Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
ITT: Firearms & the use thereof [Not Policy]
Posts
I guess "downside" wasn't the proper term. It's something to consider when comparing it to other firearms.
I like my 1911. A lot. It's a time-tested and solid design. Stripping it is a bit more complicated than, say, a Glock, but it's not that bad.
for home defense i have a springfield armory GI .45
For target and some varmint i use my .223, i don't have a bi-pod for it yet.
for vendetta killing i use the Colt Python in .357 mag
for bird and varmint i use a Beretta semi-auto AL391 Urika
i also really like to shoot my S&W 10mm handgun, but i don't have a picture of it.
Wait a minute...
Condition One is the natural state of being for a 1911.
There's a little safety pin thing in the slide on Colts and Paras to prevent this (Series 80 firing pin safety). Decockers are for double action pistols. I think double action weapons should be double action all the time (e.g. DAO revolvers), and the same for single actions (e.g. SA revolvers and SA autos). Double action pistols end up with DA trigger pulls that aren't as good as a revolver, and SA pulls that aren't as good as a 1911. No thanks.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that the guy with the 10mm S&W is a Fed?
nope, but when my dad bought it the feds where considering it. that asshole didn't let me buy it from him cheap either. It is the model they would have carried but they decided it had too much stopping power and the female officers may not be able to handle it as efficiently.
Despite even delicious things like the Mauser, I've always had a soft spot for the muzzle loaders. Something about the process, the smell, and the sheer amount of force pounding in to your shoulder (and I'm the only member of the family who can shrug it off, -hah-)
Relatedly, I've never been really in to pistols. I like a gun that shoots far enough that I can pull away from the sights before the bullet even hits.
I know you're being a little overly defensive because you feel like your way of life is being attacked, but seriously, come on. I have a large knife that I keep in my desk drawer, and I recognize that it is dangerous. Dangerous doesn't equal bad or evil. The fact is, pretending that guns are harmless hurts the side of guns more than anything, because the dangers of guns are OBVIOUS. When anti-gun people see pro-gun people saying that guns are harmless, what they think is "wow, those gun folks are insane, we REALLY need to getthose guns out of their hands."
OF COURSE a loaded gun is less dangerous without the human element, but regulating the human element is not exactly a solution to anything. I may be personally against the use of firearms, but I'm in favor of other people doing what they want, as long as public safety is ensured, which is why it seems to me that, difficult though it may be, looking into some kind of way to regulate bullets might be more effective than regulating guns further, since while the gun regulations may or may not save lives, once a gun is in the hands of a criminal, those regulations don't do anything to protect anyone anymore. Find an actual way to regulate bullets, and every time a criminal wants to shoot some one, no matter how long they've had the gun, they have roadblocks.
Honestly, Joe Hick is GENERALLY not the guy to worry about, short of your McVey types.
Hell, allow certain people to be licensed for handloading, and keep aneye on those folks.
The real concern here has to do with criminals, not hunters
Guns make the murdering in the US faster and more efficient, and we are all about speed and efficiency over here.
I'd think something along the lines of tracking actual consumption or limiting the number a person can have at any given time(deposits on brass?), while it would cut down on person to person resale, would probably be a bit much.
Perhaps that first one along with recording lot numbers or something. Which would probably help to prevent crime, considering that you'd be less likely to shoot someone, if the bullets could be tracked back to you(or at least you'd pick up your brass). In addition, it would help to track down folks the habitually sell ammo to folks that use it in naughty sorts of ways. Would require that american manufatures keep serial numbers on them.
wouldn't help with those who handload, but I'm not really sure just how much gun violence is done with those. Aside from crimes of passion if someone is handloading for criminal purposes, they are already showing a degree of determination that would defeat most legislation.
I mean, the way I see it, putting more restrictions on guns pisses a lot of people off, and doesn't seem to be doing all that much to prevent gun violence anyway, so I was justthinking what the other options could be.
Running licenses on ammo purchases seems like a good step, although not enough on its own. Recording lot numbers is also good. Also, restricting personal consumption may not be the worst idea, and with th advancements in technology these days, may bea possibility in the near future.
Ultimately, I think that havng more measures to tie the ammo directly to the shooter is best, because with all of the other regulations, if you had already hit your quota of bullets, or if you are a fellon who is not allowed to buythem, you might just get some one else to get them for you. If the bullet is going to be tracked back to that person, though, they might think twice about supplying you.
I guess, ultimately, the best way to go about it might be a combination of limiting bullet consumption while at the same time tracking bullets to their purchasers.
You look at folks that are going to be shooting a lot. Like, shooting enough that they would be hitting the limit, they are pretty much going to be target shooting, or mabey hunting vermin or birds but probably not.
It isn't exactly hard to go through a couple of hundred round in a month. or a week. Or an afternoon for that mater.
To set that limit so low that it would actually prevent crime... I think it would do nothing but create criminals out of a lot of the population for no real reason, and to little effect. It would be like the pot prohibition. It would rather accurately be seen as an attack on gunowners rather than criminals.
Well, you just have to do it smartly. I'm not sayign set a number and that's it. Look at the type of ammunition, and where the person is buying it. A guy in the inner city buying handgun ammunition is different from a guy out in the woods somewhere buying ammo for his hunting riffle. As far as target shooting, have shooting ranges that require you to shoot their ammo exempted, that way you can purchase and shoot as much ammo as you like while you're there, but it doesn't make it easier for criminals to shoot people on the streets.
It'll take work to figure out what kind of restrictions should be placed where, sure, but that's what economists and statisticians are for.
Also, rather than having a set ammount of bullets allowed per year, it could be per quarter, or even per month, that way Joe Redneck, who had more ancestors who WERE related than weren't won't use up his entire quota the first three weeks of January and spend the rest of the year bitching because he didn't realize that he should have been keeping count.
That's not a dig at gun owners, it's a dig at Americans who take pride in ignorance and don't understand why the rules apply to them, instead of just to everybody else.
First of which is a Romanian AK-47 WASR-10 Assault Rifle and my weapon of choice. I love this gun to no extent. Sure, its not a beautiful thing to look at (well I think it is to an extent) or has all the fancy crap other guns have, but I can guarantee that this AK can and will outlast most guns in any enviroment and or care. Ammo is super cheap for it and even use to be cheaper before the Iraq War (fucking Bush). The price of the ammo would go down if military commanders didn't require ammo dumps to be exploded and instead confiscated and resold on American markets.
Shooting the AK, well it is LOUD. When I say loud, I mean, it dwarfs most guns in noise besides a certain few (Desert Eagle, high caliber rifles). It does have some kick too it, but that can be regulated with a more supportive butt pad or if you want to turn it into a "sniper rifle", get the Dragunov stock.
This is my weapon of choice for the upcoming zombie invasion.
Second is my Ruger .22 LR that I just got. It is a great little pistol for plinking or small animal shooting. Makes minimal noise and has the kick of a cap gun. Bullets are super cheap and its just fun to shoot.
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
Think about it. Handguns are relatively large, relatively expensive, and serial numbered. Yet still criminals have little trouble getting their hands on them.
Now think about bullets. Ever seen a can full of like 300 rounds of ammunition? Think about the fact that all somebody needs to knock over a liquor store is like 6 bullets. Maybe 15, if they have a hi-cap semi-auto and feel the need to keep it topped off. So that one can of ammunition would supply at least 20 criminals. Now think of all the bullets already in the hands of gunowners (for instance, I have several hundred in my house) and all the military surplus ammunition floating around in the world.
With the limited success we've had regulating actual firearms, or drugs, you think we're going to be able to keep track of all that ammo? Keep it from crossing the borders? Yeah, right.
EDIT: And, while it might be skirting #2 from the OP, I have to say that a primary consideration when considering any gun (or ammo) regulation is whether the impact (if any) it would have on criminals is enough to justify the impact (if any) it would have on law-abiding citizens.
This fails. Hard.
In most 1911's I've seen, the hammer has a half-cock notch on it. If (for whatever reason) someone wanted to carry it hammer down they could and still have a bullet in the chamber without fear of the gun going off should it be dropped or struck.
Contact: 3737-4467-9408
Guy1: There's nothing bitchin about the games soundtrack. It's practically all elevator music.
Guy2: That's just hilariously stupid. I can't imagine playing a fighting game with "Girl from Ipanema" playing in the background.
Thing is, its already a pain in the ass in certain states as far as gun ownership goes. I believe in Wisconsin you can't ride with a gun in your vehicle in the same compartment as you. Example: It has to be in a case in your trunk.
Compared to Alaska, where you can (and I did) walk around with a handgun on my hip.
That's what I'm getting at, though.
I HATE guns, but even I can see how ridiculous gun regulations are getting, and with little result.
Which is why I wonderif maybe there is a solution other than stricter gun controll. The only other thing I can think of is some home restricting bullets.
You can go after the sotres likeNYc is. Bloomberg has tsarted a crusade of lawsuits agaisnt illegal handguns being smuggled into the city. Basically if they find out a gun used in a crime in the city was bought at a gun shop illegally they sue the pants off the dealer regardless of where he is.
Fun fact: Because of the restirctions on guns here a huge portion of the handguns used in crime in NYC are bought in rural areas.
and even under the absurd thing evan purposed with red neck and red states getting more bullets, it wouldn't help a lick.
All it would do is create a black market, and hurt legal gun owners.
It's even sillier when talking about ammunition, because trying to track every lot of ammunition sold anywhere in the USA is going to create an insane amount of paperwork...and still wouldn't likely keep bullets out of the hands of criminals. Like I said, we can't even keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Moving along...
But as I've pointed out, there are multiple reasons why ammo restrictions would be even harder to enforce than gun restrictions...and thus would be useless for anything other than annoying law-abiding gunowners.
So, I'll repeat: look at one ammo can with 300 rounds or so in it. About the size of a breadbox. Able to fill 50 revolvers in the hands of 50 criminals. Which, assuming they aren't unloading the damn things every time, means that one breadbox-sized piece of contraband could supply them for hundreds of robberies. For comparison, think how large (volume and weight wise) 50 handguns are...and we can't even stop those.
Add that ammuntion is harder to track, due to lack of serial numbers. That large private stockpiles already exist, in addition to large military surplus stockpiles. That ammunition is much less expensive (cents per round). Figure that we can't stop drugs, why would we be able to stop ammunition. It simply would not work.
The best way to stop gun-related crime is to address the socioeconomic factors leading to crime in general. Do that, and you can reduce the number of "desparation" related crimes, such as robberies. Address the failing of the War on Drugs in general, and you can reduce drug-related gun crimes. As far as crimes of passion go, a man can beat his wife to death with a baseball bat pretty easily, so gun/ammo restrictions aren't going to help much there anyway...especially ammo restrictions, since it only takes a bullet or two to off somebody.
Personally, I think only somebody who "HATES" guns could possibly think that any gun-related legislation (to include ammo) would actually put much of a dent in gun crime.
so it should be legal for gunshops to illegally sell guns? How's that work?
Something like in instant background check to prevent those who can't own guns from buying bullets is pretty sane.
Aside from a small increase in price per bullet, and a very minor inconvience, it could do some good. Considering I don't own guns, probably never will and am filthy bleeding heart libral thats hate american busness, I think those things would be a small price to pay.
I'd even been fine with exempting out .22 and .25 cal, mabey not LR but certainly the shorter varieties that are basicly soley used for target shooting.
The slightly increased price is likely to cause the majority of existing cashe to be used first. Pretty sure forign companies can sell ammo, and this would actually help to prevent that a little bit, because it would be more dificult in terms of record keeping and wouldn't be required in other markets.
Um....pretty sure that isn't what he said. For starters, you were responding to a post regardnig bullets, not guns. So let's assume he was talking about bullets.
And yeah, generally imposing restrictions on something, especially something as small and inexpensive as ammunition, only creates black markets for it.
To end, I'd say the idea of charging a gun-shop owner with some form of negligence should a gun he sold illegally be used in a crime is perfectly reasonable. After all, he sold it illegally.
In fact, how can one legally do something illegal? What the fuck are you even saying?
Didn't realize he was talking about bullets before. And yes it's perfectly possible for a gun shop to sell someone a gun without proper paperwork or background checks. Even if it is a licensed dealer it doesn't make all thier transactions automatically legal.
So you didn't bother to actually read what you're replying to. A bad start.
And again, if they didn't do the proper paperwork and checks, it was an illegal sale. It's impossible to legally illegally sell a gun. So not a great finish, either.
If somebody sells a gun illegally, charge them. I fail to see why you are even talking.
EDIT: In other words, all the grown-ups realize that not all gun sales, even gun sales from legitimate merchants, are automatically legal. You're out of your element, Donny.
See, this is the kind of confusion that happens when you reply to shit without reading it. You replied to my post regarding bullets without noticing, and also one of redx's posts (where he uses the word "bullets" specifically as well...and there were only like 25 words to start with).
And no, "we're" not talking about illegal gun sales here...the people you were quoting and replying to were talking about theoretical restrictions on ammunition, not guns.
Basically, you managed to reply multiple times without knowing what the hell you were replying to. And I'm not sure your replies were particularly impressive even in the context of the conversation you thought was going on in your head.
In other words, you're out of your element, Donny....
This approach fails on principle: it only takes one bullet to kill a man but it takes hundreds to learn to shoot. Ammo is the limiting reagent of the desirable reaction but not of the undesirable reaction. It would be like trying to stop a fire in an occupied building by evacuating all the oxygen.
An excellent choice, really, it will be well worth it
On the whole gun banning thing, I think it is ignorance and fear-mongering. I enjoy my freedoms. If I have not harmed another human being, there is no reason why I should not be allowed to own guns, knives, or other weapons. Taking away freedoms because they make you uncomfortable is a step toward totalitarianism, a frightened, panicked, timid populace totally dependent on Big Brother.
Where would I go about finding this sort of activity?
Rabbits, while also horrible pests Down Under, are de-fucking-licious.