View Full Version : calling all gun-nuts!
Froogleyboy
2010-03-06, 08:28 PM
Okay, my home economics teacher brought her "Shotgun News" magazine and I saw an ad selling this thing that claimed to turn your Glock into an assault rifle! does anyone know what I'm talking about, or what it's called? I'd like to know more about it.
Hell Puppi
2010-03-06, 08:31 PM
http://www.caatactical.com/viewProduct.asp?ID=267&catID=376
Is that something like what you're looking for?
Man I hope nobody is watching my google searches after that one :smalltongue:
Basically that looks like a drop-down, where you don't have to convert the actual gun. However 'assault rifle' can mean a variety of things. Actually turning your glock into a fully automatic weapon could probably be done, I just don't know if it can be done legally or without a lot of paperwork/money involved.
However getting it to look like an assault rifle would probably be pretty easy (as the case in the link). But if you're actually looking for an assault rifle I would recommend just buying something else instead of investing the money into the glock monstrosity unless you were really into it. Or you can just add a collapsible stock to the glock for added stability.
Froogleyboy
2010-03-06, 08:35 PM
http://www.caatactical.com/viewProduct.asp?ID=267&catID=376
Is that something like what you're looking for?
Man I hope nobody is watching my google searches after that one :smalltongue:
I believe that may be it, thank you :)
Cobra_Ikari
2010-03-06, 08:50 PM
Okay, my home economics teacher brought her "Shotgun News" magazine and I saw an ad selling this thing that claimed to turn your Glock into an assault rifle! does anyone know what I'm talking about, or what it's called? I'd like to know more about it.
Like converting a G17 into a G18? You can make a Glock into a machine pistol, but...assault rifle isn't possible. They're...not at all related.
I know to convert an AR-15 into an M-16, you can use an auto sear...not sure what that process entails, sorry.
EDIT: Checked out the link, and...I don't see how that's considered an assault rifle conversion. I figured in order to be an assault rifle, you had to incorporate, you know...rifling. Or rifle calibers.
Perhaps that would be considered an SMG? Looks like a crossbreed of the HALO SMG and maybe an MP7? I dunno...
[Short Barreled Rifless] may be created by trimming down a larger rifle, by building a rifle with an original barrel shorter than 16 inches, or by adding a shoulder stock to a handgun, thereby legally redefining it as a rifle rather than a handgun. Each of these processes must legally be accompanied by ATF registration.
(Note that registration requires a $200 tax stamp.)
Anyway, I think it's a poor idea. It's still an anemic handgun; the only thing you gain is better sights. For the $570+$200 just to modify the glock, you could pick up a WASR with plenty of accessories.
I know to convert an AR-15 into an M-16, you can use an auto sear...not sure what that process entails, sorry.
Mechanically, I understand it to be fairly simple. Legally, the auto sear must be NFA registered and manufactured before 1986 ($200 tax, $8,000-12,000 for the sear) unless you're a registered machine-gun dealer, MG manufacture, or LE/MIL.
Checked out the link, and...I don't see how that's considered an assault rifle conversion. I figured in order to be an assault rifle, you had to incorporate, you know...rifling. Or rifle calibers.
Assault Rifle/Weapon are mostly marketing terms nowadays.
Note that the Glock will feature rifling, and that it will be classified as a 'rifle' by the ATF on account of the stock. Which I suppose isn't too odd, considering that carbines (often in pistol calibers) are rifles.
Carbine is probably the best term for it. There's more to being an assault rifle than black polymer.
Actually turning your glock into a fully automatic weapon could probably be done, I just don't know if it can be done legally or without a lot of paperwork/money involved.
No, not in the US. No new machine-guns since 1986.
Mando Knight
2010-03-06, 09:55 PM
No, not in the US. No new machine-guns since 1986.
Unless, of course, you're a member of the armed forces or a tiny number of other organizations that have an exemption to that law... though you probably still can't get a modified Glock... those organizations tend to prefer something better, like an MP5 or M16A4.
They make lots of wonky attachments for handguns. If it replaces the barrel making it over 16'' you don't have to pay the NFA tax. Other NFA taxes would include making it fully automatic, (You also have to either set up a legal trust, an LLC, or get the sheriff to sign a legal document if you want a machinegun made sometime after the national firearms act [also these ways you don't have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for an OLD machine gun... not that I would understand why anyone would need a machine gun]) attaching a vertical foregrip, or a silencer. They are all, contrary to popular belief, legal. You just have to pay.
Other NFA taxes would include making it fully automatic, (You also have to either set up a legal trust, an LLC, or get the sheriff to sign a legal document if you want a machinegun made sometime after the national firearms act [also these ways you don't have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for an OLD machine gun... not that I would understand why anyone would need a machine gun]) attaching a vertical foregrip, or a silencer. They are all, contrary to popular belief, legal. You just have to pay.
No. You simply cannot. Not without SOT status (which requires that you be in the business of selling machine-guns to the government) or a military/law-enforcement exemption.
The NFA (1934) requires registration ($200 tax) of all new machine-guns (and SBR/SBSs and suppressors...). A transfer tax is additionally imposed. Machine-guns made prior to the act are not exempt.
Furthermore, in 1986, the FOPA prohibited the registration of new machine-guns. You simply cannot create a new, legal machine-gun for personal, civilian use. That's why pre-86 machine-guns are so expensive. The market is closed; supply shrinks through attrition, while demand increases.
Note that some or all NFA items may be illegal in your state.
Froogleyboy
2010-03-06, 11:43 PM
Then why buy them in America? I hear China's got a nice buisness with AKs
The above laws apply to possession. Even if you're not the one that made it, possession of an unregistered machine gun is a serious crime.
Also, importation of all NFA items was banned in 1968, absent some sporting purpose.
Thus, it's not as if you can just buy and import a Chinese made machine-gun to evade the NFA.
There is also the CornerShot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CornerShot)
No. You simply cannot. Not without SOT status (which requires that you be in the business of selling machine-guns to the government) or a military/law-enforcement exemption.
The NFA (1934) requires registration ($200 tax) of all new machine-guns (and SBR/SBSs and suppressors...). A transfer tax is additionally imposed. Machine-guns made prior to the act are not exempt.
Furthermore, in 1986, the FOPA prohibited the registration of new machine-guns. You simply cannot create a new, legal machine-gun for personal, civilian use. That's why pre-86 machine-guns are so expensive. The market is closed; supply shrinks through attrition, while demand increases.
Note that some or all NFA items may be illegal in your state.
You can get around the class 3 SOT with a business such as an LLC or trust. Here (http://www.jacksonvillelawyer.pro/lawyer-attorney-1315473.html) is an example of the legal language for Florida. They are completely non-transferable. I have a friend with one, I've used it, I've seen the papers. And, while he is a little... err... off(I feel so bad for his wife) He does things by the book. It is basically a loophole in the 86 act language.
Erloas
2010-03-07, 12:00 AM
There seems to be some confusion on terms here. A machine gun is not an assault rifle. Also what is generally termed assault rifle is only really an assault rifle if it is fully automatic.
Note that even though a machine gun is fully automatic and so is an assault rifle, they are not the same thing and the rules to owning them are not the same.
There are guns like the AR-15 and AK-47 (to use well known examples) that have both a fully automatic and a semi-automatic version. Most people call both versions assault rifles, but in a legal sense only the fully automatic versions are considered assault rifles.
I know that there are some versions of those guns that were very easy to change to fully automatic, but the government made them change the mechanisms in them so it was hard/impossible to change to fully automatic in newer versions. But there are other things like hellfire triggers which are legal and basically make it fire like it was fully automatic but doesn't actually based on legal definitions. Hellfire triggers are legal to own and use (at least in many states) because of the way they function.
Owning a gun such as an AK-47 is actually incredibly easy to do and rather cheap at that. I know last summer I saw a place that had a cheap brand for like $450 and basically had a pallets worth they were selling. My brother has an AK-47, its a fun gun to shoot, and about the cheapest thing you can get besides a .22. In fact, not being a handgun I don't even think they have the waiting period to buy them (at least in some states).
You can get around the class 3 SOT with a business such as an LLC or trust. Here (http://www.jacksonvillelawyer.pro/lawyer-attorney-1315473.html) is an example of the legal language for Florida. They are completely non-transferable. I have a friend with one, I've used it, I've seen the papers. And, while he is a little... err... off(I feel so bad for his wife) He does things by the book. It is basically a loophole in the 86 act language.
The LLC or trust lets you own NFA items if your local CLEO refuses to sign off on the item. There are also advantages in the event of the death of the trustee. Such items must still be registered. Post 1986 weapons are still totally prohibited. (If your friend does, in fact, own a post 1986 machine-gun, it's a crime, and he needs a new lawyer. I have no interest in discussing this possibility further, and am just going to assume that you are mistaken.)
Froogleyboy
2010-03-07, 12:08 AM
I love Ak-47s, they are one of my favorites, I prefer a Mare's Leg, though
Owning a gun such as an AK-47 is actually incredibly easy to do and rather cheap at that. I know last summer I saw a place that had a cheap brand for like $450 and basically had a pallets worth they were selling. My brother has an AK-47, its a fun gun to shoot, and about the cheapest thing you can get besides a .22. In fact, not being a handgun I don't even think they have the waiting period to buy them (at least in some states).
Do you know what particular model? Has he had any issues with it? When I graduate in a few years, I'll be in the market for several guns, and a sufficiently cheap AK* might be an alternative to a CMP Garand for my first semi-auto rifle. I'd like a bolt gun for target shooting, anyway, so the superior accuracy of the Garand shouldn't be a deciding factor.
Flickerdart
2010-03-07, 12:15 AM
Assault Rifle/Weapon are mostly marketing terms nowadays.
And not to be confused with assault guns, which are a different thing entirely and also much more awesome.
Mando Knight
2010-03-07, 12:27 AM
Also, importation of all NFA items was banned in 1968, absent some sporting purpose.
Thus, it's not as if you can just buy and import a Chinese made machine-gun to evade the NFA.
Yeah... I imagine that importing a proper assault weapon (whether or not it's legally an "assault weapon") would be harder than purchasing one domestically.
I know a guy with... I believe, a WWII-era Sturmgewehr.
I'd like a bolt gun for target shooting, anyway, so the superior accuracy of the Garand shouldn't be a deciding factor.
If it's bolt-action you're looking for, then you're not looking for an AK.
The link provided by Hell Puppi doesn't look like it would break any laws since it's basically a casing for the gun itself. It's not attached, but holding and aiding in the firing of the gun (you can see the silencer bounce up and down as the guy in the video fires the gun). I don't think you'd need a permit for it, but I'm not a guy to go to for American laws.
I know a guy with... I believe, a WWII-era Sturmgewehr.
That is very awesome if true.
If it's bolt-action you're looking for, then you're not looking for an AK.
Oh, I know that. What I mean is that I plan to get a bolt-action rifle (probably a Lee Enfield, or possibly something in .22LR for the cheap ammo) in addition to a semi-automatic rifle of some sort. The inferior accuracy of the Kalashnakov pattern rifles is thus irrelevant; if I want to shoot tight groups, I'll use the other gun.
5.45 (AK-74) ammo is probably the best deal on the market in a decade. You can hoard away that stuff on the cheap. It is also super corrosive so you NEED a chrome lined barrel and should clean it every time you shoot. (As blasphemous as it is to clean an AK :smalltongue:) The accuracy of a bolt action really only comes into play at decently long distances with an expensive scope. If you are hunting certain game it can be useful, or if you competitively shoot it is essential. For me it isn't necessary. I have a fancy AR-15 build that shoots nice and accurately at short-mid range, and my fathers Remington 700 for hunting/longer shots. Been looking at a LaRue OBR but the price just went up $500 this year and with optics it would cost over $5000 :smallyuk:
Mando Knight
2010-03-07, 12:51 AM
That is very awesome if true.
I know he's got some kind of automatic rifle of German make, I'm just not sure which German rifle he's got.
I know he's got some kind of automatic rifle of German make, I'm just not sure which German rifle he's got.
Sounds like either an StG 44, VG 1-5, or FG 42. The later two are exceedingly rare. Some searching brings up a FG 42 that sold for $75,000; I can't find any mention of a NFA VG 1-5; quite possibly none exist. So probably the StG 44. Again, that's very cool.
skywalker
2010-03-07, 03:09 AM
Moral of this story: Froogleboy's Home Ec teacher is awesome, and more Home Ec teachers need to bring their issues of Shotgun News to class.
drakir_nosslin
2010-03-07, 06:26 AM
http://www.caatactical.com/viewProduct.asp?ID=267&catID=376
I lol'd. Why on earth would anyone use that?
Erloas
2010-03-07, 10:13 AM
Do you know what particular model? Has he had any issues with it? When I graduate in a few years, I'll be in the market for several guns, and a sufficiently cheap AK* might be an alternative to a CMP Garand for my first semi-auto rifle. I'd like a bolt gun for target shooting, anyway, so the superior accuracy of the Garand shouldn't be a deciding factor.
I don't off-hand, though I could ask him and get the information. When he first got it someone told my dad he should sell it right away before it has a chance to break because it was a cheap brand. (tangent in spoilers)
(story I don't know all the parts to, but a friend had bought it when he had a good job then subsequently pawned it when he lost that job. But he pawned it and a 9mm under my brothers name, so my brother and dad got them out of pawn because they knew they were worth more then what they were pawned for, in fact he sold the 9mm for about 80% of what he paid to get both the 9mm and AK out of pawn)
A few months ago my brother took it down to a shooting range in Phoenix and was talking to someone about it and they said it was a good and reliable brand. So someone didn't know what they were talking about, I'm wondering if the first person just wanted to try and get it cheap.
At any rate he has had it for probably 6-8 years now and we haven't had any issues with it at all. Just doing some routine maintenance and thats it.
I can get the brand if you want to know what it is.
As for accuracy, it seems pretty good at fairly close range, but neither of us are good enough shots at long range with open sites to say how accurate it is there, seeing as how the problem could more easily be us then the gun and we haven't been terribly interested in long range shooting with it anyway. In general from what I've heard AKs aren't the most accurate for assault rifles.
Kurien
2010-03-07, 11:30 AM
On a related note, what are the advantages and disadvantages of pistol grip stocks vs. straight or conventional stocks? One of the criteria for an assault weapon based the the US Federal Assault Weapons Ban was pistol grips, right? Is it better than a straight stock?
Can you use a stabilizing sling with a vertical foregrip?
Based on experience, how long will the illuminated reticle of a reflex sight last on one battery (not recharged)?
Renegade Paladin
2010-03-07, 12:13 PM
I lol'd. Why on earth would anyone use that?
The word "tacticool" comes to mind. :smalltongue:
On a related note, what are the advantages and disadvantages of pistol grip stocks vs. straight or conventional stocks? One of the criteria for an assault weapon based the the US Federal Assault Weapons Ban was pistol grips, right? Is it better than a straight stock?
Okay, let's get something straight right now. The AWB banned guns that look scary. It had absolutely nothing to do with the efficacy of the weapons. It was entirely possible to have two guns with identical firing characteristics but one was legal and the other not because the one that wasn't had black finish and a bayonet lug. :smallyuk:
At any rate he has had it for probably 6-8 years now and we haven't had any issues with it at all. Just doing some routine maintenance and thats it.
I can get the brand if you want to know what it is.
If it's not any trouble, I'd appreciate that.
Solaris
2010-03-07, 03:28 PM
The word "tacticool" comes to mind. :smalltongue:
Yeah, that's only something a poser geardo would pick up. I just don't see how it could possibly not suck.
Okay, let's get something straight right now. The AWB banned guns that look scary. It had absolutely nothing to do with the efficacy of the weapons. It was entirely possible to have two guns with identical firing characteristics but one was legal and the other not because the one that wasn't had black finish and a bayonet lug. :smallyuk:
Banned, emphasis on past tense. Your local state laws may vary, but there's no longer a federal prohibition against being able to purchase assault weapons.
Not that I'd recommend picking up an assault rifle*. They're not the best things for home defense, whereas a .20-gauge shotgun will blow big holes in people but not penetrate too many walls.
*: I'm using military definitions, 'cause the civilian legalese is just plain stoopid. We tend to use definitions like the legal definition of pr0n - you can't define it, but you know it when you see it.
CollinPhillips
2010-03-07, 06:54 PM
Not that I'd recommend picking up an assault rifle*. They're not the best things for home defense, whereas a .20-gauge shotgun will blow big holes in people but not penetrate too many walls.
Did you confuse gauge and caliber?
Gauge is the bore measurement based on the diameter on a sphere of lead's value expressed as a fraction of a pound. The bore of .20 gauge shotgun would have a diameter the size of a five pound ball of lead!
skywalker
2010-03-07, 07:07 PM
On a related note, what are the advantages and disadvantages of pistol grip stocks vs. straight or conventional stocks? One of the criteria for an assault weapon based the the US Federal Assault Weapons Ban was pistol grips, right? Is it better than a straight stock?
Pistol grips, bayonet lugs, removable magazines, folding stock, flash suppressors... oh, and barrels that could be used to launch rifle grenades (yes, that is seemingly a crazy non sequitur. I don't get it either).
In fact, a pistol grip is more useful. It allows the barrel and stock to form a straight line into the shoulder, which helps with recoil and improves accuracy, it allows the barrel to be longer for a given overall length, and the grip is more natural for a lot of people. It also allows a safer (because you present less of a target with your elbow tucked in) and more stable (again because your elbow is closer to and in some cases touching your ribs) posture.
The word "tacticool" comes to mind. :smalltongue:
BattleMug (http://shop.hero-gear.com/browse.cfm/battlemug/4,358.html) is my favorite tacticool device.
The AWB also restricted magazines with a capacity higher than 10.
In my experience a pistol grip is easier to fire standing, while a more conventional stock is easier to fire prone. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.
Why would I want to give away the one advantage of a handgun, that it is small and easy to conceal? And what on earth would I want with an AK-47?
Eldan
2010-03-08, 03:29 AM
I really need more sleep. I read the title as "nun-guts".
Yes.
Renegade Paladin
2010-03-08, 03:54 AM
Banned, emphasis on past tense. Your local state laws may vary, but there's no longer a federal prohibition against being able to purchase assault weapons.
Hence my consistent use of the past tense when referring to it. Also, the term "assault weapon" is meaningless, but I suspect you know that.
Why would I want to give away the one advantage of a handgun, that it is small and easy to conceal?
No idea.
And what on earth would I want with an AK-47?
Because they're fun to shoot. :smallbiggrin:
Why would I want to give away the one advantage of a handgun, that it is small and easy to conceal?
To be charitable, it does give you a more accurate platform with a full rail while maintaining compatibility with existing magazines. The Sub 2000 offers the same, though, and again, cheaper.
I guess it could be a good purchase for civilians who own a Glock 18 machine-pistol and don't want to put down $4000-$10,000 for a real submachine gun.
Solaris
2010-03-08, 11:39 AM
Hence my consistent use of the past tense when referring to it. Also, the term "assault weapon" is meaningless, but I suspect you know that.
I figured you did, I was just making sure the audience knows.
A'course it is. Terms without definition are great for banning anything you want.
Because they're fun to shoot. :smallbiggrin:
Certain people have turned me off of the AK-series.
Mando Knight
2010-03-08, 01:03 PM
Why would I want to give away the one advantage of a handgun, that it is small and easy to conceal?
I dunno. Ask Smith & Wesson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26W_Model_500).
hamishspence
2010-03-08, 01:30 PM
Did you confuse gauge and caliber?
Gauge is the bore measurement based on the diameter on a sphere of lead's value expressed as a fraction of a pound. The bore of .20 gauge shotgun would have a diameter the size of a five pound ball of lead!
Gauge is inversely proportional to size.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_(bore_diameter))
A 20 gauge shotgun is a fairly small one. A 10 gauge shotgun is a big one.
I think he meant 20 gauge, not 0.20 gauge.
CollinPhillips
2010-03-08, 02:16 PM
Gauge is inversely proportional to size.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_(bore_diameter))
Which is why a .20 gauge shotgun, 1/5gauge would be HUGE.
You can get a Kalashnikov pattern handgun. Look into the Draco.
thorgrim29
2010-03-08, 08:01 PM
You know.... You people scare me a bit... Why the hell would you want an assault rifle, or even a pistol, as a civilian?
Also, to stay on topic, the battlemug is awesome.
You know.... You people scare me a bit... Why the hell would you want an assault rifle, or even a pistol, as a civilian?
Also, to stay on topic, the battlemug is awesome.
Because I can. :smalltongue:
(Or, will be able to when I'm out of college and California, anyway).
Personally, I find pistol shooting more fun than riflery. So, that's one reason to own a pistol.
Guns in general are fun. They're noisy, mechanically fascinating, and require considerable skill and focus to shoot well.
Everything else is possibly too political, but my PM box is open if you want to discuss it further.
If it's any reassurance, the people who are conscientious about obeying the local laws w.r.t. firearms ownership are probably the least of your worries. There are exceptions, of course, but it's very unlikely that any of us here will ever abuse firearms.
Erloas
2010-03-08, 09:07 PM
You know.... You people scare me a bit... Why the hell would you want an assault rifle, or even a pistol, as a civilian?
Well its kind of one of those things that you either get or don't get and its not really something to explain. Same way you could find a big portion of the population that would ask why someone would play a game like D&D or why some people like rock climbing in jeeps. You could ask why people decide to make chainmail, or collect swords or 100000s other things that don't have a practical real world use.
Its as much a hobby as anything else.
thorgrim29
2010-03-08, 09:58 PM
To shoot at a range, as a sport, yeah, sure, I can see it, and I'd like to do it someday(and technically I can since I passed the canadian gun safety class), tough I'm not sure I have it in me to go hunting. But then people start talking about which one you can carry on you in the streets, ans what's best for home protection, and then I get a bit confused. Because seriously, if you're in a situation where you need a gun to protect yourself (and you're not a soldier or some kind of cop), you probably need to get a safer life, not a gun.
Scratch that. I'm probably being too political.
skywalker
2010-03-08, 10:31 PM
You know.... You people scare me a bit... Why the hell would you want an assault rifle, or even a pistol, as a civilian?
Oh sweet merciful [deity] no. Why did you have to do this?
To shoot at a range, as a sport, yeah, sure, I can see it, and I'd like to do it someday(and technically I can since I passed the canadian gun safety class), tough I'm not sure I have it in me to go hunting. But then people start talking about which one you can carry on you in the streets, ans what's best for home protection, and then I get a bit confused. Because seriously, if you're in a situation where you need a gun to protect yourself (and you're not a soldier or some kind of cop), you probably need to get a safer life, not a gun.
Because no-one ever invades the homes in the "good" "safe" neighborhoods. It couldn't be that those people are more likely to have nicer stuff, so their homes are even more likely targets. Those NFL players who get killed in their multi-million dollar Miami homes or robbed on their way out of the stadium (it has happened) need to get safer lives. Yeah.
Scratch that. I'm probably being too political.
I disagree. This discussion has been had before. You didn't make any statements about how something should be, or should be made to be. You just applied statistics to an argument.
EDIT: Also, is "you people scare me" really the best way to go about starting a conversation?
thorgrim29
2010-03-08, 10:32 PM
Anyway, not gonna solve that debate on a forum (or, well, ever I guess), so I'll let you guys return to your hobby. Sorry to have butted in.
And yeah, in retrospect that wasn't the best thing.... It was however meant as a joke, stupid internet not conveying emotions
Solaris
2010-03-08, 10:45 PM
Oh sweet merciful [deity] no. Why did you have to do this?
Because no-one ever invades the homes in the "good" "safe" neighborhoods. It couldn't be that those people are more likely to have nicer stuff, so their homes are even more likely targets. Those NFL players who get killed in their multi-million dollar Miami homes or robbed on their way out of the stadium (it has happened) need to get safer lives. Yeah.
I disagree. This discussion has been had before. You didn't make any statements about how something should be, or should be made to be. You just applied statistics to an argument.
EDIT: Also, is "you people scare me" really the best way to go about starting a conversation?
I'm inclined to agree with the points Skywalker made. My dad didn't pick up a shotgun because he lives in a bad neighborhood, he picked up a shotgun because the folks who make the bad neighborhoods have cars.
CollinPhillips
2010-03-08, 10:49 PM
Anyway, not gonna solve that debate on a forum (or, well, ever I guess), so I'll let you guys return to your hobby. Sorry to have butted in.
And yeah, in retrospect that wasn't the best thing.... It was however meant as a joke, stupid internet not conveying emotions
It is a lifestyle, not a hobby.
Well, there certainly are gun owners who scare me. Go to any indoor range and take a look at the ceiling tiles... :smalleek:
I've got relatives who I think are sort of out-there for stockpiling guns and ammo (not that I'm opposed to that in general, but I think little of their particular reason for doing so). I guess they're moderately alarming.
Or Mr. York's "sputter gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputter_Gun)." That's just a terrible idea for so many reasons.
But really, most of us are friendly and responsible. The mental state of any gun owner is far, far more important than the sort of gun they own. A robber with a derringer will do more harm than I ever would with a machine-gun (though the sputter-gun is still a bad idea).
JonestheSpy
2010-03-09, 03:04 AM
The mental state of any gun owner is far, far more important than the sort of gun they own.
Which is why it's so great that a crazy person or criminal can't just walk into a gun show and buy an armload of lethal weapons.
Oh, wait.
CollinPhillips
2010-03-09, 03:33 AM
Which is why it's so great that a crazy person or criminal can't just walk into a gun show and buy an armload of lethal weapons.
Oh, wait.
Look at it this way, there is a parallel universe where you're right!
:smallsigh:
Myth: Gun shows are supermarkets for criminals
Fact: Only 0.7% of convicts bought their firearms at gun shows. 39.2% obtained them from illegal street dealers.191
Fact: Less than 1% of “crime guns” were obtained at gun shows192. This is a reduction from a 1997 study that found 1.7% - 2% of guns used in criminal offenses were purchased at gun shows.193
Fact: The FBI concluded in one study that no firearms acquired at gun shows were used to kill cops. “In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study were obtained
from gun shows.”194
Fact: Only 5% of metropolitan police departments believe gun shows are a problem.195
Fact: Only 3.5% of youthful offenders reported that they obtained their last handgun at a gun show.196
Fact: 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally (i.e., not at gun stores or gun shows).197
Fact: At most, 14% of all firearms traced in investigations were purchased at gun
shows.198 But this includes all firearms that the police traced, regardless of if they were used in crimes or not, which overstates the acquisition rate.
Fact: Gun dealers are federally licensed. They are bound to stringent rules for sales that apply equally whether they are dealing from a storefront or a gun show.199
Fact: Most crime guns are either bought off the street from illegal sources (39.2%) or through family members or friends (39.6%).200
190 Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers, U.S.
Department of Justice, August 2006
191 Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 2002
192 Ibid
193 Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities, National Institute of Justice, December 1997
194 Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers, U.S.
Department of Justice, August 2006
195 On the Front Line: Making Gun Interdiction Work, Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, February
1998, survey of 37 police departments in large cities
196 Patterns in Gun Acquisition and Use by Youthful Offenders in Michigan, Timothy S. Bynum, Todd G.
Beitzel, Tracy A. O’Connell & Sean P. Varano, 1999
197 BATF, 1999
198 BATF, June 2000, covers only July 1996 through December 1998
199 BATF, 2000
200 Firearm use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001
In any case, look at the UK, where they generally can obtain guns (either illegal imports or illegally constructed) on the blackmarket anyway.
My reasons for really caring strongly about gun ownership are purely political in nature. Thus I'm not going to delve into them here.
My point, though, it that you can at least calm down about us. What's possibly wrong with anyone owning an arsenal in a legal and responsible manner?
Erloas
2010-03-09, 12:23 PM
But then people start talking about which one you can carry on you in the streets, ans what's best for home protection, and then I get a bit confused. Because seriously, if you're in a situation where you need a gun to protect yourself (and you're not a soldier or some kind of cop), you probably need to get a safer life, not a gun.
Its as much a personal excuse as anything. Its one part wanting to be a hero and one part justifying a (possibly) fairly large expense. You get people thinking how great it would be to stop or drive off a criminal, and it doesn't matter if its with a gun, a weeks worth of karate, that knife they were using to cut up onions the other night, a baseball bat for their kids little league, or that sword they bought at a ren fair.
The other part is generally justifying the cost, generally to a wife (though not always) and the "family safety" thing is always a good way to go because its easy. Or why they need a new car, because its safer then the old one, or why they need a really big truck instead. Its the same way people justify getting those new power tools to make something the other person could actually use despite the fact that they didn't do it with the other 6 tools they bought with the same justification. Or exceptionally expensive cooking appliances, or lots of other things.
The chances of being mugged is pretty small, and even if you were, generally the mugger takes away the option of pulling out a weapon of your own anyway.
The chance of someone breaking into your house is also very small. Also considering most criminals will make sure people are gone before breaking in means the chance of you being able to defend it is even slimmer. And most criminals will run away as soon as they know they've been noticed whether or not they know if/what the owner is armed with.
Solaris
2010-03-09, 12:33 PM
Look at it this way, there is a parallel universe where you're right!
:smallsigh:
Myth: Gun shows are supermarkets for criminals
Fact: Only 0.7% of convicts bought their firearms at gun shows. 39.2% obtained them from illegal street dealers.191
Fact: Less than 1% of “crime guns” were obtained at gun shows192. This is a reduction from a 1997 study that found 1.7% - 2% of guns used in criminal offenses were purchased at gun shows.193
Fact: The FBI concluded in one study that no firearms acquired at gun shows were used to kill cops. “In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study were obtained
from gun shows.”194
Fact: Only 5% of metropolitan police departments believe gun shows are a problem.195
Fact: Only 3.5% of youthful offenders reported that they obtained their last handgun at a gun show.196
Fact: 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally (i.e., not at gun stores or gun shows).197
Fact: At most, 14% of all firearms traced in investigations were purchased at gun
shows.198 But this includes all firearms that the police traced, regardless of if they were used in crimes or not, which overstates the acquisition rate.
Fact: Gun dealers are federally licensed. They are bound to stringent rules for sales that apply equally whether they are dealing from a storefront or a gun show.199
Fact: Most crime guns are either bought off the street from illegal sources (39.2%) or through family members or friends (39.6%).200
190 Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers, U.S.
Department of Justice, August 2006
191 Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 2002
192 Ibid
193 Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities, National Institute of Justice, December 1997
194 Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers, U.S.
Department of Justice, August 2006
195 On the Front Line: Making Gun Interdiction Work, Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, February
1998, survey of 37 police departments in large cities
196 Patterns in Gun Acquisition and Use by Youthful Offenders in Michigan, Timothy S. Bynum, Todd G.
Beitzel, Tracy A. O’Connell & Sean P. Varano, 1999
197 BATF, 1999
198 BATF, June 2000, covers only July 1996 through December 1998
199 BATF, 2000
200 Firearm use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001
As it turns out, people who buy guns legally tend to do legal things with them. People who don't, don't.
Its as much a personal excuse as anything. Its one part wanting to be a hero and one part justifying a (possibly) fairly large expense. You get people thinking how great it would be to stop or drive off a criminal, and it doesn't matter if its with a gun, a weeks worth of karate, that knife they were using to cut up onions the other night, a baseball bat for their kids little league, or that sword they bought at a ren fair.
The other part is generally justifying the cost, generally to a wife (though not always) and the "family safety" thing is always a good way to go because its easy. Or why they need a new car, because its safer then the old one, or why they need a really big truck instead. Its the same way people justify getting those new power tools to make something the other person could actually use despite the fact that they didn't do it with the other 6 tools they bought with the same justification. Or exceptionally expensive cooking appliances, or lots of other things.
The chances of being mugged is pretty small, and even if you were, generally the mugger takes away the option of pulling out a weapon of your own anyway.
The chance of someone breaking into your house is also very small. Also considering most criminals will make sure people are gone before breaking in means the chance of you being able to defend it is even slimmer. And most criminals will run away as soon as they know they've been noticed whether or not they know if/what the owner is armed with.
Odds are pretty small of getting into a car wreck, but that doesn't stop me from putting on a seat belt.
That said, I don't go walking down main street with a pistol on my hip.
Speak for yourself.
I personally cannot imagine anything worse than being helpless at gunpoint or knifepoint and tortured, raped, or killed. If attacked, I at least want to die fighting. It's better than being helpless.
Look at Matthew Sheppard. Brandon Teena. Matson and Mowder. There are people in this world who would love nothing more than to kill me in horrible ways. Carrying a gun won't necessarily prevent this, but it may transform hours of torture into a quick shootout. That I consider to be worth it. It's certainly better than hoping for mercy.
Edit:
On the matter of expense, I should note also that I don't currently own a gun. I'm waiting until I can purchase and carry one legally, primarily to carry. If I wanted to shoot paper, I'd buy a .22, but that will take a back seat to a suitable SD handgun. I furthermore plan to take a CCW class when I turn 21 solely so I can carry. I'm planning to burn a fair bit of money so I can carry; not to carry because I've sunk money in it.
And today, I carry a knife. It's not a nice knife--a $7 min-paraframe--but I did decide to buy it for self defense, and I have hardly any money sunken into it. There's no need to justify that, yet I carry it anyway.
skywalker
2010-03-09, 12:59 PM
Its as much a personal excuse as anything. Its one part wanting to be a hero and one part justifying a (possibly) fairly large expense. You get people thinking how great it would be to stop or drive off a criminal, and it doesn't matter if its with a gun, a weeks worth of karate, that knife they were using to cut up onions the other night, a baseball bat for their kids little league, or that sword they bought at a ren fair.
Or, they could have rationally decided that taking their safety into their own hands (which is the only way you can guarantee it) was worth the potential costs (legal, emotional, and moral implications of self-defense). Some of us went to karate for more than a week. Some of us do a lot of research and consideration on the subject. It wouldn't be "great" to kill someone who was threatening me with death, but it would be better than dying.
The chances of being mugged is pretty small, and even if you were, generally the mugger takes away the option of pulling out a weapon of your own anyway.
The chance of someone breaking into your house is also very small. Also considering most criminals will make sure people are gone before breaking in means the chance of you being able to defend it is even slimmer. And most criminals will run away as soon as they know they've been noticed whether or not they know if/what the owner is armed with.
This is ridiculous. A small chance is not a zero chance. There was only a small chance that the failure modes that killed Challenger and Columbia would occur. The engineers said "the chance is pretty small," and it killed 7 astronauts each time. I personally don't care whether or not you act on that chance, but I won't be insulted or belittled because I make a conscious, rational choice to protect myself from potential harm.
As for an attacker eliminating drawing your weapon as an option, I will go directly against this:
Speak for yourself.
And let RS14 speak for me:
I personally cannot imagine anything worse than being helpless at gunpoint or knifepoint and tortured, raped, or killed. If attacked, I at least want to die fighting. It's better than being helpless.
Look at Matthew Sheppard. Brandon Teena. Matson and Mowder. There are people in this world who would love nothing more than to kill me in horrible ways. Carrying a gun won't necessarily prevent this, but it may transform hours of torture into a quick shootout. That I consider to be worth it. It's certainly better than hoping for mercy.
+1 million.
ApeofLight
2010-03-09, 01:06 PM
Personally I would prefer to have a way to defend myself from attackers of any sort than to rely on the police or others.
Even if there is a small chance of being attacked it's still a chance.
And what if your a parent with your kids on a walk through the park or at home when you get robbed. I would want a way to protect my kids/family from anyone or anything that would want to hurt them/me.
Asta Kask
2010-03-09, 01:30 PM
You know.... You people scare me a bit... Why the hell would you want an assault rifle, or even a pistol, as a civilian?
Also, to stay on topic, the battlemug is awesome.
To hunt ducks. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUiTBC0AfVE)
Yes, I know it's neither an assault rifle or a pistol. But it's awesome.
Erloas
2010-03-09, 01:31 PM
Odds are pretty small of getting into a car wreck, but that doesn't stop me from putting on a seat belt.
That said, I don't go walking down main street with a pistol on my hip.
Of course your odds of getting into a car wreck are probably orders of magnitude higher then your chances of needing a gun for self defense.
I own a handgun, and while I know it can be used for self defense, I also know that the chance of ever needing it are astronomically low. If you really do live in a place where that isn't the case then the safest thing to do is move, because as any self defense training will tell you, avoidance is a much more reliable and safer means of dealing with those situations.
Would the idea of self defense make picking a particular weapon easier and make some more practical then others? Absolutely. But if you think spending $500-1000 on a gun will net you the most personal protection for the money and that is the one and only reason you are getting a gun then you could put that money to use in ways that will give you more practical safety (something much more likely to happen then an armed robbery).
The thing about being held at gunpoint (or even knifepoint) is that no matter what you have for a personal defense weapon, if the attacker has any sense at all you wouldn't even get the chance to get to that weapon. They've already got their weapon out and ready to use the instant you start to reach for your own. At that point you're basically at the point of no return and anything you try to do is more likely to make things much worse much quicker then if you did nothing at all.
Actually your most likely time to ever use a weapon for personal defense is when it is happening to someone else and you see it happening and can intervene. Because then you are catching the criminal off-guard and they won't be able to see your actions until you are ready.
There are of course some times when it might come up, but its probably more akin to being struck by lighting then something worth worrying about.
hamishspence
2010-03-09, 01:34 PM
And what if your a parent with your kids on a walk through the park or at home when you get robbed. I would want a way to protect my kids/family from anyone or anything that would want to hurt them/me.
problem is- there is a risk of the kids getting hold of them, and having an accident.
What are the statistics on accidental death from guns in the home?
problem is- there is a risk of the kids getting hold of them, and having an accident.
What are the statistics on accidental death from guns in the home?
If you have guns around, keep them in a safe or on your person.
Also effective is teaching your kids not to play with guns. As soon as they're old enough to understand, teach them that guns are dangerous, and not toys. Explain that they can handle them only with your permission, and that if they're curious, to just tell you so that you can supervise them.
Once they're old enough to shoot, teach them the four rules.
This should eliminate most problems. It has the added advantage of encouraging responsible behavior if the child is at a friends house where guns are not stored securely.
I'm not sure about the statistics of accidental shootings, though. Generally there is some failure of the above system, from what I've read.
Erloas, I'm not trying to ignore you; it's just that I have a paper I should be writing, and so I'm not going to respond to your post right now.
skywalker
2010-03-09, 01:49 PM
Would the idea of self defense make picking a particular weapon easier and make some more practical then others? Absolutely. But if you think spending $500-1000 on a gun will net you the most personal protection for the money and that is the one and only reason you are getting a gun then you could put that money to use in ways that will give you more practical safety (something much more likely to happen then an armed robbery).
What could I possibly spend $500 on that would give me more flexibility and offer protection in more situations than a good quality handgun?
The thing about being held at gunpoint (or even knifepoint) is that no matter what you have for a personal defense weapon, if the attacker has any sense at all you wouldn't even get the chance to get to that weapon. They've already got their weapon out and ready to use the instant you start to reach for your own. At that point you're basically at the point of no return and anything you try to do is more likely to make things much worse much quicker then if you did nothing at all.
If all they're planning to do is rob you. But there are lots of situations (like those RS14 pointed out) where things get much better much quicker even if what happens is you die quickly.
EDIT:
problem is- there is a risk of the kids getting hold of them, and having an accident.
What are the statistics on accidental death from guns in the home?
Supposedly, there are around 1500 accidental firearms deaths in the US each year. Also supposedly, it is sometimes hard to figure out just how many of these were actually accidents, because sometimes the coroner will rule a suicide was an accidental death (IE, you were cleaning it and shot yourself) to save a person's image, make the family feel better, etc. This makes it harder to exactly quantify.
Very few children are killed each year, I would imagine. Primarily because people are very careful when it comes to their kids. I can think of one woman who shot her son accidentally, but through a gross breach of "the rules of firearm safety." Just as you are far more likely to have a car accident than to be mugged, you are far more likely to have a car accident than a gun accident, I wager even per capita. Making a point of idiots who do stupid things with guns is the same as making a point of idiots who do stupid things with cars, tho.
Asta Kask
2010-03-09, 01:49 PM
If you have guns around, keep them in a safe or on your person.
Also effective is teaching your kids not to play with guns. As soon as they're old enough to understand, teach them that guns are dangerous, and not toys. Explain that they can handle them only with your permission, and that if they're curious, to just tell you so that you can supervise them.
You've got it all wrong. What you do is - you take the shock collar and place it around their neck. Then you show them a gun, and a lollipop. Each time they reach for the gun, you zap them. Each time they reach for the lollipop, you zap them (it'll destroy their teeth). Then you do the same thing with beers and prostitutes.
CollinPhillips
2010-03-09, 01:52 PM
problem is- there is a risk of the kids getting hold of them, and having an accident.
What are the statistics on accidental death from guns in the home?
Fewer than 2% of all unintentional injury deaths for children in the U.S. between ages 0-14 are from firearms.
Injury Facts ,National Safety Council, , 1999
Now I know the plural of anecdote is not datum, but from the time I was five until the time I was twelve, my stepfather routinely kept loaded firearms around the house, in plain view or in some odd places, such as under my bed, under the couch, taped to the underside of the dinner table, behind the TV etc. Somehow I managed to survive to age 23 without accidentally injuring or killing myself and as a child, I was far from the paragon of intelligence.
Erloas
2010-03-09, 02:47 PM
What could I possibly spend $500 on that would give me more flexibility and offer protection in more situations than a good quality handgun?
What I meant was, doing something like making sure the tires on all your vehicles are well maintained will reduce the chance of injury or death to your family more then owning a gun. Installing motion detection lights and high quality locks on doors and windows to deter intruders would probably be more practical. Having very good safety gear for kids riding bikes, roller skaing, etc. Buying a very high quality first aid kit to have with you in your car and while doing things like camping are going to do more to protect your family then having a gun. In most cases you are protecting them from something different then what a gun is, but you are also protecting them from something that is much more likely to happen.
When you look at all the ways people get injured and killed in every day life, the amount of those that involve attackers or in any way could have been prevented by a gun is such a very minor part of it. Its one of the things people seem to worry about the most, but that doesn't mean it is in any way the most dangerous.
Nothing wrong with owning a gun, they do have their uses, but its pretty much just recreational. Buy them for that purpose, and not for the off chance you might actually use it for personal defense. Of course it does make some people feel safer, which is worth something even if it isn't a completely rational reason why. The big part with either aspect is that if you are going to own one, be very familiar with it, be comfortable with it, and treat it with respect. Someone that owns a gun just for self defense but isn't comfortable enough to use it in those sorts of high stress situations is probably going to create more problems then it solves.
CollinPhillips
2010-03-09, 02:57 PM
Nothing wrong with owning a gun, they do have their uses, but its pretty much just recreational. Buy them for that purpose, and not for the off chance you might actually use it for personal defense. Of course it does make some people feel safer, which is worth something even if it isn't a completely rational reason why. The big part with either aspect is that if you are going to own one, be very familiar with it, be comfortable with it, and treat it with respect. Someone that owns a gun just for self defense but isn't comfortable enough to use it in those sorts of high stress situations is probably going to create more problems then it solves.
Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995
So there are 2,500,00 instances every year of people doing their best Dirty Harry impersonation for recreational purposes?:smallconfused:
What I meant was, doing something like making sure the tires on all your vehicles are well maintained will reduce the chance of injury or death to your family more then owning a gun. Installing motion detection lights and high quality locks on doors and windows to deter intruders would probably be more practical. Having very good safety gear for kids riding bikes, roller skaing, etc. Buying a very high quality first aid kit to have with you in your car and while doing things like camping are going to do more to protect your family then having a gun. In most cases you are protecting them from something different then what a gun is, but you are also protecting them from something that is much more likely to happen.
You don't understand. It's not about not dying. I'd very strongly prefer to live, sure, but still, death is a natural part of life. So I'll take care of my health, drive safely, and if a freak accident or attack kills me, I'll not be too bothered. I mountain-bike; it's not like that's safe.
I will not, however, be raped by an automobile accident. I won't be tortured and left to die in a backpacking accident. Even if I do find myself lost, injured, and starving, it's generally my own fault, and there are things I can do to survive. But for those rare individuals who would choose to see me suffer horribly, I will be armed, and I will fight to the death against them. Just because that possibility is so much more horrible than death alone.
And in the home, as you say, there are many things you can do. Solid locks, impact-resistant windows, strong bedroom doors and exterior lights all are better than lethal force, if they work. But for the unlikely contingency when all that doesn't work, what's wrong with a gun? It shouldn't be your first defense, no, but it is useful. And it's substantially cheaper, for starters--even if you can't afford to harden the entrances to your home, you can probably afford a used shotgun. Even if you can only afford to live in a dangerous neighborhood, you can probably afford a shotgun.
The big part with either aspect is that if you are going to own one, be very familiar with it, be comfortable with it, and treat it with respect. Someone that owns a gun just for self defense but isn't comfortable enough to use it in those sorts of high stress situations is probably going to create more problems then it solves.
I can't agree with this enough. Shoot regularly, and take courses. Be familiar with your weapon and with local laws.
Erloas
2010-03-09, 03:40 PM
Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995
This just doesn't seem right to me. 2.5million people is just under 1% of the total population of the USA. Which would imply that 1 in 100 are defending themselves with a gun every year and would also imply that much more then 1% of the population is having attacker encounters every year.
I haven't meet a single person yet that has had that sort of encounter with a criminal, let alone also used a gun to defend themselves in that situation. Not too surprising where I live now, but I also didn't run into anyone when I spent 8 years in Phoenix.
I have known a number of people that have had stuff stolen from them, but it has never been when anyone was around. Criminals generally want as little confrontation as possible, they try to work when no one is around.
I can't help but think this statistic is skewed to show something that isn't really true, which is common with statistics. (like how they use statistics to scare people with identity theft, then when you look at the numbers something like 80% of the cases involve a friend or family member stealing someone's credit card or similar type thing)
CollinPhillips
2010-03-09, 03:53 PM
This just doesn't seem right to me. 2.5million people is just under 1% of the total population of the USA. Which would imply that 1 in 100 are defending themselves with a gun every year and would also imply that much more then 1% of the population is having attacker encounters every year.
I haven't meet a single person yet that has had that sort of encounter with a criminal, let alone also used a gun to defend themselves in that situation. Not too surprising where I live now, but I also didn't run into anyone when I spent 8 years in Phoenix.
I have known a number of people that have had stuff stolen from them, but it has never been when anyone was around. Criminals generally want as little confrontation as possible, they try to work when no one is around.
I can't help but think this statistic is skewed to show something that isn't really true, which is common with statistics. (like how they use statistics to scare people with identity theft, then when you look at the numbers something like 80% of the cases involve a friend or family member stealing someone's credit card or similar type thing)
1. This isn't about what anyone thinks or believes. It is about what is observable and quantifiable.
2. You'd question the objectivity of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology? I provided the source for my facts, investigate htem if you want.
3. Interesting anecdote. Do you have any numbers to go along with it besides 8?
hamishspence
2010-03-09, 03:58 PM
2. You'd question the objectivity of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology? I provided the source for my facts, investigate htem if you want.
A source- but not a link to confirm it.
1. This isn't about what anyone thinks or believes. It is about what is observable and quantifiable.
2. You'd question the objectivity of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology? I provided the source for my facts, investigate htem if you want.
3. Interesting anecdote. Do you have any numbers to go along with it besides 8?
To be fair to him, I've observed substantial abuse of statistics both for and against guns. E.g. The assumption that Vermont as a whole is comparable to DC, or that the Europe is comparable to the US.
To try to explain the apparent discrepancy, Erloas, you're probably fortunate enough to live in an area with a low crime rate. It is entirely possible that you don't know all that many people well enough that they would mention any robbery they suffered. Who would you tell? Your family, your close friends? It's not like one walks around with a shirt on saying "I was attacked last week." Rape is also not generally something people want to talk about. Roughly 1 in 6 women have been victims of rape or attempted rape, in the US, for instance. [src (http://www.ccasa.org/statistics.cfm)]. I personally know that far less than 1/6 of the women I know have told me about their experiences with rape. So it's probable that some of those instances of self defense correspond to attempted rape, which you might not be aware of if they happened to your friends.
Worira
2010-03-09, 04:10 PM
Honestly, guys, the only way to have any real chance of this thread staying open is to stick strictly to firearms as recreation. Regardless of who started arguing about what.
Also, I want a .20 gauge shotgun. And superstrength to hold it.
Full citation is
Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun
Gary Kleck, Marc Gertz
The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), Vol. 86, No. 1 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 150-187
Published by: Northwestern University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1144004
I'll see about excerpting the relevant table as a PDF file. Unfortunately, it won't be the full article, due to copyright concerns.
Table 2 (http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~henniss/table2.pdf).[PDF]
8.2% are in defense from rapes. 33% were robberies. (From Table 3, not posted)
Erloas
2010-03-09, 04:25 PM
edit: never mind.
So what does everyone else have for guns?
Personally I've got a .44 revolver, a .50 black powder and a 12-gauge break action that is a lot older then me and I wouldn't even think about using.
Just got the revolver last year.
I've been thinking about picking up a rifle, but I'm not all that interested in hunting, though I might go if someone asks.
Otherwise I've been thinking about picking up a bow and try that again. I haven't shot a bow since I was a little kid. Not sure if I want to go classic and get a nice recurve or longbow, or if I want to get a fancy compound bow instead.
Well, again, I'm on campus. :smallfrown:
At home, my family has a .22 lever rifle, a .30-30 lever rifle, a snub-nosed .38 revolver, and a break-top .22 revolver. Also a 12-gauge with a barrel in need of work. I mostly shoot the .22 revolver. Ammo is cheap, break-tops are fun, and I'm not very good at riflery.
As an aside, how do you observe a rifle target? Even with a spotting glass, I can still hardly see where I'm hitting (~100m). Not even knowing if I hit paper makes it difficult to improve.
Somewhat oddly, I had never shot a pistol until I got to college. The ROTC hosts an annual Thanksgiving turkey shoot: 10m with Ruger Mk II's. I always attend that, and have done respectably. I've never won the turkey, but, as I'm semi-vegetarian anyway, I'm happy with that.
Erloas
2010-03-09, 05:13 PM
Well I don't shoot rifle much (my dad has a Winchester .270 that I've shot a few times) because I don't have one of my own and they are expensive to shoot. Since I don't hunt I also don't really need the practice with them.
Most people at the range have good spotting glasses, but I haven't tried that myself. It helps that generally the range isn't too busy so its not too hard to go out and look up close.
They also have metal targets that you can shoot at so you can hear if you hit them.
CollinPhillips
2010-03-09, 05:13 PM
Also, I want a .20 gauge shotgun. And superstrength to hold it.
I see what you did there. A .20 gauge shotgun would most definitely be a destructive device. Have fun with your NFA hoop jumping.
Solaris
2010-03-09, 06:23 PM
As an aside, how do you observe a rifle target? Even with a spotting glass, I can still hardly see where I'm hitting (~100m). Not even knowing if I hit paper makes it difficult to improve.
What kind of targets are you using? Odie green pop-ups (even when stationary) at 300m are plenty visible, and I have pretty bad eyesight.
EDIT: It just struck me as how funny it is that I'm intimately familiar with several warfighting weapon systems, but not with the more utilitarian firearms. I don't even know what a civilian rifle range looks like. o_o
In terms of self defense you are many thousands of times more likely to get into a fatal car wreck than need to use your gun. A defensive driving class is one of the best ways to spend your money if you are super concerned about your safety. There are probably a thousand and one things you could do between that and buying a gun for self defense. I have a CCW but self defense is only part of the reason for me.
Also, I have a Springfield XD Tactical .45. I won't ever be concealing that thing on me unless I gain about 150lbs. I need to get an actual carry pistol one of these days. Have an AR build, some rifles, but no shotguns. Never really liked shotguns.
I see what you did there. A .20 gauge shotgun would most definitely be a destructive device. Have fun with your NFA hoop jumping.
Even a quad aught is only about 12mm. I have a 37mm flare attachment (looks like a 203, which is 40mm, but only fires flares and fireworks) that isn't a destructive device.
skywalker
2010-03-09, 07:11 PM
What I meant was, doing something like making sure the tires on all your vehicles are well maintained will reduce the chance of injury or death to your family more then owning a gun. Installing motion detection lights and high quality locks on doors and windows to deter intruders would probably be more practical. Having very good safety gear for kids riding bikes, roller skaing, etc. Buying a very high quality first aid kit to have with you in your car and while doing things like camping are going to do more to protect your family then having a gun. In most cases you are protecting them from something different then what a gun is, but you are also protecting them from something that is much more likely to happen.
I never said I didn't do those things as well?
When you look at all the ways people get injured and killed in every day life, the amount of those that involve attackers or in any way could have been prevented by a gun is such a very minor part of it. Its one of the things people seem to worry about the most, but that doesn't mean it is in any way the most dangerous.
I'd actually wager that most people don't worry about it at all. Otherwise, you'd see much higher ownership rates.
I will not, however, be raped by an automobile accident. I won't be tortured and left to die in a backpacking accident. Even if I do find myself lost, injured, and starving, it's generally my own fault, and there are things I can do to survive. But for those rare individuals who would choose to see me suffer horribly, I will be armed, and I will fight to the death against them. Just because that possibility is so much more horrible than death alone.
I think this applies doubly to family members.
And in the home, as you say, there are many things you can do. Solid locks, impact-resistant windows, strong bedroom doors and exterior lights all are better than lethal force, if they work. But for the unlikely contingency when all that doesn't work, what's wrong with a gun? It shouldn't be your first defense, no, but it is useful. And it's substantially cheaper, for starters--even if you can't afford to harden the entrances to your home, you can probably afford a used shotgun. Even if you can only afford to live in a dangerous neighborhood, you can probably afford a shotgun.
Almost everyone can afford one of those.
Honestly, guys, the only way to have any real chance of this thread staying open is to stick strictly to firearms as recreation. Regardless of who started arguing about what.
Why? Because Roland will have an attack of paternalism and decide that we can't discuss this without breaking rules before we break any? It doesn't have to lead somewhere it shouldn't be. At least give it a chance.
So what does everyone else have for guns?
Kahr MK9, a subcompact 9mm specifically for concealed carry
and a
Colt Huntsman, .22 target pistol that originally belonged to my grandfather. Given to my father on his 18th, given to me on my 18th, and hopefully I've got about 25 more years before I have to give it away. :smallbiggrin:
As an aside, how do you observe a rifle target? Even with a spotting glass, I can still hardly see where I'm hitting (~100m). Not even knowing if I hit paper makes it difficult to improve.
Shoot-N-C? (http://www.birchwoodcasey.com/sport/index.html)
EDIT: It just struck me as how funny it is that I'm intimately familiar with several warfighting weapon systems, but not with the more utilitarian firearms. I don't even know what a civilian rifle range looks like. o_o
Probably pretty boring compared to what you're used to. I mean, there's people shooting at targets, but nobody has any autos, etc. I think ranges are like anything else, a big part in the experience is played by the people. I've been to incredibly low tech, incredibly fun ranges; and to incredibly high tech, incredibly not fun ranges.
ApeofLight
2010-03-09, 07:21 PM
I think this all basically boils down to is this.
1. You have the right to own a gun.
2. You should know how to use a gun if you own one
3. All people should know the basics of gun safety (i.e Don't touch them, don't point them at people, etc.)
4. Guns do not automatically make you safe
5. Not having a gun does not automatically put you in danger
6. Ever having to use a gun is low
7. I like the number seven
Anything I missed?
Also my family has a couple of rifles and shotguns in our home, mostly for target shooting though. My Dad wants to get a handgun someday and so do I.
What kind of targets are you using? Odie green pop-ups (even when stationary) at 300m are plenty visible, and I have pretty bad eyesight.
EDIT: It just struck me as how funny it is that I'm intimately familiar with several warfighting weapon systems, but not with the more utilitarian firearms. I don't even know what a civilian rifle range looks like. o_o
Ah, that would be the problem. I've just used "Dirty Bird" brand targets; they're just a thin plastic sheet containing a bit of white paint. Basically what skywalker linked to. It's not very visible at 100m, and the range is usually too busy to inspect the targets up close.
My range is pretty basic. Dirt berm about 100m back, wood tables along the firing line, and a roof overhead. Lots of junk scattered about, since it's a public range, and people will take old TVs and satellite dishes to shoot. Most targets are taped to old yard signs (for politicians they like? politicians they dislike? I don't know), though I did once see a guy with a big plywood target board.
CollinPhillips
2010-03-09, 08:59 PM
My range is pretty basic. Dirt berm about 100m back, wood tables along the firing line, and a roof overhead. Lots of junk scattered about, since it's a public range, and people will take old TVs and satellite dishes to shoot. Most targets are taped to old yard signs (for politicians they like? politicians they dislike? I don't know), though I did once see a guy with a big plywood target board.
The only non paper targets allowed on the range I frequent are strung poker chips and clay pots. I'd love to be able to shoot random stuff somewhere other than deep in the woods.
skywalker
2010-03-09, 09:12 PM
My range is pretty basic. Dirt berm about 100m back, wood tables along the firing line, and a roof overhead. Lots of junk scattered about, since it's a public range, and people will take old TVs and satellite dishes to shoot. Most targets are taped to old yard signs (for politicians they like? politicians they dislike? I don't know), though I did once see a guy with a big plywood target board.
Sounds like a TV would be pretty easy to tell if you hit... at least for the first shot...
The only non paper targets allowed on the range I frequent are strung poker chips and clay pots. I'd love to be able to shoot random stuff somewhere other than deep in the woods.
Sad day. Store brand cola is a very good, cheap reactive target. Also, clay pigeons. You don't have to throw those in the air before you shoot them, you know!
CollinPhillips
2010-03-09, 09:24 PM
Sad day. Store brand cola is a very good, cheap reactive target. Also, clay pigeons. You don't have to throw those in the air before you shoot them, you know!
They used to allow charcoal briquettes, plastic bottles, and clay pigeons until last summer. The saddest part is under the layer of dirt that composes the range is a municipal landfill. Shooting junk is forbidden on what is essentially a space designated for junk.
Renegade Paladin
2010-03-09, 11:09 PM
Which is why it's so great that a crazy person or criminal can't just walk into a gun show and buy an armload of lethal weapons.
Oh, wait.
I have a question. Have you ever been to a gun show?
Solaris
2010-03-10, 01:41 AM
Probably pretty boring compared to what you're used to. I mean, there's people shooting at targets, but nobody has any autos, etc. I think ranges are like anything else, a big part in the experience is played by the people. I've been to incredibly low tech, incredibly fun ranges; and to incredibly high tech, incredibly not fun ranges.
Yeah, our ranges aren't that great - except for when we're allowed to shoot each other, but that's usually not with live rounds. They're pretty much just a dirt berm where the shooters stand/kneel/lay, then a series of berms with motorized pop-up targets at designated increments (50m, 75m, 100m, 150m, 200m, 250m, and 300m if I recall correctly). The known-distance range is more interesting - for the guys working the targets. The shooters stand on a series of berms at designated increments (I forget what, off the top of my head), advancing as they go, while the guys working the targets stand below the targets and operate the mechanisms that lift and drop the canvas targets. Bullets whizzing overhead was kind of odd, especially when you could look out at the trees beyond and see exactly where the 'bullet line' was - they were all thoroughly defoliated by the swarms of bullets.
Incoming rant. The problem with our ranges, though, is that they're typically run by an NCO in the tower and a cadre of safeties who like to micromanage every single shooter. I know how to fire my weapon, thankyouverymuch, and I do not need everyone with stripes on their chest telling me to adjust my position in such-and-such and sometimes mutually contradictory ways. Example: Our new IOTVs are not compatible with the oldschool methods of seating the butt-stock in the pocket of the shoulder. They have a thick, bulky pad that goes right over that, leaving your shoulder effectively rounded over completely. This is workable in the prone positions, but in the kneeling position I need to raise up my elbow parallel to the ground (rather than tucked against my side) in order to provide something to brace it against. You wouldn't believe how often I get some NCO who apparently hasn't fired his weapon with his vest on in at least two years yelling at me to do it the 'right' way.
... You'd think they'd know better than to yell stupidly at people who have live rounds and sociopathic tendencies.
Irbis
2010-03-10, 04:27 PM
There seems to be some confusion on terms here. A machine gun is not an assault rifle. Also what is generally termed assault rifle is only really an assault rifle if it is fully automatic.
Note that even though a machine gun is fully automatic and so is an assault rifle, they are not the same thing and the rules to owning them are not the same.
By definition, SMG is something that uses pistol ammo (like 9x19 or 9x18), assault rifles use intermediate cartridges (5.45x39 or 7.62x39) and are automatic, and battle rifles use fully powered rifle ammo (7.92x57 or 7.62x54R). The very same gun (like AR-15) can be any of the three, depending on action and ammo type. One chambered to 9x19 (and aurtomatic) will be SMG, no matter what it is.
And people, machine gun is this!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/MG34.jpg
It's heavy infantry weapon, using strongest ammunition, it is illegal practically everywhere, and it's not a casual term for anything automatic! :smallsigh:
Owning a gun such as an AK-47 is actually incredibly easy to do and rather cheap at that. I know last summer I saw a place that had a cheap brand for like $450 and basically had a pallets worth they were selling.
A knockoff, you mean.
The inferior accuracy of the Kalashnakov pattern rifles is thus irrelevant; if I want to shoot tight groups, I'll use the other gun.
Actually, Ak-47 is very accuracy rifle, which would be confirmed by anyone who knows anything about the guns :smallsigh:
Note that I say AK-47, not its Chinese or Romanian knockoffs. Russian, German and Polish made AKs (along with Finnish and Israeli copies) are some of the best guns around, especially civilian semi-auto versions made after '89. Try Polish Hunter, or Russian Tigr (?).
Also, if you want accuracy, do not buy surplus Soviet/Chinese military ammo that flooded the market. It's good for fun, you need good ammo for accuracy as in any other rifle.
Now, it you want extreme accuracy in cheap package, Soviet SVD sniper rifle is the way to go :smalltongue:
Sounds like either an StG 44, VG 1-5, or FG 42. The later two are exceedingly rare. Some searching brings up a FG 42 that sold for $75,000; I can't find any mention of a NFA VG 1-5; quite possibly none exist. So probably the StG 44. Again, that's very cool.
G3, most probably.
Well, I guess this is a place to ask. :smallwink:
I'm undecided on getting a firearm for myself. We'll be moving to NYC in about 15-18 months, and while we're going to try our best to be in a relatively safe area, chances are we won't be in a 'good' neighborhood. "OK" is probably the best we'll get, leaning towards "below average" or plain "bad". It all depends on what job I get, basically.
I will be taking self-defenses courses while I am down here and I currently have Mace on my keychain (it's one of those "small" cans that is supposed to be used for that). But, as I said, I'm undecided on a gun. I would go through as much training as possible before getting on, and I will not get one unless I know I could use it to kill someone attacking me (I've always been raised you don't pull a gun unless you are willing to shoot to kill- not wound). This also hinges on my feeling confident I won't shoot myself in the foot (Syka=clumsy).
That aside- what would you recommend?
Solaris
2010-03-10, 05:03 PM
Well, I guess this is a place to ask. :smallwink:
I'm undecided on getting a firearm for myself. We'll be moving to NYC in about 15-18 months, and while we're going to try our best to be in a relatively safe area, chances are we won't be in a 'good' neighborhood. "OK" is probably the best we'll get, leaning towards "below average" or plain "bad". It all depends on what job I get, basically.
I will be taking self-defenses courses while I am down here and I currently have Mace on my keychain (it's one of those "small" cans that is supposed to be used for that). But, as I said, I'm undecided on a gun. I would go through as much training as possible before getting on, and I will not get one unless I know I could use it to kill someone attacking me (I've always been raised you don't pull a gun unless you are willing to shoot to kill- not wound). This also hinges on my feeling confident I won't shoot myself in the foot (Syka=clumsy).
That aside- what would you recommend?
A 20-gauge shotgun would be best for home-defense. I couldn't recommend a specific model, but it's pretty good on account of being fairly low-grade against walls but it'll do enough to make an invader seriously reconsider that whole 'living' thing he's been up to.
For personal defense, you'd want a fairly low-caliber pistol. You know those guys who get Desert Eagles and such? Yeah. Don't be that guy (or gal, as the case may be). You won't hit the broad side of a barn, even if it is scary. Heck, I probably wouldn't be able to hit the broad side of a barn with it. Ammo's expensive, too. 9mm is about where you want, as it's close-range and has some stopping power, but the recoil won't put you in the ER.
Force
2010-03-10, 05:08 PM
Well, I guess this is a place to ask. :smallwink:
I'm undecided on getting a firearm for myself. We'll be moving to NYC in about 15-18 months, and while we're going to try our best to be in a relatively safe area, chances are we won't be in a 'good' neighborhood. "OK" is probably the best we'll get, leaning towards "below average" or plain "bad". It all depends on what job I get, basically.
I will be taking self-defenses courses while I am down here and I currently have Mace on my keychain (it's one of those "small" cans that is supposed to be used for that). But, as I said, I'm undecided on a gun. I would go through as much training as possible before getting on, and I will not get one unless I know I could use it to kill someone attacking me (I've always been raised you don't pull a gun unless you are willing to shoot to kill- not wound). This also hinges on my feeling confident I won't shoot myself in the foot (Syka=clumsy).
That aside- what would you recommend?
I'd look into the actual law on owning a firearm (in this case, a handgun) in NYC before I thought too much about owning one. http://apps.carryconcealed.net/legal/newyork-ccw-state-laws.php seems to imply that owning a firearm in NYC is going to be problematic. That said, I'll give what advice I can.
I don't know how big you are, but if you're on the small side I'd recommend a fairly small handgun made for concealed carry and chambered in a fairly small round, such as 9MM. That round has the advantage of also being fairly cheap and easy to get, so you can easily practice with your firearm. It also won't kick *that* hard, so you won't feel like your wrists are cracking every time you pull the trigger.
Manufacturers... I'd let someone who actually has experience with multiple handguns answer that. I like Glocks, but that's me.
Your reasoning: do not carry a firearm until you have decided within yourself that, if your life is threatened, you will without reservation kill someone else to preserve your life or protect yourself from sexual assault. If you do not decide that, you will not be able to adequately handle a firearm in a crisis, and even if you do come out of a confrontation unscathed physically, your mental state may not be very good.
Finally, if you do get a firearm, practice, practice PRACTICE with it. Make it a goal to go to the range and put 50 rounds downrange every other week even after you have been trained in use (cleaning it at least that often as well). Practice drawing your weapon from its concealed location. Having a firearm will be worthless unless you train yourself in its use.
Because you probably will not be able to get a concealed carry permit in NYC, period, I would advise that you take up running and invest the money you otherwise would have put into a gun into practical martial arts, such as Krav Magna.
Edit: As Solaris said, a shotgun is the best home-defense weapon. My advice was primarily focused on a concealed carry weapon for defense outside the home.
I'm right abouts 5'4, so on the smaller side. As I said, unless I know I could handle killing someone potentially, I won't get a gun. Period.
Yeah, I'll be looking into all the laws and stuff. I'm just trying to get an idea if I decide to/can carry in New York. It's far from decided, and chances are I won't. But I figure- be prepared includes doing homework for contingencies.
Technically we own a gun, but we have no ammo and it's currently sitting somewhere disassembled. It's a long story how we got it involving my mom's friend wanting us to hang on to it and then never contacting us about picking them up, but we had the cops come out to take it apart since we didn't know how to. They also took all the ammo...which happened to be hollowpoints. :smalleek: That's also when we found out the supposedly unloaded gun was loaded. Can you tell we're not gun people?
snoopy13a
2010-03-10, 05:34 PM
Yeah, I'll be looking into all the laws and stuff. I'm just trying to get an idea if I decide to/can carry in New York. It's far from decided, and chances are I won't. But I figure- be prepared includes doing homework for contingencies.
In NYC, only well connected people and retired police officers can get concealed carry permits (theorectically anyone with a clean criminal record can but in reality, only those groups).
In the rest of NY, concealed carry permits are easier to get but are not valid in NYC.
Home pistol permits are easier to get a license for. In NYC you need a permit for rifles and shotgun while in the rest of NYS you don't. So if you wanted to have a shotgun for self-protection in Buffalo, you can just buy one. If you want one in NYC, you have to get a permit.
The penalties for violating NY gun laws are harsh (see Plaxico Burriss).
Force
2010-03-10, 05:39 PM
Technically we own a gun, but we have no ammo and it's currently sitting somewhere disassembled. It's a long story how we got it involving my mom's friend wanting us to hang on to it and then never contacting us about picking them up, but we had the cops come out to take it apart since we didn't know how to. They also took all the ammo...which happened to be hollowpoints. :smalleek: That's also when we found out the supposedly unloaded gun was loaded. Can you tell we're not gun people?
Hollowpoints are great for civilian use. -shrugs- They do more damage and you don't have to worry so much about riccochet or overpenetration.
In addition, you currently do not own that firearm; you would have to get it legally transferred to your ownership in order to carry it concealed. I would recommend contacting your mom's friend ASAP if at all possible and either having them take it or getting it transferred to your own possession. Cops don't like unlicensed guns, and if that one got stolen you might end up in hot water. Transferring would probably just involve visiting your local gunshop and having them fill out the paperwork.
If you do end up actually using that gun, make sure you get it looked over by someone to make sure it's safe to use. Letting a gun sit for years with the residue from previously-fired rounds still inside the barrel is a good way to damage it.
We have no way of contacting her, actually. Our local cops are already aware of it, etc. After we had it a couple months without hearing anything was when we gave them a call to come check it out. The whole thing happened several years ago (at least 5, probably more like 6 or 7), so I'm not sure if ownership was transferred or not.
No plans to actually use that one. I'd rather buy one from a store with a good reputation than one we got with a questionable history from someone else (I don't know how they treated it, etc.). It was a complicated situation to say the least. I don't even know where it currently is in the house, other than it is in pieces.
As for concealed carry, I heard it's easier to get if you have concealed carry in another state. I don't know the veracity of it or anything. Hence research. :smallsmile:
I'm right abouts 5'4, so on the smaller side. As I said, unless I know I could handle killing someone potentially, I won't get a gun. Period.
Yeah, I'll be looking into all the laws and stuff. I'm just trying to get an idea if I decide to/can carry in New York. It's far from decided, and chances are I won't. But I figure- be prepared includes doing homework for contingencies.
Technically we own a gun, but we have no ammo and it's currently sitting somewhere disassembled. It's a long story how we got it involving my mom's friend wanting us to hang on to it and then never contacting us about picking them up, but we had the cops come out to take it apart since we didn't know how to. They also took all the ammo...which happened to be hollowpoints. :smalleek: That's also when we found out the supposedly unloaded gun was loaded. Can you tell we're not gun people?
You'll not be carrying in NYC.
In the city, conventional wisdom holds that rifles are too powerful for home defense. They tend to penetrate walls, endangering neighbors. I've heard arguments that .223 will tend to deform, tumble, and fragment upon striking walls, so will actually penetrate less than buckshot. I don't know if this is true.
Shotguns are more popular for home defense. Use buckshot. Gauge probably matters less than your choice of shot, though it's still probably best to pick the most powerful shotgun you can comfortably shoot. Try some out, if you can. Preferably something with a large magazine of 5+ rounds or so. Remember that you still need to aim--in the home, the spread isn't all that large.
Handguns also are popular for home defense. They're more difficult to shoot accurately, but easier to maneuver. Their capacity is larger. I'd go with a shotgun, personally. If something goes bump in the night, I'm staying right where I am. Leave house clearing to the police.
Also be aware of your walls. Any round, buckshot included, will penetrate many layers of drywall. Don't inadvertently shoot your neighbors. A brick or stone wall will probably be sufficient. Pine, plywood, etc, probably not.
You'll probably want a weapon mounted light, to make sure you don't target friends or family in the night by mistake.
And people, machine gun is this!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/MG34.jpg
It's heavy infantry weapon, using strongest ammunition, it is illegal practically everywhere, and it's not a casual term for anything automatic! :smallsigh:
I'm sorry we weren't clear; we've generally been using the legal definition of a machine-gun in the US. That includes but is not limited to autocannons, true machine-guns, (automatic) assault rifles, submachine-guns, machine-pistols, and anything capable of burst fire.
Incidentally, even heavy machine-guns are legal if registered properly in most US states. For example (http://www.perpetualinvestmentslp.com/m2hb.htm).
G3, most probably.
An earlier post implied that it was WWII era, though I suppose it could be otherwise.
Worira
2010-03-10, 06:36 PM
Because you probably will not be able to get a concealed carry permit in NYC, period, I would advise that you take up running and invest the money you otherwise would have put into a gun into practical martial arts, such as Krav Magna.
Using Krav Maga, as taught by most schools, in a self defence situation will get you killed. Even when taught well, it's no more effective than a number of traditional martial arts.
EDIT: That said, NYC is probably about your best bet out of Israel to find a Krav Maga school that isn't terrible. And I do strongly agree with taking up running as a form of self defence.
Force
2010-03-10, 07:09 PM
Using Krav Maga, as taught by most schools, in a self defence situation will get you killed. Even when taught well, it's no more effective than a number of traditional martial arts.
EDIT: That said, NYC is probably about your best bet out of Israel to find a Krav Maga school that isn't terrible. And I do strongly agree with taking up running as a form of self defence.
Traditional martial arts are fine; unfortunately, some schools (as in places of business) teach more towards the sport side than the self-defense side. Krav is one of the martial arts I've heard to be a bit more focused on the defense part, not the sport part. And, of course, the best defense of all is fast tennis shoes. Far too many people prepare for the "fight" part, not the "flight" part.
Solaris
2010-03-10, 07:25 PM
Handguns also are popular for home defense. They're more difficult to shoot accurately, but easier to maneuver. Their capacity is larger. I'd go with a shotgun, personally. If something goes bump in the night, I'm staying right where I am. Leave house clearing to the police.
Yes. I doubt Syka would do it, but some others might be tempted... don't try to be a hero. Leave that to the professionals.
Also be aware of your walls. Any round, buckshot included, will penetrate many layers of drywall. Don't inadvertently shoot your neighbors. A brick or stone wall will probably be sufficient. Pine, plywood, etc, probably not.
I'unno, we took some of the drywall out of our house, and when my dad and some of his buddies took it down to the rifle range two sheets of it was stopping buckshot and .22 rounds. That's an older house, though, with two layers of plaster sandwiching the drywall. I wouldn't count on a newer house's walls stopping anything. That said, target/aimpoint control is crucial when discharging your weapon. Nobody wants to be the guy who pops off a few rounds and whacks the neighbor's kid. Just as important is positive identification of your target, what we call PID. You need to know who you're shooting at before you can pull the trigger. Period.
Traditional martial arts are fine; unfortunately, some schools (as in places of business) teach more towards the sport side than the self-defense side. Krav is one of the martial arts I've heard to be a bit more focused on the defense part, not the sport part. And, of course, the best defense of all is fast tennis shoes. Far too many people prepare for the "fight" part, not the "flight" part.
Rule #1: Cardio.
Worira
2010-03-10, 07:40 PM
Traditional martial arts are fine; unfortunately, some schools (as in places of business) teach more towards the sport side than the self-defense side. Krav is one of the martial arts I've heard to be a bit more focused on the defense part, not the sport part. And, of course, the best defense of all is fast tennis shoes. Far too many people prepare for the "fight" part, not the "flight" part.
Yeah, we're in agreement there. Finding a good school is always going to be more important than the particular art you choose. And actually, part of my problem with Krav Maga is in its attitude towards knife and gun defence. Many schools train with largely passive attackers, or attackers following set patterns. This tends to give students a false sense of confidence. And no matter how good you are, there's a very real chance of death if you're attacked with a knife, and a near certainty of being cut.
Erloas
2010-03-10, 07:50 PM
In addition, you currently do not own that firearm; you would have to get it legally transferred to your ownership in order to carry it concealed. I would recommend contacting your mom's friend ASAP if at all possible and either having them take it or getting it transferred to your own possession. Cops don't like unlicensed guns, and if that one got stolen you might end up in hot water. Transferring would probably just involve visiting your local gunshop and having them fill out the paperwork.
Well the first part depends where you are in the country, though you probably know NY (though I believe Syka is not yet there). I know here we don't have to license weapons at all (I'm sure some types, but not pistols, rifles, and shotguns). We even checked about that when I bought the 44 from someone at work, they asked their neighbor who was a cop and they said there is nothing to do. It was never registered in the name of the person I bought it from either, he won it from a charity dinner for a sporting/wildlife conservation club. There was also nothing to do when my brother bought his .22 rifle new. Of course we're one of the more hands-off states in terms of gun laws.
As for what gun to get, in terms of pistols, pretty much anything bigger then a .22 will be enough. Even a .22 is enough if you have good shot placement. You can find all sorts of stuff on stopping power, but mostly its not a real concern.
From the reading I've done, if you don't have a lot to spend a revolver is a better choice because a cheap revolver will be much more reliable then a cheap pistol. If you have the money for a good pistol though, they are a very good option.
Also from what I've read the biggest suggestion is to just go to a store and try out a lot of guns and find out which one feels the best in your hands, which one fits your hand comfortably and doesn't fill too big or too small. Once you find a few that feel good then you can narrow it down a bit more into caliber, cost, and that sort of thing.
Note that in NYC,
How much does it cost to apply for a handgun license?
The application fee for a handgun license is $340.00. There is also a $94.25 fee for fingerprints done on the Livescan machine. (If you need inked prints, the fee is $105.25.) These fees may be paid by credit card or with money orders when you submit your application. Money orders should be made payable to the “New York City Police Department.”
How much does it cost to apply for a rifle/shotgun permit?
The application fee for a permit is $140.00. You must also pay a fingerprint fee of $94.25 for fingerprints done on the Livescan machine. The fee for inked prints is $105.25. All fees may be paid by credit card or with two money orders made payable to the “New York City Police Department.”
You should probably also apply sooner rather than later, as they generally take a while to process such things.
CollinPhillips
2010-03-10, 09:25 PM
{Scrubbed}
Mathis
2010-03-10, 09:34 PM
This thread is driving me insane...I soooo want to discuss the political sides of firearms in the US. But I guess I'm going to have to crawl back to XKCD for that... On another note, at CollinPhillips and your jar of teeth and to everyone else considering martial arts as a form of self defence. Knocking someone's teeth out won't stop them from trying to harm you if that is their intent.
If you are considering martial arts because you are afraid of being attacked consider this first: People are not out to attack you or kill you. A so called "attacker" is most likely out for your money. Give it to them! No amount of money is worth your life or the life of someone else. If someone tries to rob you, for everything you hold dear and sacred give them the money they ask for. Also never try to be a hero.
CollinPhillips
2010-03-10, 09:48 PM
Knocking out people's teeth? How crass and unimaginative. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lineman%27s_pliers) The only things that separate us from animals are tools and malice, Mathis. Tools and malice.
Mathis
2010-03-10, 09:56 PM
Carrying around those and talking about their intended use should scare off people. A great self-defence technique Collins!
Edit - I just feel I have to say this again, this time targetted to Syka. If you are scared about getting robbed in the house, get one of those good alarm systems that makes one hell of a noise if someone moves about inside your house without entering the security code.
If you decide to draw a weapon on an armed intruder he will be in the exact same position you are; Kill or be killed.
If you do not, he will have no reason to kill you. I just see it as the safer bet to not draw a loaded gun on an intruder. And besides, you'd rather be a few dollars and heirlooms short than being dead or having a life of another on your conscience right?
Knocking out people's teeth? How crass and unimaginative. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lineman%27s_pliers) The only things that separate us from animals are tools and malice, Mathis. Tools and malice.
Just so we're clear about what you mean to say, do you mean to imply that you assault people and remove their teeth with pliers? Or am I misunderstanding something here?
CollinPhillips
2010-03-10, 10:08 PM
{Scrubbed}
Mathis
2010-03-10, 10:09 PM
I'm having a hard time taking you seriously Collins. Please reassure me you are not being serious. Please? Oh dear gods not the pliers! NOOOO!
skywalker
2010-03-10, 10:12 PM
Incoming rant. The problem with our ranges, though, is that they're typically run by an NCO in the tower and a cadre of safeties who like to micromanage every single shooter. I know how to fire my weapon, thankyouverymuch, and I do not need everyone with stripes on their chest telling me to adjust my position in such-and-such and sometimes mutually contradictory ways. Example: Our new IOTVs are not compatible with the oldschool methods of seating the butt-stock in the pocket of the shoulder. They have a thick, bulky pad that goes right over that, leaving your shoulder effectively rounded over completely. This is workable in the prone positions, but in the kneeling position I need to raise up my elbow parallel to the ground (rather than tucked against my side) in order to provide something to brace it against. You wouldn't believe how often I get some NCO who apparently hasn't fired his weapon with his vest on in at least two years yelling at me to do it the 'right' way.
... You'd think they'd know better than to yell stupidly at people who have live rounds and sociopathic tendencies.
Solaris, I'm starting to think you missed out on a lot of the psych conditioning that has normally taken place right now. Aren't you supposed to take that criticism thankfully because you had your wrong behavior corrected? And to be fair, he's only trying to keep you from developing a habit that will get you shot in the elbow. At least there is a legitimate reason for it, as opposed to just "you're doing it wrong."
And people, machine gun is this!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/MG34.jpg
It's heavy infantry weapon, using strongest ammunition, it is illegal practically everywhere, and it's not a casual term for anything automatic! :smallsigh:
No, a machine gun is a weapon that fires more than one round when you activate the trigger. Yes, what you are pointing at is more generally and appropriately termed a machine gun, but "machine gun" is a perfectly legitimate term for an automatic weapon.
Actually, Ak-47 is very accuracy rifle, which would be confirmed by anyone who knows anything about the guns :smallsigh:
Lovely insinuation you make there. Clearly you are the expert and none of us know anything. Regardless, compare an AK-47 and an M-16 of equal build quality side by side, the M-16 is more accurate, as are about 100 other assault rifles on the planet.
Also, if you want accuracy, do not buy surplus Soviet/Chinese military ammo that flooded the market. It's good for fun, you need good ammo for accuracy as in any other rifle.
It's really more about the gun, and far more about the shooter. One thing that really doesn't help the AK is that it makes life harder for the shooter, which is bad for accuracy.
Manufacturers... I'd let someone who actually has experience with multiple handguns answer that. I like Glocks, but that's me.
Glocks are cheap, easy, and accurate enough. It's a great choice.
They also took all the ammo...which happened to be hollowpoints. :smalleek:
Yeah, hollowpoints are good things. They do more damage which makes you less likely to kill someone. How this works: Because pistols do not generate the kind of force that actively causes permanent destruction the same way a rifle bullet does, most people who die from pistol wounds actually die from blood loss. The more holes in you, the more you bleed. Since a hollowpoint does more damage per bullet, it is more likely to stop an attack after 1-2 shots fired, as opposed to more. Also, it is more likely to stop in the body, which creates only 1 hole for you to bleed from, instead of two.
The reason the Geneva Convention is opposed to hollowpoints is because wars are conducted primarily with rifles, and rifle bullets don't need any help tearing people up. A regular rifle bullet does terrible things to a living thing, a hollowpoint would be even worse.
In NYC, only well connected people and retired police officers can get concealed carry permits (theorectically anyone with a clean criminal record can but in reality, only those groups).
Yeah, New York City says no as far as guns are concerned.
The penalties for violating NY gun laws are harsh (see Plaxico Burriss).
They were specifically trying to make an example out of Plax. They went after the maximum on him because they were aware they had a good potential show trial. :smallmad:
In addition, you currently do not own that firearm; you would have to get it legally transferred to your ownership in order to carry it concealed. I would recommend contacting your mom's friend ASAP if at all possible and either having them take it or getting it transferred to your own possession. Cops don't like unlicensed guns, and if that one got stolen you might end up in hot water. Transferring would probably just involve visiting your local gunshop and having them fill out the paperwork.
Wait, if she doesn't own the firearm, how could she get in trouble if it were stolen? You just said she technically doesn't own it. So either she doesn't own it (which makes it rather hard for her to get in trouble for its illegal use, as long as it's not her doing it), or she does. I'm leaning towards she does. Also, cops in certain places (the South :smallwink:) don't really mind that much. The fact that the police took the gun apart for them and then left it there indicates to me they don't give that much of a darn.
As for concealed carry, I heard it's easier to get if you have concealed carry in another state. I don't know the veracity of it or anything. Hence research. :smallsmile:
They tell you all of these things, but it's not really true. The only people who get to carry in NYC are, like was said, retired police (some of them) and celebrities (some of them, Plaxico Burress being a notable exception).
As for what gun to get, in terms of pistols, pretty much anything bigger then a .22 will be enough. Even a .22 is enough if you have good shot placement. You can find all sorts of stuff on stopping power, but mostly its not a real concern.
Can you think of better shot placement than "against someone's skull?" I know someone (a cop, actually) who was shot with a .22, in the head. The guy actually put the gun against his skull and pulled the trigger. The little bullet went under the skin, then decided that bone was just too tough, took a turn up the guy's forehead, and now he can play a Klingon without makeup. But there were no other permanent (and very little temporary) ill effects! Don't give out bad advice about self-defense. It is true that a .22 you will hit with is worth infinitely more than a .45 you won't, but it's a heck of a lot better to hit with a .45, and you can learn how. Also, a .22 is actually a lot better for self-defense than certain other cartridges (.25) because of better ballistics and because it's been marketed to women for so long that they had to make some decent defense ammo for it. The problem is that we assume a woman needs a smaller cartridge than a man. When men shot .45s, that was a 9mm/.38. Now that most men have moved down to 9mm, we assume women will be overpowered by it and they need a .22.
This thread is driving me insane...I soooo want to discuss the political sides of firearms in the US. But I guess I'm going to have to crawl back to XKCD for that...
I'm available via PM.
On another note, at CollinPhillips and your jar of teeth and to everyone else considering martial arts as a form of self defence. Knocking someone's teeth out won't stop them from trying to harm you if that is their intent.
It won't? Really? Have you ever tried?
If you are considering martial arts because you are afraid of being attacked consider this first: People are not out to attack you or kill you. A so called "attacker" is most likely out for your money. Give it to them! No amount of money is worth your life or the life of someone else. If someone tries to rob you, for everything you hold dear and sacred give them the money they ask for. Also never try to be a hero.
The problem is, you can't tell the "mugger" from the "rapist-torturer-murderer." Because there are some people who are out to attack or kill you. I'm totally willing to part with large sums of money to avoid killing or dying. But when someone already has a knife at my ribs, what's to say they won't take the money and then kill me? And while they probably won't, I don't like to deal in probablies when it comes to my life, or that of others.
Mathis
2010-03-10, 10:26 PM
The problem is, you can't tell the "mugger" from the "rapist-torturer-murderer." Because there are some people who are out to attack or kill you. I'm totally willing to part with large sums of money to avoid killing or dying. But when someone already has a knife at my ribs, what's to say they won't take the money and then kill me? And while they probably won't, I don't like to deal in probablies when it comes to my life, or that of others.
The Rapist-torturer-murderer thing is true, and if running fails you you're probably screwed unless you have decades of self-defence training behind you. Unless you have Pepperspray, if that is the case, blind the person so hard he never knew what hit him.
If someone already has a knife at your ribs, you're beyond the point where you can succesfully defend yourself. If you do try, you're going to end up with cuts, and the knife is most likely going to cut arteries you never knew were that crucial to your survival until it was too late.
Infact, actually being able to think clearly and straight and rationally in any of these kinds of situations takes a lot of training in itself and most people will freeze up. You never know how you're going to react until you're there. You can only prepare. While in some situations trying to escape is your only option, I'm still going to say that trying to co-operate with a potential assailant is your best bet until a window for escape presents itself. I also have to add that no philosophy is perfect, and no scenario is identical, every situation has a thousand different outcomes and you're most likely going to have to wing it.
CollinPhillips
2010-03-10, 10:46 PM
If someone already has a knife at your ribs, you're beyond the point where you can successfully defend yourself. If you do try, you're going to end up with cuts, and the knife is most likely going to cut arteries you never knew were that crucial to your survival until it was too late.
Well maybe you're beyond successfully beyond defending yourself, but I'm not. You talk like a defeatist and it is bumming me out.
Well maybe you're beyond successfully beyond defending yourself, but I'm not. You talk like a defeatist and it is bumming me out.
Maybe against drunks.
Sooner or later you're going to wind up over your head. Hopefully it doesn't kill you.
To return this to guns, does anyone have any personal experience with semi-automatic revolvers like the Mateba Unica? They seem quite interesting.
Mathis
2010-03-10, 10:58 PM
I consider myself a realist with a self-preservationist streak if you like to label people. I also like rock-music and colourful clothes. Back on track I do honestly believe that if I was attempting to hurt you, and I had my knife pushing against your ribs you would not be able to disarm me without getting cut up something awfully bad. I want you to consider the location of the knife and it's proximity to the inside of your arms when you picture this scenario.
However, I do not know anything about your level of skill and I do not now what you put into the phrase "Succesfully defending yourself". But I do know what I put into it and I'm going to tell you:
To me succesfully defending yourself, in this situation, means disarming your opponent without causing harm to yourself / walking away unharmed. If you manage to disarm the opponent but still sustained cuts I would consider that defending oneself but nothing more.
Feel free to tell me about your personal level of skill through PMs if you are uncomfortable discussing this in the open forum.
Roland St. Jude
2010-03-10, 11:04 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: There is way too much discussion of criminal activity on this thread and possibly some political discussion as well. Locked (likely permanently) for review.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.