| Guns | |
|
Dicemaster - Student  |
So I went out in my backyard and did some trap shooting yesterday with my mossberg 12Gauge shotgun, (i'm 17 and it is registered to my name) and i decieded it would be interesting to see what the ppl here think.. I own my own gun, how many other ppl own there own guns, and how many ppl would get freaked out if i brought that fact up in normal conversation -Dice _______________ Dicemaster |
| Poll | ||||||||
Does it bother you that i'm 17 years old and I own my own gun, and could walk into a store and buy one and be out of the store with the gun in under 10 minutes (in certain parts of the United States, completely legal. Also its a shotgun, a pistol has a 10 day waiting period like anywhere else)
|
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
JavaGuy - Student 
|
Correlation does not necessarily imply causality, but in this case there is strong evidence to suggest that people with airbags do, in fact, drive less carefully. This should also jibe with common sense. And no, the death rate does not change, as I note below. Economist David Friedman once suggested that the best auto safety device would be a 12-inch spike pointing up out of your steering wheel. I mentioned this to my boss, and he suggested a better feature: Have the spike pointing down.  Remember, the result of any policy is not determined by the intentions of the policy-makers, but by the incentives that policy creates. _______________ My signature is only one line. You're welcome. |
|
Halendor - Ex-Student 
|
Quote: Child poisonings increased significantly where they were used. Same thing with car air-bags: The number of accidents increased! But the use of air-bags and the increase of car accidents aren't necessarily related to eachother, are they? Is the number of people who are saved because of air bags smaller than the number of people who died because they took more risk knowing that they had an airbag for 'protection'? |
|
JavaGuy - Student
|
The Fox News article was great. Right on point. One thing it mentions is the debate over gun locks. Remember when almost all medication had child-safety locks? It gave people a false sense of security: Child poisonings increased significantly where they were used. Same thing with car air-bags: The number of accidents increased! This is what economists call risk homeostasis--people have a certain level of (perceived) risk that they're comfortable with and are willing to inconvenience themselves to keep risk down to that level, e.g. keep medicines out of reach, drive carefully. When something decreases that risk for them, like safety caps or air bags, then they adjust their behavior to achieve (what they perceive to be) the same level of risk, i.e. they no longer bother with the inconveniences they no longer think necessary. Of interest is that while traffic accidents increased with the introduction of air bags, per-capita injuries and fatalities remained stable. People adjusted their behavior and ended up with the exact same level of risk they had before. So while there was absolutely no benefit to air bags, people are forced to pay for them because they are required by law, and there's more incidental damage to property, which we all pay for through insurance. But the politicians can be "heroes" for making them mandatory. They can point to individuals who were saved by air bags and not talk about how many accidents ocurred because of air bags or discuss whether fatalities and injuries have actually decreased because of their "heroism." And they don't have to talk about all the extra costs imposed on us. But they do get re-elected.  Child-safety caps are much the same story, except that thanks to advances in medicine, per-capita fatalities from poisonings declined even as the number of poisonings increased. The children are safer to begin with, so people are less careful with their safety. Another effect of safety caps on medications was that it made it hard for older people and people with arthritis to get into their medication. In many cases they busted open the containers and put the pills into ziplock bags where a child could more easily mistake them for candy. There were also a number of cases where adults got the pills mixed up because they were then in unlabeled bags--Darwin Award material, I know, but still a direct result of the government trying to protect people from their own stupidity. Any time you try to absolve people of personal responsibility, you're asking for trouble. Child-safety locks on guns will work much the same way. Burglars, however, who will remove the locks from their own guns prior to breaking into your home, will just love it if it takes you longer to get to your gun. The number of child shootings will increase as people get careless with their "safe" locked guns. Crime will be subject to risk homeostasis too. As child-safety locks make robbery safer for robbers, they will adjust their behavior to achieve the same level of risk as before: They will commit more robberies. [edit: fixed muddled sentence] _______________ My signature is only one line. You're welcome. This comment was edited by JavaGuy on Mar 06 2004 02:57pm. |
|
Dicemaster - Student 
|
ok, a little stab for hunting pheasunt breading=hella fast our state would be over run with pheasunts without hunting (imagine driving down the interstate at 75 miles per hour and have a 2and a half to 3+ pounds bird smoke you in your windshild. I've had it happen at 10 miles an hour and it cracked the windshield. If we didn't hunt, the pheasunt population would overpopulate and this would be a problem also, our state is one of the lowest crimerates around. Thats because there aren't many of us, but also cuz we are raised right. I mean if you're raised to be able to shoot a gun at 5 years old, you're going to be pretty safe with that gun. Someone said its sick to kill random animals. Then you HAVE TO BE a vegiatrain, because if youre not you have inderectly killed hundreds of random animals. At least the pheasants in the field have a chance at getting away, unlike the cow thats taken to market. -Dice _______________ Dicemaster |
|
Shang Chi - Student 
|
Another article for your reading pleasure. Friday, January 02, 2004 By John R. Lott Jr. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107274,00.html People fear guns. Yet, while guns make it easier for bad things to happen, they also make it easier for people to protect themselves. With the avalanche of horrific news stories about guns over the years, it's no wonder people find it hard to believe that, according to surveys (one I conducted for 2002 for my book, "The Bias Against Guns," and three earlier academic surveys by different researchers published in such journals as the Journal of Criminal Justice) there are about two million defensive gun uses (search) each year; guns are used defensively four times more frequently than they are to commit crimes. The rebuttal to this claim always is: If these events were really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? Many people tell me that they have never heard of an incident of defensive gun use. There is a good reason for their confusion. In 2001, the three major television networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- ran 190,000 words' worth of gun-crime stories on their morning and evening national news broadcasts. But they ran not a single story mentioning a private citizen using a gun to stop a crime. The print media was almost as biased: The New York Times ran 50,745 words on contemporaneous gun crimes, but only one short, 163-word story on a retired police officer who used his gun to stop a robbery. For USA Today, the tally was 5,660 words on gun crimes versus zero on defensive uses. Just take some of the 18 defensive gun uses that I found covered by newspapers around the country during the first 10 days of December: -- Little Rock, Ark: After the assailant attacked him and his son-in-law with a poker, a 64-year-old minister shot a man dead on church grounds. The attacker had engaged in a string of assaults in an apparent drug-induced frenzy. -- Corpus Christi, Texas: A woman shot to death her ex-husband, who had broken into her house. The woman had a restraining order against the ex-husband. -- Tampa Bay, Fla.: A 71-year-old man, Melvin Spaulding, shot 20-year-old James Moore in the arm as Moore and two friends were beating up his neighbor, 63-year-old George Lowe. Spaulding had a concealed weapons permit. --Bellevue, Wash.: A man shot a pit bull that lunged to within a foot of him and his family. Police said the man's family had been repeatedly menaced in the past by the dog. -- Jonesboro, Ga.: A father out walking with his 11-year-old daughter was attacked by an armed robber. The police say the father shot the attacker in self-defense and will not face charges. -- Houston, Texas: Andrea McNabb shot two of the three men who tried to rob her plumbing business on the afternoon of Dec. 1. -- Philadelphia, Pa: A pharmacy manager fatally shot one robber and wounded another after the robbers threatened to kill workers at the store. The wounded robber escaped. Part of the reason defensive gun use isn't covered in the media may be simple news judgment. If a news editor faces two stories, one with a dead body on the ground and another where a woman brandished a gun and the attacker ran away, no shots fired, almost anyone would pick the first story as more newsworthy. In 2002, some 90 percent of the time when people used guns defensively, they stopped the criminals simply by brandishing the gun. But that doesn't explain all the disparity in coverage. It doesn't, for example, explain why, in some heavily covered public middle and high school shootings, the media mentioned in only 1 percent or fewer of their stories that the attacks were stopped when citizens used guns to stop the attacks. The unbalanced reporting is probably greatest in cases where children die from accidental gunshots fired by another child. Most people have seen the public-service ads showing the voices or pictures of children between the ages of four and eight, never over the age of eight, and the impression is that there is an epidemic of accidental deaths involving small children. The exaggerated media attention given these particularly tragic deaths makes these claims believable. The debate over laws requiring that people lock up their guns in their home usually concentrates on the deaths of these younger children. The trigger and barrel locks mandated by these laws are often only considered reliable for preventing the access to guns by children under age 7. The truth is that in 1999, for children whose ages correspond with the public service ads, 31 children under the age of 10 died from an accidental gunshot and only six of these cases appear to have involved another child under 10 as the culprit. Nor was this year unusual. Between 1995 and 1999, only five to nine cases a year involved a child wounding or killing another child with a gun. For children under 15, there were a total of 81 accidental gun deaths of all types in 1999. Any death is tragic, but it should be noted that more children under five drowned in bathtubs or plastic water buckets than from guns. The gun deaths are covered extensively as well as prominently, with individual cases getting up to 88 separate news stories. In contrast, when children use guns to save lives, the event might at most get one brief mention in a small local paper. Yet these events do occur. --In February, 2002, the South Bend, Indiana Tribune reported the story of an 11-year-old boy who shot and killed a man holding a box cutter to his grandmother's neck. Trained to use a firearm, the boy killed the assailant in one shot, even though the man was using his grandmother as a shield. --In May, 2001 in Louisianna, a 12-year-old girl shot and killed her mother's abusive ex-boyfriend after he broke into their home and began choking her mother. The story appeared in the New Orleans Advocate. --In January, 2001, in Angie, Louisianna, a 13 year-old boy stopped for burglars from entering his home by firing the family's shotgun, wounding one robber and scaring off the other three. The four men were planning on attacking the boy's mother--an 85-pound terminal cancer patient--in order to steal her pain medication. As a couple of reporters told me, journalists are uncomfortable printing such positive gun stories because they worry that it will encourage children to get access to guns. The whole process snowballs, however, because the exaggeration of the risks--along with lack of coverage of the benefits--cements the perceived risks more and more firmly in newspaper editors and reporters minds. This makes them ever more reluctant to publish such stories. While all this coverage affects the overall gun-control debate, it also directly shapes perceptions of proposed legislation. Take the upcoming debate over renewing the so-called assault-weapons ban. This past summer CNN repeatedly showed a news segment that starts off with a machine gun firing and claims that the guns covered by the ban do much more damage than other guns. CNN later attempted to clarify the segment by saying that the real problem was with the ammunition used in these guns. But neither of these points is true. The law does not deal at all with machine guns (though the pictures of machine guns sure are compelling)--and the "assault weapons" fire the same bullets at the same rate, and accomplish the exact same thing, as other semi-automatic guns not covered by the ban. The unbalanced presentation dominates not just the media but also government reports and polling. Studies by the Justice and Treasury Departments have long evaluated just the cost guns impose on society. Every year, Treasury puts out a report on the top 10 guns used in crime, and each report serves as the basis for dozens of news stories. But why not also provide a report--at least once--on the top 10 guns used defensively? Similarly, numerous government reports estimate the cost of injuries from guns, but none measures the number of injuries prevented when guns are used defensively. National polls further reinforce these biased perceptions. Not one of the national polls (as far as I was able to find) gave respondents an option to mention that gun control might actually be harmful. Probably the least biased polls still give respondents just two choices: supporting "tougher gun-control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime" or "better enforcement of current laws." Yet, both options ultimately imply that gun control is good. But if we really want to save lives, we need to address the whole truth about guns--including the costs of not owning guns. We never, for example, hear about the families who couldn't defend themselves and were harmed because they didn't have guns. Discussing only the costs of guns and not their benefits poses the real threat to public safety as people make mistakes on how best to defend themselves and their families. John R. Lott, Jr., a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "The Bias Against Guns" (Regnery 2003). _______________ Thirty spokes converge on a single hub, but it is in the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the cart lies. Clay is molded to make a pot, but it is the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the clay pot lies. Cut out doors and windows to make a room, but it is in the spaces where there is nothing that the usefulness of the room lies. Therefore, Benefit may be derived from something, but it is in nothing that we find usefulness. |
|
Shang Chi - Student 
|
Concealed Carry laws allow the ordinary citizen after taking certain training courses be allowed to carry a firearm concealed on their person that is not viewable to the public. There are at least 38 states in the United States that now have these type of law. Almost all of these states have seen a decrease in crime after these laws came into affect. It is believed that criminals are less likely to attack people because they may or may not now be armed to defend themselves. As I see it, the criminals will never stop getting illegical firearms and will not follow any laws about their use. These laws at least seem to deter some of the criminal behavior because they seem to be just as afraid of being shot as everyone else. _______________ Thirty spokes converge on a single hub, but it is in the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the cart lies. Clay is molded to make a pot, but it is the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the clay pot lies. Cut out doors and windows to make a room, but it is in the spaces where there is nothing that the usefulness of the room lies. Therefore, Benefit may be derived from something, but it is in nothing that we find usefulness. |
|
Battlin' Billy - Student 
|
If guns were taken out of the hands of the population (the legal ones), there's still the illegal guns left. Instead of worrying about your average, law-abiding citizens' guns, they should concentrate more on the guns that are gotten illegally. Drug dealers, mobsters and other criminals more often than not don't aquire their guns legally and any laws passed won't even effect them. _______________ Midbie Council Member #2 - Profile ID 2073 | Member of B@rtM@ulS@ar | Owner of Monty's 2000th comment & D@RtHM@UL's 8100th comment | Former Padawan of SilkMonkey & Arcuss JA Goaltender & NHL Fan | Fellow Rush fan to Axion|Plo Koon is my oldest JA friend Post your RL pics HERE! | Post you JK2/JK3 screenies HERE! |
|
aph3x - Retired 
|
I dont have any guns. I think the world would be a better place without them, but I dont have a problem with ppl owning them. I might get one if I ever like...buy a house or something. |
|
Halendor - Ex-Student 
|
Could someone please explain this concealed-carry law? Is it a law that permits or prevents you from walking around with a gun under your coat? It's kindof hard to read the article below without knowing what concealed-carry exactly means  |
|
Ulic |retired| - Student 
|
The last part is very familiar. About the obsession with the right to defend themselves with firearms. That is the task of the police, people who use guns professionally. I do agree that accidentrates will fall when every gunowner behaves properly. Unfortunately, this is not the case. I also agree that it is the person that fires a gun who is responsible, not the gun. But it will be very hard to fire a gun without having a gun. And that's the point. _______________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam This comment was edited by Ulic |retired| on Mar 05 2004 03:47pm. |
|
Shang Chi - Student
|
I would like to say that I support personal gun ownership. I am a NRA memmber and have a permit to carry a firearm concealed. I am in a profession where you can be a target for crime on a daily basis. I believe that firearms are used to prevent more crime than to cause it. I was taught how to use a gun at a young age. I believe that personal gun use that prevents a crime is underreported by the media because most of the media wants to ban firearms. Below is an article I found for those who would like to read someone else's opinion. Posted on Thu, Mar. 04, 2004 Point of View by DR. RONALD BRACE Statistics don't support scary stories about concealed-carry The Feb. 13 Point of View column by Dr. Greg Bachhuber -- "Concealed-carry laws place guns into hands of unskilled people" -- (and your newspaper's editorial as well) contains all the misinformation and mistrust that every opponent of concealed-carry believe. The problem is it just isn't true. The fact that concealed-carry laws have a 10-plus-year record that is open and available to the public in most states refutes the worries he expressed. The consensus is that at worst there is no harm done by these laws, and at best crime decreases, up to 8 percent in a few studies. Let's review Bachhuber's. Anyone can get a concealed-carry permit with minimal training. This is true as long as you can legally purchase a handgun, take the course and pay the fees (about $200). The vast majority of individuals getting their concealed-carry permit have years of experience with firearms. The point is that they are taking responsibility for their own self-defense, and with it comes a tremendous responsibility to know how to handle the firearm correctly as well as when it is wise to use it. I know of two people who had no firearm experience who have gotten their permits to carry. They did this as a political act to show how easy it is to get a permit. They do not carry. Should they frighten me? No. I do not believe the fact that they have a permit will suddenly give them visions of being in the Wild West and shooting up the streets. And if they do carry, the chance of them having to use a gun in self-defense in a public place is quite low. Yet should we as a society decide that they should be disarmed and risk not being able to defend themselves? To attempt to compare the training police get in the use of deadly force and that of a civilian is like comparing apples and oranges. The police have a duty to carry their firearms and protect the public (and, incidentally, such protection does not extend to any individual but to the community as a whole, as has been upheld several times by the U.S. Supreme Court). Police should be held to a much higher standard concerning defensive shootings, yet routinely are not. Police are given three days of administrative leave before being interviewed about the events. I can promise that if a civilian is involved in a defensive shooting, they will not get three days to settle their nerves and collect their thoughts. They will be grilled for hours and will most likely end up behind bars for at least a short time. And if Bachhuber wishes to talk about suicides with guns (truly a tragic number, yet firearms bear no relationship to suicides in most studies on the subject except in the elderly population), how many concealed-carry permit holders in the United States committed suicide while carrying legally in the past five years? How about the past year? Any that you've heard of in the past two weeks? None have been reported in any of these time frames. Yet at least two police officers have committed suicide with a firearm in the past two weeks, and one of them killed his wife first with his service gun. Statistics like these could be used to say that the police shouldn't be allowed guns -- ridiculous. The studies that Bachhuber claims show how dangerous guns in the home are have been proven false several times. The same study showing a certain increase in household members being shot if they have guns in their home can also show that in homes without firearms, there is a 300 percent higher likelihood of being killed at home compared to homes with firearms. Studies like these take into consideration robberies and drug shootings involving even the most casual acquaintances, and people who brought the gun used to shoot someone into the home as "having a gun in the home." If you invite a friend over for a game, and he brings someone you barely know who has a gun on him, and that person shoots you, you are listed as having a gun in the home. It is often easy to find the numbers you want when a study is selective in its subject group. Firearm injuries and deaths are a tragedy. As an emergency physician myself, both Bachhuber and I have seen our share of gun tragedies. Our difference is that Bachhuber blames the gun. I blame the shooter (or their parents in the case of childhood accidents and shootings). He believes that removing guns from society would reduce gun injuries and crime. I know this is not the case. Firearm ownership is part of the fundamental right of self-defense, not a privilege granted by the government. It is up to us as individuals to exercise that right in an honorable fashion. If every gun owner did this, then the incidents of accidental shootings and suicides, and perhaps even violent crime, will fall. RONALD BRACE, M.D., of Elk River, Minn., is a board-certified emergency physician practicing at the Cambridge Medical Center in Cambridge, Minn. He has worked at emergency departments in the Twin Cities, Colorado, North Carolina and Texas and was part of the support forces in Bosnia in 1997-98. _______________ Thirty spokes converge on a single hub, but it is in the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the cart lies. Clay is molded to make a pot, but it is the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the clay pot lies. Cut out doors and windows to make a room, but it is in the spaces where there is nothing that the usefulness of the room lies. Therefore, Benefit may be derived from something, but it is in nothing that we find usefulness. This comment was edited by Shang Chi on Mar 05 2004 07:24pm. |
|
Ulic |retired| - Student
|
Personally, with all due respect, I think the lives of people who were killed in eg. the Washington sniper attacks or the attacks at schools are worth infinitely more than the right to hunt animals. Yes, I'm against hunting as well _______________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam |
|
SedNox - Student 
|
\|/ if that is so, then your all SICK!!! _______________ -Evil Clown- "We interrupt this program to increase dramatic tension." Echuu's 1200th comment, D@RtH N00B's 10850th comment, Redeye's 100th and 150th comment. |
|
Halendor - Ex-Student
|
Does everyone here who says 'I just use it for hunting' mean they use their gun to go out and kill animals? |
|
SedNox - Student
|
we have a 200\300 year old gun...does that count to?  _______________ -Evil Clown- "We interrupt this program to increase dramatic tension." Echuu's 1200th comment, D@RtH N00B's 10850th comment, Redeye's 100th and 150th comment. |
|
Dicemaster - Student
|
Quote: Can someone show me why the possible positive things about owning a gun would prevail over the terrible negative consequences? In my state, South Dakota, our state tourism would basically die without the right to bare arms. There is a very good reason to own a shotgun, its called Pheasant hunting. You've got to realize that I don't know a person who wasn't raised in someway around a shotgun or two. Meaning we all have extreme safty measures. Theres maybe 1 or 2 hunting accidents per year, but compared to all the possible times if we weren't traind so safely i'd say thats not to bad. Also, shotguns are very shortrange, you can't shoot very far with them and if the shot gets very far away they aren't very dangerous (a shotgun pellate from over a half a mile away would feel like getting flicked by someones finger). So there is a use for Shotguns, and also most high powered rifles (deer hunting, elk hunting, other animal hunting) Our state would basically die off during the winter without guns, because the beginning of winter(end of tourism season) is when pheasant hunting begins, and my towns population doubles the opening weekend of pheasant season. -Dice _______________ Dicemaster This comment was edited by Dicemaster on Mar 05 2004 01:25pm. |
|
Ulic |retired| - Student 
|
Can someone show me why the possible positive things about owning a gun would prevail over the terrible negative consequences? _______________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam |
|
(Jedi)Obi-JK - Student 
|
Sup, OK a few things on this thread bother me. 1.) A gun is like a hammer, - Ok, but I would be a hell of a lot more likely to be wandering around Downtown Detroit at any hour, if I knew the worst thing would be some dude trying to mug me with a hammer. Also by the rational "a gun is like a hammer" then "a nuclear missle is like a hammer also" 2.) So, just like a light sabre, just showing that you have one can help avoid trouble. - First of all, showing you have a gun, would be branshing a weapon and is illegal. Second, heven forbid that backfires, you branish your weapon and it escalates the situation. 3.) No wait for a shotgun, yet a 10 date waiting period for gun. - This is just dumb, ALL guns should have a waiting period. No one should be able to "impulse buy a gun" Its pretty obvious guns can be dangerous, and with the murder rates in the Unites States, I think it is also obvious that there are a lot people who are not mature enough to be dealing with guns. I truely beleive America needs stricter laws on all guns. CHILL before you think I want to outlaw guns, my roomate last year had one, we went to the range a lot, it is fun. We also never had any ammo in the house, if we wanted to go to range we would stop and get some on the way. _______________ Silent Bob (Kevin Smith): You know, there's a million fine looking women in the world, dude. But they don't all bring you lasagna at work. Most of 'em just cheat on you. -Steve (Obi) |
|
Odan-Wei Belouve - Student 
|
I really don't see the point of having a shotgun at home. Actually I don't see the point of owning a firearm for any other purposes than hunting and sport. A shotgun is not really suited for any of those activities so I just wonder what you do with it. I'm also pretty uneasy with firearms because it takes a ridiculous amount of time to hurt or kill someone with them. Or yourself. I don't see the point of owning one even if it's legal, even if your neighborhood is somewhat dangerous. Having a gun is like yelling around "I'm ready to be shot!!! And also ready to shoot in return!!!" Erm, well, it's not a toy Dice, it's a weapon. Which means it's designed to kill/hurt people. I just hope you'll always be able to see the difference.  Odan-Wei _______________ Padawan and brother to SmilyKrazy  - Adopted in the Belouve Family by Fizz and Bubu, BELOUVE ON! - Vladarion, you'll always be in my heart and memories - Spam-Padawan of Jacen Aratan  - [DJ is my beloved wife! - JA Family: Brothers:
Virtue, Furi0us, Vladarion, Hardwired, Janus, Axion, D@RtHM@UL, Motrec, Mike , xAnAtOs , Luke Skywalker; Little bro to SilkMonkey ; Special kind of brother to Kenyon ; Sisters in-law: Rosered, Ain-Soph Aur] Photoshop works: click here This comment was edited by Odan-Wei Belouve on Mar 05 2004 10:21am. |
|
Dr_Nick - Ex-Student 
|
Im English so the thought of owning a gun is very foreign to me, least to say scary, remeber its not the gun that kills, its the mentality behind that does _______________ Hi Everybody! |
|
Ulic |retired| - Student
|
I think it's dangerous and ridiculous for a state to allow citizens to own firearms. Although weapon manufacturers thrive on such policies thousands of people are being killed, and not only in accidents. 'But you can kill someone with a kitchenknife as well'. True, you can kill someone with a kitchenknife, and a toothpick and a shoe but these items have other uses than killing, like keeping your teeth fresh and clean, whereas a gun has no other use than hurting something or someone. _______________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam |
|
Ash - Eats Babies 
|
Quote: And if some kid was playing with one I would have at least known how to empty the clip for him first dont forget to empty the chamber too _______________ "We keep odd hours...." ----------------------- They Live, We Sleep |
|
_cmad_ - Ex-Student 
|
well there ARE 3 shotguns in my house; not registered to me but I can grab'em secretly whenever I want... But no special reason to do so... yet _______________ Your friends of today, are your enemies of tomorrow. |
|
 - Student |
I own a Mauser-Waffen m06 rifle. Basically it's for gamekeeping, but the real reason I have it is for display. I don't have a problem with someone owning a gun, so long as they have a good reason to have it. |
|
Battlin' Billy - Student
|
I live in NY, very near NYC. I'm fine with guns as long as a loaded one isn't pointed at me. I own a high-powered pellet rifle that looks and feels quite authentic, at least from a distance. It's already saved my car from getting broken into. One summer night, I heard some noise outside my house. I grabbed my rifle and walked to the fence and just cocked my rifle. As soon as I did that, whomever was trying to break in to my car heard this, looked in my direction, saw me holding the rifle and took off. So, just like a light sabre, just showing that you have one can help avoid trouble! _______________ Midbie Council Member #2 - Profile ID 2073 | Member of B@rtM@ulS@ar | Owner of Monty's 2000th comment & D@RtHM@UL's 8100th comment | Former Padawan of SilkMonkey & Arcuss JA Goaltender & NHL Fan | Fellow Rush fan to Axion|Plo Koon is my oldest JA friend Post your RL pics HERE! | Post you JK2/JK3 screenies HERE! |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |