Look out would-be burglars, I'm gettin' a gun!!

Great Debates
121

Fuck it UncleBeer, funding for some of the weapons etc came from Irish Americans, plus most of the guns were smuggled in from Russia. The difference between Ireland and America is that Ireland is full of tension and hate between the sides. America does not have any of these conflicts, so has no excuse in this area at least for its enormous crime rate.(Im sure there are other good reasons however)

Sorry Bdgr, I read the whole thing quite fast and got confused. I therefore ask you to explain it.

Thank you Alessan, at least there is ONE person on this board who agrees with me. If you want a gun for target practice only, why not use an air rifle or a BB gun? you dont need some enormous hand cannon that is basically exactly the same design as guns used in the second world war, which definitely were designed to kill people. Also, if you look back to the origins of the gun, it was first invented (sorry I dont know the date or where) as a kind of small cannon with a metal tube and wooden handle with a stick at right angles in the middle so that you could rest it on battlements. (at first, they tried to use arrows or darts before realising that round stones were better.) this led to the invention of the musket. Noblemen would use them in battle because they were so expensive, and definitely weren’t designed for target practice.

Spoofe, my argument is not against guns necesarily, it IS against people who misuse them, and against relaxed gun control laws which allow misuse of guns to happen more easily.
Eh? Its quite obvious to anyone that a pizza is very different from a hamburger. A MUCH bigger difference than between two very similar bullets.
Im sorry but guns are not recreational like anything else is recreational. Ill admit that guns are fun to fire, but its so much easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife for instance. Gun: you could accidentally pull the trigger, with a knife you actually have to deliberately stab the person.

LOL gary. Very convincing argument.

Um, Max, lets not get on to the pros and cons of the death penalty PLEASE. Also its been hundreds of years since we had the death penalty for theft etc so I dont see your point.

SPOOFE! COMPUTERS ARENT DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE. plus they were designed by an ENGLISHMAN as a sort of mechanical calculator. Saying that a gun is designed to kill is very far from saying that computers are designed to blow up cities. Thats like saying that a golf club is designed to hit a ball into a hole. In fact, its only designed to hit a ball up in the air; it is the aim of the game to get the ball in the hole.
(point no 2) you dont need a gun do you? Why not just a kitchen knife or something?
(yes, again, its so much easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. see above)

I also totally agree with Gary’s post(the one thats all in bold) I wrote the above before reading that.

Well said matt, concise and to the point. I end up going on and on because its basically the whole of america vs me.

Yes allesan. Why not use rubber bullets or something? how is the intruder going to know? Hell, why use a loaded gun at all if you only ever threaten the intruder?

Oh mr zambezi, are you really trying to tell me that the first car, that went at about 3 mph was designed for racing?
see above for invention of gun.

Again, bravo gary. This tread is (or was) about guns for self defence, where concievably you might kill someone.

Southern Style, you had more than a whole page of suggestions for guns. Hadnt you run out? Now its in general questions.

Thinksnow, yes I have been startled awake, but it might easily be someone going to the toilet. Ygo out into the corridor, groggy from just waking up, and blow the head off the guy coming round the corner suddenly from the toilet.
I mean that the DIFFERENCE between America and Swizerland is that Swiss people are trained. I mean more casually or ‘recreationally’ owned guns mean that there are more shootings and accidental shootings.

One last point of my own. If you are going to murder someone, then most people would find it putting off to have to strangle them or something, wheras a gun is easy and cleaner. If there are tighter gun control laws, then people will not just be able to grab their gun and shoot after a drunken argument. Thing is, I dont really care whether you want to shoot recreationally, but if there are more guns, it is easier for other people to get hold of them who arent trained in safety or arent as strong willed as you claim to be. It is easy to say ‘I ALWAYS lock away my gun in the safe’ but even if you do always do this, there are always going to be people who are more relaxed or lazy, or are forgetful and leave their gun lying around for someone completely unknowledgeable about guns to pick up and accidentally shoot themselves with.

Again, sorry about the massive rant but it is basically me against America. Arent there ANY dopers who agree with me?

122

Well, when you hijack a friendly and popular thread to continue your personal rantings you won’t win much support.

At least not from me!

123

…I point that your (Nuke) problem seems to be not with those having weapons for recreational use, but rather that those weapons may be used by untrained and inexperienced persons to the harm of others? Again, to point to less advertised, but just as dangerous and much more frequent, accidents involving automobiles or knives. Daily, there are instances of people using cars to run people down, or children getting keys and sneaking off with their parents cars with tragic results. Daily, there are instances of people being maimed or even killed through routine use of blades. Falling on them sucks, slicing your thumb or fingers, while less than deadly, is still injurious.

You hear about persons being slain with weapons because it is tragic and dramatic. Someone being hit by a car or a child running into a telephone pole is not as “news worthy” so you’ll not be inundated by the instances of it happening.

As has peppered this thread, if you want to debate personal gun possession, start a thread for that. This one was supposed to be for those of us with our own opinion regarding a future purchase of said weapons. Bugger off.

124

We don’t use nasty language in these forums, don’t you know that? Go to the pit if you want to cuss so bad.

Oh wait, I forgot. You are a sniveling drama queen and can’t take the heat of the pit. :rolleyes:

Just a point of etiquette here, don’t hijack someone else’s perfectly good thread to spout your own version of drivel. Start your own thread if you dare.

*Aenea, who is just about fed up with your flavor of crap.

125

Sorry, but I didnt move this thread to the great debates thing. If you read above, I have said that I am going to leave the subject alone, but when UncleBeer comes back with some of the things he does, I have to reply, or it looks like I have given in.
Dont you think youve had enough of the pros and cons of different weapons? Im sure that there is easily enough information there for anyone wanting to buy guns, so why not talk about this? Im not an administrator, and they decided to move it to great debates, so why not start the forum up again in MPSIMS?

Thinksnow, I have talked about this before, and it is obvious to anyone that a gun is much more dangerous in the wrong hands than a knife is. Killing someone with a knife is actually quite difficult, wheras with a gun all you have to do is shoot them in the head.
I agree that car crashes dont get into the news as much but everyone knows that they are dangerous. However, guns are designed to kill people (I think we proved that point earlier) and killing someone with a gun is so much easier than killing them with a car. Cars have become a necessarry part of society (just look at how Britain ground to a halt during the fuel crisis [I dont know if you heard about that]) that we have to live with. They are not designed to kill people, and there is an obvious difference between accidentally shooting a burglar because you discover him in your house, and running someone over when they run out into a road. In the one case you are actively threataning someone, and in the other you cannot be blamed. Obviously a car can be used to maliciously try to run someone over, but that is much more difficult than shooting them because people can jump out of the way.
You can go on and on about how knives are just as dangerous, but if you go down to that level, you can basically kill someone with anything. I could tell you how to kill someone with a newspaper, but this is fundamentally different from a gun which is designed to kill people and is much more dangerous, and makes it easier to kill people.

I would like to ask UncleBeer (or anyone knowledgable about it) a question:
If you were in your house and you caught a burglar going through your stuff and he was unarmed or at least not threatening you, are you allowed to shoot him just for entering your property? I didnt think so, but now im not so sure from having read what has been written in this thread.

126

Sorry aenea but I just got a bit pissed off with UncleBeer’s comments about Northern Ireland.
Bono, the lead singer of U2 said ‘Ive had enough of Irish Americans who havent been back to their country in 20 or 30 years come up to me, and talk about the resistance, the revolution back home…’ People in America think that its all Britain’s fault for not dealing with the situation properly but the conflict is caused by the integral hate and division in their society, and partly due to funding and weapons sent in by Irish Americans and Russians (during the cold war)

127

nukeman, don’t you get it? Three consecutive posts have asked you (or told you) to chill.

If you want to carry on a personal rant, start a thread in the pit and, if you feel so obligated, post a comment here asking anyone interested to join you. You might even be surprised to learn that some dopers peruse several of the forums.

If you simply want to start a debate you’re already in the right forum, but this is someone else’s thread. Just click on “new thread”, enter your statement and see who pops in.

But the ranting that you’ve shared has nothing to do with the original topic of what is a good gun for home defense. Nor does it have anything to do with the thread’s tangential topic of what guns are actually owned by dopers.

Noone’s telling you not to post. But we are insisting that your posts have something to do with the topic’s message and that your message be expressed in a civil fashion.

Thank you for your cooperation,
SouthernStyle

128

Yes you did move this thread to GD through your inappropriate, insulting, baseless, ill thought out, knee jerk reactions based upon years of media disinformation.

You even have the gall to base your knowledge on a CHILD’S game!!?!

Your posts speak loudly towards your complete misunderstanding of the most basic issues involved in the discussion that YOU started which was NOT part of the OP’s question.

Don’t even get me started on the NI issue but suffice to say I don’t imagine you would have anything resmbling a cogent or even vaguely thought out position based on your earlier ravings (you use fanatics, I’ll use ravings)

Back to the OP- While I like Berettas, I think you would also be well served by looking at the USP mentioned earlier, or a Sig 228-9.
Meself, I like the P7 series; fantastic design, instinctive to use, and just plain cool!

129

HOLY SHIT
All I wanted to know was what caliber was better, and I get 3 pages (longest thread by me to date) and I get all this shit from some numbskull who thinks he has a clue.

Nukeman, Alas since I am not a moderator, I cannot ban you from the entire board. But, Pleas do not come back, EVER! You take my Innocent thread, and turn it into Anti-gun Liberal Propaganda shit.

If you want to make it a point that people need to have training and must practice before owning a firearm, JUST SAY IT!!! Tell me, “you should make sure to practice and learn all about your gun before you do anyhting with it.”

I would have, as would every last person here, said your absolutely right.
As for the Beretta, HK USP, and Sig, I like the HK a lot, shoots like a dream, but I do not like the Sig all that much, It isnt the most friendly handgun for Leftys,
the Beretta fits my hand the best, and is perfectly lined up when I bring it up to shoot.
Alex

130

Hey fnord, in the end that’s what it comes down to. If it’s comfortable it’s good. Period. My best friend loves his ancient HK VP70 IIRC- it looks like a raygun, made in early 70’s, and he is an ace shot with it. The P7 feels like some guy in Bavaria took a mold of my hand and designed the gun around it. ( I only wish the d*mn thing wasn’t so heavy LOL) Buy what feels good, and you will use it more, become more and more proficient with it and if (god forbid) anything ever happens, you will not have to think about the tool at all.

131

UncleBeer wrote:

I’m pretty sure Nukeman meant .357 also.

BUT –

When flipping through my Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading, I noticed that there is both a rifle cartridge and a handgun cartridge called a “.375 magnum”. Both of them are very rarely used.

I was impressed by the listings they gave for the .375 magnum handgun cartridge’s muzzle energies. It’s actually more powerful than a .44 magnum! (Although I think it still had a bit less oomph than a .454 Casull.)

132

the best personla defense gun is a 12 guage with buckshot and a barrel of 18.1 inches. just point in the general direction an cut the bad guys in half. I also like a .44 bull dog pug. biog muzzle flash, heavy round and it never jams because it is a revolver. thord cho=iuce is a nice 22 derringer revolver. 5 shots, big bang and you can carry it without anyone ever noticing.

133

Mr.Zambezi

First off, Buckshot would be quite stupid, it will most likely go through your walls, and keep going, breaking and smashing everything in its path. Same problem with the 44, unless you use Glasser Safety Slugs. A 22? A 22? What are you thinking? Mr PCP crazed burglar comes in, you shoot him with the equivalent of a spitwad, only louder, and Mr PCP looks at you, then procedes to eat your face off then rape your Thanksgiving turkey.

Just MHO.

134

Hmmm, I’ve heard a few things about Derringers that have kept me from them. I don’t know how true they all are though. I’ve heard they jam easily, can blow up in your hand (older ones), are very hard to hit anything with (tiny barrel), and don’t have much range.

Any experienced knowledge out there?

135

A derringer is useful only in extremely close range. Its two inch barrel simply won’t deliver the accuracy that a longer can.

As I said before, I own a S&W model 659 9mm. If I’m ever forced to use it indoors, it WILL make a mess of whatever it hits. However, it’s not practical for concealed carry.

The derringer won’t do the damage that the 9mm or heavier rounds will do, but it is ideal for concealed carry. It’s smaller and lighter than many a billfold.

136

The derringer is only useful for concealed carry. I would prefer to strap a Desert eagle .44 mad auto on my shoulder, but that makes people a little nervous.

As for the buck shot, If I have to kill someone, I don’t really care too much if the china gets broken.

And Glaser safety slugs do not cause the damge that they allege. I will stick with my hollow points or nossler partition slugs, thank you.

But if it is dark and yotu are nervous, a shotgun is a much surer bet that any simgle projectile. If I/m gonna kill 'em, I am going to do it good. It is better to stick with one side of the story rather than two.

137

Well, actually, a .22 is often quite lethal, more people are killed by .22 than any other round. Problem is, by the time they get around to dying a couple of hours later, or even realizing that they have been shot a couple of hours later, your history.

138

Eek!

SPOOFE Bo Diddly,

You’re making me a bit nervous here, man.

Guns are designed to “accelerate a projectile to extremely high speeds” with the best possible accuracy. You can’t leave out the accuracy part. Now, what is the hypothetical target that these projectiles are intended to hit accurately with force? To answer that, one needs to look at the design of the projectile. Most of the ammunition purchased by Joe Random Guy is soft or hollow. This is desirable because of the increased “man-stopping” ability. The man stopping employed by Joe Random results from a very different technique than that of the military using full metal jackets. The man-stopping ability of Joe Random’s ammunition stems from killing ability. Ammunition employed for self-defense is usually designed to do maximum practical damage to its intended target. People don’t usually want to inflict maximum possible damage to tin cans or paper targets. The target to which this ammunition is intended to inflict this damage is fleshy in nature.

Now, I must explain why your statements in this thread have made me nervous. By owning a gun that you do not believe is designed for killing, you cause me to doubt your ability to use that gun effectively. I believe that you may be a danger to yourself if you continue to insist that guns are designed to open cans as much as they are designed to kill. I suspect that you will hesitate to employ your gun in the way for which it was designed because you believe that the gun sitting idle and not being fired at a human being is meeting its full potential as a tool. I believe that this attitude of yours is a danger to me because there are others who do understand that guns are designed for killing and will not hesitate to kill you and take your unused gun. That’s one more unnecessary gun that might not be controlled responsibly.

I do not own any guns. I probably never will. However, I am willing to fight and die to defend your right to own a gun. I am counting on you in return to fight and kill, should it become necessary, to defend my right and freedom to not own a gun. Your refusal to acknowledge that your gun is a thing well designed for killing means that I couldn’t count you among the responsible, reliable people. If you are not one of them, you are one of the dangerous people.

139

Ok folks. fnord1966, trace, Mr. Zambezi, aenea, et al, I’m declaring this thread officially dead. Try as we might to have a discussion on personal weaponry, Tymp has decided to ignore our chastising of nukeman and ventured off onto his personal rant.

Tymp’s statement, “I don’t own a gun … and I’ll fight and die for your right to own one” was the last straw. (With what? Steaknives at 20 paces???)

I’ve enjoyed the discussion, but I’m outa here…

140

acording to the stopping power test they have done using animals(Strasbourg Tests), glasers most certainly do cause the damage they alledge. They and magsafe beat out every other type of bullet across the board.

Shotguns are just to long(even short riot guns), to be used effectively in every situation indoors. You come around a corner, run straight into the bad guy, and it is way to easy to get it taken way, or at least the barrel pushed out of the way while they do you harm.