However, to follow it up, yes it probably could be done but as with drugs it requires the will to win. As long as the Misters Big go free and only the smaller criminals get put away, what's going to change? Nothing. The west pretends(?) to be in Afghanistan partly as a fight against drugs? Really? Why fight the fight there? Come down on the idiots who use them, sell them, import and distribute them, first. Kill the domestic market and, as with photo stock, trying to sell them becomes pointless and the problem goes away of itself.

One needs more prisons and a clean pair of hands in head office, and then a whole set of dependable subordinates to carry out what's required of them. And there's the rub: back to people. But yes, on the whole, I think it's possible.

Rob C
Logged

JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #57 on: August 03, 2011, 06:57:01 AM »
ReplyReply

In the end, it all comes back full circle. On the one hand there's the camp (my own) that believes that getting rid of all of the guns in civvy street is the only hope for citizens, facing the opposite one that insists that carrying a gun is some blessed right that's a proof of masculinity at the very least (really? how neatly that fits in with car-as-penis-extension thinking!).

The hope of getting rid of all guns is a pipe dream, because there will always be a black market for them. Therefore (and once again) to "make it illegal" to own a gun is essentially to disarm the good man not the criminals.

Also, a gun isn't proof of one's masculinity, but rather the ability to remain cool in general ... which means seeing/handling a gun with a cool head ... is proof of masculinity. To quote Marlon Brando in "The Godfather," "Women and children can be careless, but a man can never be careless."




Claiming that a gun kills no-one is silly, too; of course that's a given - it has to be the user, but what if he can't find one to use? Self-defense is indeed a great reason to own one, and I think it should be allowed within every home where it's desired. But outside, I think not. Okay, you have a gun in your pocket or in a holster under your armpit, inside your jacket. But the thug already has his out. You think he's about to give you the opportunity to try to pull yours out in a moment when you are already in great fear? I think you might as well not have it, because if you go for it, you push him to kill you and time's on his side.

How can something be "silly," if it's a given? That guns don't kill people, but rather people kill people, is a given simply means it is an inescapable fact. Therefore, what actually kills other people is either human evil or human stupidity, which means that the accurate thinker realizes that these two things are what need to be weeded out in society: evil and supidity. These are the appropriate targets for elimination, not guns.

As for the "a gun is okay for self-defense, but only in the home" mentality, this is absurd. What good is my Glock going to do me sitting in my dresser ... if I need it out in the middle of the Florida wilderness? Also, just because there may be possible circumstances where a criminal may assault me before I have a chance to get my gun, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other circumstances that I can see coming, and prepare for, before they are actually upon me.




As for finding yourself in the wrong part of town: why be there in the first place?

When I was a claims investigator years ago, often my job required me to park and interview people in the worst parts of Los Angeles ... and now that I live on a rural spot in 50 acres of Florida wilderness, I sure am not going to "wait for the police to come" if I see an intruder upon my land. I will damned sure make it my business to have the necessary equipment handy to deal with the problem myself. Again, this is the difference between the mentality of a man versus the mentality of a damsel in distress. In fact, maybe 20 miles away from where I live, some poor old woman got beaten to death inside her own home for answering a knock at her door. The knocker said they needed to use the phone because their car broke down. When allowed inside, the perps attacked the woman and repeatedly beat her trying to get the information of "where she had the money" out of her ... and beat her to death. They were a drug-crazed punk and his girlfriend wanting the funds to smoke more meth ...

It's not such a nice world that we live in, Rob, and while having a gun at home might help a home invasion ... it won't help you in a parking lot or out in the wilderness ... which is where the idea of carrying one where you go comes in Wink




>snip<

...




I'm not sure that cities are that much less dangerous in daylight; if you are high on something, do you know the difference, or care? As for gang warfare - apart from 'collateral damage' I suspect their guns are reserved for higher business purposes and not for molesting the man in the street...  I expect their business is somewhat more important/profitable than stealing one's watch or wallet.
Rob C

I don't go to the city much, but when I do it is only Gainesville--and, no, I don't bother packing a weapon to go to the pet store or to buy some milk either, LOL

However, I do still have my weapon under my car seat, because it's a 40 mile drive back to home, and if upon my return to home I find my belongings or my woman subject to a burglary, or worse, it would be far better to have my gun immediately accessable under my car seat to deal with the problem ... than it would be to knock on the door and "excuse myself" ... and ask for the invaders' permission to amble passed them to my dresser, so that I could "access my gun" Wink

Jack



.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2011, 07:34:04 AM by John Koerner » Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6210



WWW
« Reply #58 on: August 03, 2011, 09:56:38 AM »
ReplyReply

But yes, on the whole, I think it's possible.

All I can say is: wow! Rob, with a reasonably well equipped machine shop I can make a gun, even a repeater. The gun might not be up to Smith and Wesson standards but it'd be quite effective at short range. To make a single-shot pipe gun I don't even need a machine shop. A workbench would be a help, but even that's not necessary if I have the right, easily purchasable, tools lying around.
Logged

louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 753



WWW
« Reply #59 on: August 03, 2011, 10:20:17 AM »
ReplyReply

John,
I agree with you 100% on this topic. It sure would be "nice" if there weren't all those bad guys out there breaking the hundreds of well-intentioned gun laws. And it would be "nice" if there weren't such things as home invasions and armed assaults both day and night. Call me a realist but I'd rather grab my Glock than my cell phone when faced with imminent danger to me or my family.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad