Review my postings on gun control sometime, why don’t you? I own enough weaponry to make a Mexican drug gang worry, and I’m a Life Member of the NRA. Grow a sense of humor too, while you’re at it.
I knew you were joking, I simply didn’t care: I’d prefer this thread not get hijacked into a gun control debate. There was already one post in this thread that bordered on gun control debate, and message boards being what they are, somebody would’ve responded to your posts by arguing that gun control is actually reasonable under conditions [X Y Z], or gun control owners should not caricature gun control proponents or some other thing.
So why did you come down on Silenus, and do nothing to ITR Champion? That isn’t fair.
I made it a point in my OP: As a note: I don’t want to turn this into a debate thread; if you want to know why I believe a certain way, that’s fine. I don’t have a problem answering political questions, but I’m not going to give debate quality answers and I likely won’t be defending my positions, I’ll just skip over you.
I didn’t “come down on” anybody. I requested no further hijacking. My hope was that the thread would stay on topic after ITR Champion’s question (irrelevant though it was) was answered. But I saw that if I ignored a second post that wasn’t going to happen.
ETA: What Todderbob said also applies.
Silenus was joking, and anybody who’s been paying attention would know that.
ITR Champion was doing something else, which probably can’t be mentioned in this thread. The mods have to be aware of it, because I reported the post. By slamming Silenus and ignoring ITR Champion, who transgressed first and worst, it appears Marley is taking sides.
I disagree. You quoted Silenus and made an official “Mod Note” , but you did nothing to the guy that first stepped out of line. That is an unfair mod action in my opinion.
Oakminster, take any other questions to ATMB. I posted (and slammed no one) in order to avoid a hijacking of this thread.
It’s not clear from your op - do you shoot guns at animals or just at ranges?
There’s a name for shooting guns at animals – hunting.
And no. I’ve never once in my life went hunting. I’ve never needed to (fiscally), or felt compelled to.
People who hunt for sport (those that waste the meat), in my opinion, are pretty sickening. But those who hunt to supplement their income (you can get a few hundred dollars worth of meat out of a deer, which for many families is the difference between savings and debt) have my full support.
I shoot exclusively at paper targets, although if I found a decent skeet place, I’d consider expanding my horizons to Clay Pigeons.
ok. I admit I was being deliberately subliminally antagonistic with the way I phrased my question. The word “hunting” seems (to me) to desensitize the activity - whereas “shooting an animal” calls it what it is.
Lions hunt, cats hunt, humans just go out and shoot an animal.
Anyway carry on, I have no problem with guns as you have them.
I figured, but it’s alright.
What Lions and cats do is far less humane than what humans do.
If your measure on hunting is the difficulty of the kill, I don’t think anyone alive can accurately measure that. However, if your measure is by the pain caused to the hunted animal, the human way of doing things causes far less pain to a deer than a big cat to an antelope.
It does seem rather unfair, that we humans get such an advantage in the form of Firearms to hunt animals… but it’s far more humane than the way we used to do it – long sticks with pointy things on the end. Sometimes the animals would get away, with spears lodged in their bodies. This was unavoidable even for the most skilled hunters pre-firearms.
Now, a skilled hunter can go out and kill a deer with one shot, ensuring that the animal feels as little pain as possible, and it’s over as quickly as possible. It’s far more humane with a firearm.
There’s nothing more noble about eating meat from styrofoam and cellophane, it’s still a dead animal.
I appreciate that, I suppose.
Since the OP says he’s 18 and childless, I’ll jump in as a certified card-carrying gun nut with children.
Both of my sons have been shooting since they were 6 years old and handling guns for a couple of years before that. I don’t think kids can truly be safe around firearms if they’ve never held one before - telling most children “if you see a gun, away you run” or something when they see them on tv, movies, etc. their whole life is … uh, it’s something not so very good. But if they know they can go home and, with Poppa’s permission, play with just about any gun they care to name, the temptation to fuck with a random one found on the ground is going to be much less. And if they do, and they’re raised “right” (my definition, of course), they’re going to clear it and keep their booger hook off the damn bang switch.
My kids don’t touch the trigger on their toy guns until they’re ready to fire, much less real ones. And no, it’s not just when I’m watching. I’ve caught them playing outside with squirt or Nerf guns and they still show decent trigger discipline and sometimes nag their friends to pay attention. They both have a rifle and handgun of their own, although they’re locked away in my safe for a few more years.
They’ve also been hunting and fishing, although their luck hasn’t been all the great with the bunny shooting.
You rang? 
I usually stay out of US-based gun threads because the firearms situation is so completely different in our respective countries, but I’m happy to lend my technical and historical expertise to the thread if anyone wants it.
A carbine doesn’t necessarily fire pistol cartridges; I can think of at least five off the top of my head (Lee-Enfield No. 5 Mk I, Mosin-Nagant M44, Arisaka Type 38, M38 Swedish Mauser, and the Winchester Model 94) that are chambered for fullbore rifle cartridges.
Carbines (in rifle calibres) are very useful guns for hunting, especially in bush or scrub, IMHO.
I know; I was asking about “carbines” according to one usage of the term- i.e., extended pistol-ammo firearms. I agree with Todderbob that there’s probably little point to them in smaller calibers. I have read about some that use much more powerful rounds, such as the 50 AE Tromino Sledgehammer. The claim is that handgun barrels usually aren’t long enough to use the full power of those rounds, and using them in a carbine makes the recoil much more managable.
The .50 AE is a joke round anyway. 
Impractical as a handgun round yes; but the carbine idea sounds like it might have something to it, unless that’s my ignorance showing.
The .50AE is a poor performer for the recoil, expense and difficulty to operate in general.
If you really want a ‘monster’ gun, get a .460 S&W Magnum (or .500 S&W magnum for an insanely large gun), in carbine, these guns will still out perform the .50AE.
What is your opinion on Glocks?
I thought about buying a Glock 36 last year.
Biiiiiig fan. 
One of the most durable firearms out there, without question. Some people don’t like them for odd reasons (they’re 1911 fanboys, usually…), and some have real issues with grip size or angle. Glock has recently come out with a thinner Glock, IIRC, for people too petite to shoot full-sized double stack firearms.
I am a big fan, my pistol of choice is actually the Glock 17L, the Target/Sport model of the Glock 17.