If you're ever in town, let me know. I'll take you to the range.

I'll start you off with an 8 shot 22lr revolver. Less kick than a bb gun.
Then we'll move to the 9mm Glock. Comfortable to shoot.
Next, a few rounds on the 44 magnum snub nose. It'll rattle your metacarpals a bit.
Finally, we'll end with the 12 gauge shotgun with 00 buckshot. It'll break your shoulder if you're not careful.

When we're done, you'll be hooked.

In town ??
I wonder whether I can afford to travel to US. But hey who knows ?

I dunno if I want to handle a gun but it will be an experience.

I was with in a few feet of a shot gun. The military were shooting at crows as they seem to grow in no.'s out of hand in rural islands. So from time to time they thin out the numbers.
I was like 5 feet when they fired and I felt the shock wave. It was powerful indeed.
Funny part is when they start shooting the crows fly higher. As if they know the range of a shot gun. Few shots. Few birds. More shots then dead ones. They are smarter than the shooter thought I guess.

 

From the Glock website. "Can I dry fire my Glock pistol?
It is ok to dry fire your Glock pistol, but in situations where the pistol will be subjected to continuous sessions of dry firing, the use of a snap cap or dummy round is recommended."

I like their answer: "Yes, you can dry fire your Glock pistol, but don't!"

 

I like their answer: "Yes, you can dry fire your Glock pistol, but don't!"

Did you know you have to dry fire a Glock before you field strip it?

 

Did you know you have to dry fire a Glock before you field strip it?

A true paradoxical conundrum.

 

..............................
On July 1, Governor Jerry Brown signed a ban on “bullet buttons.” That ban, effective January 1, 2017, will make the AR-15 a fixed-magazine rifle until someone figures out a new way to outsmart the Democrats who work so hard to legislate law-abiding citizens into a gun-free existence. (At least one company is trying.)
.........................

I find the paranoia of gun lovers interesting.
How is limiting the fast reloading of assault weapons (which are designed is to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time) taking away their weapons?
But I suppose the collateral damage of an occasional mass killing using assault weapons is a small price to pay so every "law abiding citizen" can have his favorite unmodified military weapon because they are fun (or are they being accumulated to save us from an oppressive government ).

To be clear, I own a gun.
I just don't think the 2nd amendment means everyone can buy any type of weapon they may want without any regulation on the types of weapons or the type of ammo (the NRA goal).

 

I find the paranoia of gun lovers interesting.

There are delusional people on both sides of the gun debate as seen in the Kalifornia gun experiment.

It's not paranoia if they are actually out to get you.

 

How is limiting the fast reloading of assault weapons (which are designed is to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time) taking away their weapons?

My Glock can fire 16 rounds with a standard magazine as fast as I can pull the trigger (into a 4 in. circle at 7 yards), and I can reload in a second or so. Further, I believe I can take out more targets in a close-quarter target-rich environment than someone swinging an AR. Additionally, IMHO, it is easier to disarm someone wielding a long gun than a pistol. Finally, less than 3% of all gun murders are committed with an "assault rifle".

What problem are you trying to solve, again?

 

I was clearly not talking about "all gun murders", I was referring to mass shootings.
It warms my heart that you are so proficient with your Glock, but I doubt that most murderers are.
And who are all these "targets" you are going to "take out"?

 

There are delusional people on both sides of the gun debate as seen in the Kalifornia gun experiment.

It's not paranoia if they are actually out to get you.

And you have this feeling?

 

And who are all these "targets" you are going to "take out"?

Circles printed on A2 size paper.

I was clearly not talking about "all gun murders", I was referring to mass shootings.

Oh. My bad. Yes, you are obviously correct. Eliminating "assault rifles" will end mass shootings. I'm in.

 

And you have this feeling?

No, I was talking about the gun control groups.

 

It warms my heart that you are so proficient with your Glock, but I doubt that most murderers are.

Yet you would ban those proficient (and unlikely to mass murder) from the enjoyment of a particular class of weapon simply because you feel emotional about it? Make a rational argument -- backed up by facts and statistics -- and I might give you the honor of a hearing.

 

I don't belong to any group. And my government scares the hell out of me. It scares me that your not scared.

 

I don't belong to any group. And my government scares the hell out of me. It scares me that your not scared.

I'm not scared of government but it's a good point.

 

I don't belong to any group. And my government scares the hell out of me. It scares me that your not scared.

I'm scared of the Government but I don't think that means you need assault weapons for protection.

Yet you would ban those proficient (and unlikely to mass murder) from the enjoyment of a particular class of weapon simply because you feel emotional about it? Make a rational argument -- backed up by facts and statistics -- and I might give you the honor of a hearing.

You're so kind.
And what's your "rational" argument that citizens need to have assault weapons?
Just because they are enjoyable?

 

And what's your "rational" argument that citizens need to have assault weapons?

And what's your "rational" argument for banning one and not the other:

 

And what's your "rational" argument that citizens need to have assault weapons?

Again, a productive, rational discussion/argument/debate is impossible until you tell me what problem you are trying to solve and how banning "assault" weapons will solve it.

 

I'm scared of the Government but I don't think that means you need assault weapons for protection.

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

 

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

Repost.

 

From Joeyd999's link

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

The police departments are reactionary forces, not preventative forces. The article boils down the human interaction to two traits ... reason or force. Taking away personal weapons, of any flavor, removes protection from the force side of the equation.

Three or more people KILLED is considered the definition of mass murder. Mass shootings common definition is four or more killed or injured. This includes gang shootings. I have no doubt if some of the teachers were armed, the school shootings would drop. Gun free school zones are an invitation to apply force without receiving much resistance. Reason or Force. We remove the methods to defend against force and not amount of reason will deal with someone intent on killing. Only one way to stop force.

How many gangbangers go through the ATF prescribed proceedures when they get their 9 from the street corner? I'm thinking NONE.