Gun and Gun Hobbiest thread revival

Pixiel said:
I'll stick to my .22 for home protection. I'm not looking to kill, just mame. A well placed shot to a hand, shoulder, or knee will do just fine. Besides, the power of a .22 LR is underestimated.
Click to expand...
A .22LR round is deadly up to around ~440 yards, which is farther than you can accurately aim one of the rifles used to shoot it. I think close range from a handgun would be just fine.


They are underestimated.
 
for home defense all the pistol is for is to get you to a rifle or shotgun. In a situation where you have to shoot someone if you try and aim for a hand or knee or something you will probably miss (going to be shaky as hell from the adrenalin rush), you aim for center mass and don't stop shooting until the threat is stopped. The power of the .22LR is way underestimated, especially when loaded with high velocity hollow points (1500 fps), the problem with the .22lr is that it is rimfire and not reliable enough to risk your life on. Say you get a ftf rate of 1 in 100 compared to lets say 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10000 for a center fire cartridge, but ammo has a lot to do with this, crappy bulk ammo is crappy but the premium stuff seems to have way less problems but having to spend 10-15 a box for it sucks.


In other related news I just finished the NRA personal protection in the home course. This means i can now go pay 120 dollars to the county and get a concealed pistol license! Getting some range time with an actual instructor was nice to help with technique, although it was pretty hard to miss shooting at 7 yards at a 8.5x11 target.

shot 120 rounds with only 1 failure to fire with Remington thunderbolt ammo through the 22/45, the stuff has a bad rap on the internets but it does ok with me. Shot my 25 round mags that finally came in for my 795 and had 1 failure to load with the thunderbolts, pretty sure it was the one i noticed while loading that had a slight defect in the brass. So i won't be hesitant to buy it anymore if i can ever find it since it's fuckdiculous how hard 22lr is to find.

oh and once i get that cpl it will be time to get more guns! I want something in .45 acp for my daily carry gun (probably a ruger or glock) and a small (sub 3" barrel) .380 for easy pocket carry or even a tiny 25 acp. still want to pick out something for a "car" gun as well since with the cpl i can keep a pistol loaded in my vehicle while i'm driving. I think i'm going to need a second job to pay for my guns/ammo.
 
cs6ranger said:
Went out and got the new marlin 795 sighted in, very happy with how it shoots :D
DkFUu.jpg

That's 10 shots, 30 yards, crappy bulk ammo.


and an album of the day at the range (and some other related shots)

http://imgur.com/a/lnB0s
Click to expand...

Heh. Soft.

xw9sDBt.jpg
 
Is that the promag in your 795? I saw one at academy before the insanity started, and now I'm wishing I grabbed it. How does it function? Promag doesn't get the best reviews.
 
yep the promag, i bought 2 of them. Ran each through twice with only one failure to feed due to defective brass. The scope i have on it can't take the abuse of rapid fire shooting 25 rounds so i'm buying a new scope/mount for it and will try it some more after i get those on.
 
Always wanted an assault weapon, and with talk of the coming ban still going around I figured now would be a good time to see if I could get my hooves on one. Swung by the local shop today and reserved myself a nice little toy.

Here is a page with a list of the guns that will be included in the ban by name. I just layawayed one that is on that list so I will be the proud owner of it soon.
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/01/24/...ll-the-proposed-banned-weapons/6291359049408/

Clipboard01.png


Hi-Point 4095TS .40S&W Carbine.
40tsLG.gif


For $300 I'd be an idiot to pass it up.
 
Finally acquired my Hi-Point :)

2013-02-27 19.45.48.jpg


Got it home and cleaned it, and boy was that a "fun" experience... A lot of grease in it from the factory made most of the parts stick and not want to move. But it is fine now. Then I took the Bushnell sight off my Rossi and put it on my Hi-Point, sighted it in for around 30 yards, and will really get to test fire it well tomorrow. I plan to do more modifications to it including a folding front grip and a dual magazine holder for the stock, and maybe a few other things as well.
 
I do have an interest in fire arms but sadly, my parents disapprove of almost any sort of weapon. So far, the only fire arms that I have personally seen and held are my grandfather's .22 lever-action rifle and a Savage M110 that fires 30-06 rounds. Never got to fire any of those since my grandfather hasnt bothered renewing his gun carrying license and hunting license, he doesn't hunt anymore. Still, holding that rifle and pulling back and forth the bolt was awesome.
 
oozinator said:
Aaaand... it's here.

Click to expand...

I find the whole concept of printable guns and what this man is doing quite troubling. I consider myself to be a fairly liberal democrat, but I also pride myself on being a very rational and open-minded person. I find it easy to see where people are coming from and associate with their arguments. I understand Cody's point of view and often find myself conflicted over what I believe about gun control after reading and watching so many arguments for both sides.

There are many levels to gun control that we are currently facing in this country, the most prominent of which are much more extensive background checks, a ban on all assault weapons, and a ban on high capacity clips exceeding 30 rounds.

I believe that the most logical place to start when dissecting the argument is the 2nd amendment. This is perhaps the most versatile and commanding tool that anti-gun control individuals fall back to when debating the constitutionality of restricting gun rights. I believe that many of the same arguments that are currently being used to attack the morality of religion apply to the issue of the 2nd amendment. Like the bible, the 2nd amendment was created a long time ago, and there has been enormous change to society and the world around it since its creation. The bible is often criticized for not have a way to amend itself. In other words, it is set in stone with no opportunity to change to conform to changing social norms and the changing society around it. Although our constitution has a system in place to amend itself to conform with the changing world, the 2nd amendment has remained virtually untouched over the years with very few court cases giving it any definition. Where does the 2nd amendment start and end? Can any US citizen buy a rocket launcher and be protected by the 2nd amendment? How do we, as a society, define an end or limit to the 2nd amendment, and who is to say whether it be at an assault weapon or at a rocket launcher? When the 2nd amendment was created, I do not believe that the founding fathers of our country could have foreseen exactly how technology would have developed, and could have foreseen the situation we are currently in in the modern world.

Another common argument for gun rights has to do with self-defense. People argue that mass-shooting sprees could have been ended if someone at the scene was armed with a gun and had acted quickly saving lives. We have to ask ourselves, however, what is adequate defense for the average American? Do we want citizens to be walking around with assault weapons, or is a pistol enough to get the job done in such a circumstance? A quote I once read on Facebook said "A pistol is protection against street-thugs. A shotgun is protection against home-invaders. An M-16 is protection against violation of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Are assault weapons really justified by this argument for self defense? My opinion, after listening to both sides of the argument, is no, they are not justified. In that case, where do assault weapons stand? If people are allowed to purchase and use them, the only circumstance would be to use them at a shooting range for "fun".

This brings me to an interesting moral dilemma. As a member of a country that prides itself on the fundamentals of freedom and allows people this basic freedom to do whatever they like whether it be for fun or work as long as it is within the legal guidelines, I find it difficult to say that we should ban assault weapons because the only use is to have "fun". But when it comes down to the facts, assault weapons have been one of many causes of deadly mass killing sprees that took the lives of hundreds of people each year. We would be foolish to believe that these will not continue. That being said, at what point does my desire to have some fun at a shooting range with assault weapons outweigh the cost of a human life, or even tens of innocent humans lives that are claimed at the hands of mass murderers. It is true that banning assault weapons will not instantly solve our problems, but even if it saves one human life, is that not worth it? As a moral and ethical human being, I would be willing to lay down assault weapons to save a single life if all it meant was me finding some other interesting hobby. I believe that many Americans have an unhealthy addiction to guns, and an informative article I read explores the biological and chemical backgrounds of this addiction. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenkotler/2012/12/18/addicted-to-bang-the-neuroscience-of-the-gun/

Are guns used as a recreational device a logical thing to be spending time and money on? I can have just as much fun with friends doing countless other activities that do not have any negative side effects. Having worked at a gun club for over 5 years, I understand the social part of it. I got to know an amazing group of gentlemen and young adults who were mature and responsible with guns who went out and had a great time once a week smoking cigars, chatting about life and shooting sporting clays. Not a single one of these people, however, has a problem with increased gun control, and I think that that is a powerful voice that speaks for itself. What are a few extra days wait for background checks when you could be saving a life? This is the most mature and responsible approach to owning a gun. Understanding that something as dangerous as guns needs to be monitored closely is fairly basic, and if a bunch of winey gun enthusiasts are going to cry about a more extensive background check, I think that they have their priorities backwards. The very first thing you learn when handling a gun is how to handle it safely. I believe, however, that gun safety starts before you even have a gun in your hands. It starts with the regulation of guns and monitoring who has access to them.

Another common argument is that a criminal by definition does not cohere to the law. People wonder why, then, would a law have any effect on the illegal acquirement and use of guns. They argue that if someone wants to go on a killing spree, that they will find a way to do it regardless of whether or not they have legal access to a gun or not or how extensive background checks are. I will again refer to basic morals to counter this argument. If a single mass murderer is deterred by decreased access to guns, then the increase in gun control would be justified in my eyes. I believe that many people like Cody greatly undervalue human life, and may not truly realize this until someone near them is effected by gun violence. Although this is just speculation, may Cody’s views on guns and the value of a single human life be different if it was his son or daughter gunned down at Sandy Hook?

I think that Cody is where the root of the problem lies. Cody and many other similarly minded people take the second amendment at face value. They say that a gun is a gun, and that I have a right to own it and use it as I wish within the law. Not only do they believe that everyone should have the right to own and use a gun, they believe that everyone should have instant access to firearms at any given moment of any given day, and that any attempt to withhold that is a breach of the 2nd amendment. I do not have to sit here and preach why I believe this is dangerous and absurd. I think that any logical person reading this can arrive at a similar conclusion as me. I think that this magnifies the problems we currently face to a level that is hard to even conceive as to who can get their hands on a weapon and how quickly without anyone knowing or having the ability to stop them.

As to whether or not the country will come to terms with the 2nd amendment and gun control is beyond me. I do not, however, have high hopes. The political arena surrounding gun control is largely dominated by the vast power of the NRA. The NRA has very deep coffers that exert enormous control on any and all gun related issues. At the end of the day, the NRA is a business, and will fight for profit maximization, regardless of the cost to human life and security in homes, schools, and communities. As long as members of the NRA are demanding lax gun regulation, that is what the organization will fight for. The support to fight the NRA has to come from critical citizens such as myself and other like-minded people. We have to pressure politicians and make it known that we will not stand for looser gun regulation. Capitalism is gunning down our children in our schools, as they learn about the very capitalism that is killing them. This dooms our society to an endless loop of horror and bloodshed with no progress.

I will save my rant on capitalism for later, but thanks for reading what I have to say about the recent onslaught of gun violence and the subsequent debate over gun regulation. I apologize got any spelling or grammar mistakes, as this was written rather hastily and I was tired at 2 AM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top