ITT: Gun Control - General - Facepunch Forum

I'm against personal owning of weapons, but they should be available for sport or hunting. Here in the Netherlands you can't even own Airsoft stuff, which sucks.

[QUOTE=Clavus;29886498]I'm against personal owning of weapons, but they should be available for sport or hunting. Here in the Netherlands you can't even own Airsoft stuff, which sucks.[/QUOTE] So...guns for hire?

UK here, friend of mine has a shotgun (and license) - all he needed was somewhere to store it which could be locked. If you're in the UK and need a gun, just do this

I am ok with personal ownership of weapons... to a point. No, you do not need a fully automatic or explosives to defend yourself. I am a strong believer that the most a civilian should have is semi auto.

I like my guns. I believe if someone is mentally stable and they don't hurt anyone they should be able to have whatever they want. Below is my yugo M48 and my tacticool 10/22 [IMG]http://i541.photobucket.com/albums/gg365/Ottomann33/100_1119.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i541.photobucket.com/albums/gg365/Ottomann33/100_1113.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i541.photobucket.com/albums/gg365/Ottomann33/100_1104.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i541.photobucket.com/albums/gg365/Ottomann33/100_1120.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=SBD;29886638]So...guns for hire?[/QUOTE] Say No to mercenaries killing in our name. Say No to PMC's

No need to carry guns in public. Don't know about americans or gun-nuts.

if everyone had a gun would that make people less inclined to shoot someone knowing that that person also has a gun and people around them will shoot you?

The only kind of gun control I like is the one where I control the recoil so the highest possible amount of bullets hit whatever fucker is coming at me.

[QUOTE=Esrange;29878572]There's a pawn and gun near here that had a used one for sale. The thing looked in new-ish shape. They were trying to sell it for like 75$. When I asked to see it the guy behind the counter immediately blurted out "You can have it for 40, please just take it." Guess they didn't have any luck selling it :v:[/QUOTE] If it's still there you should buy it. A working gun for 40$ is a steal. And if it isn't working Hi-Point will make it work.

Bean-o, are you going to do another thread about guns again? A good one would be to talk about commercial guns available to the public, and not so much on military guns.

[QUOTE=Bean-O;30033732]If it's still there you should buy it. A working gun for 40$ is a steal. And if it isn't working Hi-Point will make it work.[/QUOTE] I'll check tomorrow.

I'm of the opinion that if my life is a little shorter because I chose freedom over being protected from these things, then I'll have lived a happier one regardless.

[QUOTE=Ottomann;29888745]I like my guns. I believe if someone is mentally stable and they don't hurt anyone they should be able to have whatever they want. Below is my yugo M48 and my tacticool 10/22 -stuff-[/QUOTE] I have something very similar to that 10/22, only it's chambered in .223. It's a blast to shoot. Funny thing is, the Ruger 10/22 we have has those 2 exact mags, I'm sure of it. Do you ever have issues with jamming with the banana mag? Always seems to get stuck before fully ejecting for me. And my policy on just about anything illegal is: "If it's made illegal, only criminals will be able to get their hands on it" Basically, make guns illegal, criminals that use them will be able to get them anyway. Sure, maybe law abiding citizens will too, but likely only for recreation.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29800307]I'm willing to trade a great deal of safety for freedom. Even so, statistically there isn't a whole lot of support for gun control making much of anything safer. Poverty levels, quality of education, and how heterogeneous a population is are infinitely more linked to violent crime. So I support [i]population[/i] control through superior funding for schools and better social programs for keeping people above the poverty line. With less poverty and better education, the effects of population heterogeneousness can be mitigated a great deal. We know what causes crime in virtually every society in existence. It is the same goddamn thing EVERYWHERE. How about we fix it now?[/QUOTE] You are a voice of reason in a sea of ignorance. Guns are not the problem stop blaming them for societies failures. [editline]26th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Lone_Star94;30035867]Bean-o, are you going to do another thread about guns again? A good one would be to talk about commercial guns available to the public, and not so much on military guns.[/QUOTE] All guns are available to the public, it just becomes a matter of tax stamps. California exempt that is. A bunch of ignorant idiots run my state. [editline]26th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=RainbowDash;29887309]I am ok with personal ownership of weapons... to a point. No, you do not need a fully automatic or explosives to defend yourself. I am a strong believer that the most a civilian should have is semi auto.[/QUOTE] The problem with that is no matter how crazy it sounds an armed populace has to deal with the possibility it is not defending itself from muggers but a government or foreign power. no matter how improbable, it is still possible. The people should be able to be as well armed as they see fit, because a semi auto .22 Ruger will only go so far.

[QUOTE=Lone_Star94;30035867]Bean-o, are you going to do another thread about guns again? A good one would be to talk about commercial guns available to the public, and not so much on military guns.[/QUOTE] Maybe. The one thing I learned from doing those threads is that I didn't know half what I thought I did. Looking back now there are many errors. Some of them slight, some of them quite obvious. They were still fun to do and not as difficult as it would seem. When it comes to civilian firearms, what is available, what is worth it and what isn't I could do a thread like that but I don't know that I have enough hands-on experience to type up really accurate articles. If I wrote from my hands-on experience alone the thread would be too short-lived. If I wrote like I did last time, basing most things off second-hand opinions I would be prone to making occasional mistakes. Granted there is a way to phrase the various opinions and present them in a "you decide" manner that can make it work, but I don't know how long a thread like that would last before I run out of truly widespread firearms or get tired of writing something that in-depth on a daily basis.

[QUOTE=Mr. Bleak;30059916]I have something very similar to that 10/22, only it's chambered in .223. It's a blast to shoot. Funny thing is, the Ruger 10/22 we have has those 2 exact mags, I'm sure of it. Do you ever have issues with jamming with the banana mag? Always seems to get stuck before fully ejecting for me.[/QUOTE] The little black mag is the stock 10 round Ruger mag. The other one is a Butler Creek banana mag. There are two types the steel lips and the hot lips. The Hot lips which has plastic feeder lips is notorious for not feeding properly and jamming. The steel lips are much more reliable. But i do start to run into trouble after I have put around 250 rounds through it and it starts to gunk up. But what you are describing sounds like a stove pipe jam to me. Where the casing gets caught by the bolt before fully ejecting? If its an older gun you might need to replace the springs.

my history teacher is getting her concealed handgun liscence....texas. 1 year anniversary on FP!!!!!!!!!11!!! :toot:

I find the following amusing, for a number of reasons: If cars were regulated like guns: 1. Small cars would have a 72-hour waiting period, larger cars 24 hours. 2. Cars would have a minimum size and weight. 3. New cars manufactured since 1994 couldn't have larger than 10-gallon gas tanks (nobody needs to drive that far) 4. Cars could be driven only within the state of license. It is legal to drive in certain other states (reciprocity) but the car would have to be shipped or towed between those states. 5. Local communities could ban certain sized cars or ban them outright. 6. Big cars could be bought by 18-year-olds, small cars' buyers would have to be 21 minimum. 7. Any car purchased out-of-state would have to be transferred through a federally licensed dealer. 8. Legislation would be introduced banning the transfer of a car to a family member. 9. Gasoline could only be sold through licensed federal dealers (and they wouldn't be on every block). 10. All cars having spoilers, fender flares, window tint, chrome, roll-back sunroofs, mag wheels would be banned as they are the choice of criminals. Manufacturers respond with extended "lips"on the trunk and fenders, colored glass, aluminized plastic, pop-up sunroofs, and wheel covers and legislators howl about the "spirit of the law." 11. Every time someone died, there would be a call to ban all cars from the hands of civilians. 12. Police and the military have big gas tanks, spoilers, tint, chrome, sunroofs and mags. Certain exemptions are made for cars to be used on racetracks only. Politicians exempt themselves and anyone well-connected. 13. In some localities, it would be up to the local LEO Chief or mayor to decide if you can drive a car on public roads. 14. In most places it would be legal for anyone to drive their car on their own property, but no cars within 1000' of a school or church and never on Federal land. 15. Cars would be banned by make and model, as well as kit cars that look like certain makes and models. 16. A 12-cylinder Lamborghini Countach (with a big gas tank) assembled before 1994 is OK in some communities with a $200 fee. If a Lambo is made of salvaged parts or a kit car, it cannot have more than 4 cylinders or more than a 10 gallon tank. Applies to other sports cars as well. LEO/military/pols are exempt. 17. Felons and certain misdemeanors disqualify you from ever buying or driving a car. Laws applied ex post facto are fine. Police convicted of domestic violence may drive on the job only. 18. You are competent enough in the Army, Marines or police to drive any car they have, but upon return to civilian life you somehow become incompetant and untrustworthy.

In the final stages of getting my gun license atm (Australia) and I have to say the questions on the firearms safety assessment were amazingly retarded, the instructor and I were having a laugh each time he read out a question. I think at one point the question was something very similar to When your firearm is loaded you should point it A. In a safe direction B. At abandoned housing C. Your best mates head That's the level of difficulty for the questions you need, it's no wonder retards end up owning firearms.

I just saw someone load a semi-auto pistol one round at a time though the ejector port for an hour at the range. No idea why he was doing it. He got pretty fast at it all things considered.

Studies show that you're more likely to get mugged in London than NYC. Studies also show that home invasions are more common in the UK. And yet again, studies have shown that burglars are more afraid of armed civilians than they are of police forces. Also I ask that you bear in mind that almost every gun related crime in the US is committed with illegal firearms and almost never by civilians with permits. The criminals already have guns and they always will, so the normal/good/innocent people need guns too. It's not like anyone can just go buy a gun, there are several restrictions and you have to undergo training courses which teach you gun safety and how to properly use a firearm. Guns are freedom, without guns there can be no freedom. Guns are the first, last, and only line of defense against tyrannical government, if you let the government take away you're firearms, then you give them complete control over you. We wouldn't have won the American Revolution had the British banned guns in their colonies. It's also a basic human right to own a gun and to defend ones self. A ban on guns would also be unconstitutional and if the government ever attempted to do such a thing, it would result in a civil war, one which the gun owners would win since the military is made up mostly of conservatives and libertarians, both of which are against banning guns. The vast majority of people are against banning guns, as you can see here: [img]http://i53.tinypic.com/35kn5v4.png[/img] When civilians have the right to carry firearms, murder rates go down: [img]http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/florida.jpg[/img] Now when the government bans handguns completely, the murder rates go up: [img]http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/dc.jpg[/img]

I took my Remington 770 to the range on Sunday...my buddy bought 7.62x51 instead of .308. Was a pain in the butt to get the spent cartridge out every time, because the increased pressure had seized the casings against the walls of the chamber. My buddy's girlfriend shooting it: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/LnwFp.jpg[/IMG]

Im actually OK with the current state of gun control in the majority of the US, that is to say: -Long guns are purchasable at 18 with a background check -Handguns are purchasable at 21, need a license -Machine guns and destructive devices (IE: Cannons, Anti-tank guns) are purchasable with a very very difficult to get license The main issue I have is that not all states and even municipalities are like this. It needs to be federally enforced so you dont get stupidly strict states like NY and the Peoples Republic of California.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;30074701]Im actually OK with the current state of gun control in the majority of the US, that is to say: -Long guns are purchasable at 18 with a background check -Handguns are purchasable at 21, need a license -Machine guns and destructive devices (IE: Cannons, Anti-tank guns) are purchasable with a very very difficult to get license The main issue I have is that not all states and even municipalities are like this. It needs to be federally enforced so you dont get stupidly strict states like NY and the Peoples Republic of California.[/QUOTE] In the state of Pennsylvania: -Long guns purchasable at 18 with quick 15min background check -Handguns purchasable at 21 with quick 15 min background check, no license required (must get an LTC (license to carry) to carry loaded and concealed) - Fully automatic weapons are surprisingly easy to get. All you need to do is fill out a stack of ATF paperwork that takes about a month to process and get a $200 tax stamp (that process is federally mandated across all states) and be able to afford the well over $5000+++ price tag for the weapon itself.

A month door to door on a tax stamp? That's impressive. Lowest I've heard of is 2-2.5 months..

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;30074701]The main issue I have is that not all states and even municipalities are like this. It needs to be federally enforced so you dont get stupidly strict states like NY and the Peoples Republic of California.[/QUOTE] strict gun control is communist!! I dislike the gun laws here in California as well, but don't start with this "People's Republic of California" nonsense.

[QUOTE=Ridge;30129238]A month door to door on a tax stamp? That's impressive. Lowest I've heard of is 2-2.5 months..[/QUOTE] It probably is 2-2.5 I was just estimating. Still not that long of a wait time if you ask me.

[QUOTE=RainbowDash;29887309]I am ok with personal ownership of weapons... to a point. No, you do not need a fully automatic or explosives to defend yourself. I am a strong believer that the most a civilian should have is semi auto.[/QUOTE] Because a criminal wanting to be subtle would buy a $6000 fully automatic rifle that requires skilled maintenance, or use a hand grenade when they have a palm sized .32 ACP. I own several guns, but I don't ever hope to use them against another human being in self-defense, and although I know how to use one, I didn't learn for the purpose of self-defense. I learned because firearms are also a hobby, albeit very expensive. It's like fast cars. Sure you can buy a cheap Honda or whatever, but there's a thrill involved with driving fast with very expensive cars. Guns are the same way. Sure all you need for hunting is a single shot .30-06, but when you want to have (responsible, safe) fun, would you choose that over an automatic shotgun when shooting targets? :v:

[QUOTE=lorden;30130911]Because a criminal wanting to be subtle would buy a $6000 fully automatic rifle that requires skilled maintenance, or use a hand grenade when they have a palm sized .32 ACP. I own several guns, but I don't ever hope to use them against another human being in self-defense, and although I know how to use one, I didn't learn for the purpose of self-defense. I learned because firearms are also a hobby, albeit very expensive. It's like fast cars. Sure you can buy a cheap Honda or whatever, but there's a thrill involved with driving fast with very expensive cars. Guns are the same way. Sure all you need for hunting is a single shot .30-06, but when you want to have (responsible, safe) fun, would you choose that over an automatic shotgun when shooting targets? :v:[/QUOTE] :iiaca: