Poll of the Day > Do you own a gun?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Who here has guns? Also share what kind if you want.

don't really feel a need as a civilian who is comfortable with the size of his genitalia.
---

Nade Duck posted...

don't really feel a need as a civilian who is comfortable with the size of his genitalia.

I'm sure you'd be more comfortable with a Desert Eagle. After all, your cock isn't going to do much good in a home invasion, unless your name is Joey Ryan.
---

Yes, several
---

Several

And stock in S&W and M&P (which both went up)
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

Yes, several

Zeus posted...

Nade Duck posted...

don't really feel a need as a civilian who is comfortable with the size of his genitalia.

I'm sure you'd be more comfortable with a Desert Eagle. After all, your cock isn't going to do much good in a home invasion, unless your name is Joey Ryan.

Nade Duck posted...

don't really feel a need as a civilian who is comfortable with the size of his genitalia.

i feel the need as a person who has a wife and kids to defend.

Save for the one in my pants no.
---

I voted yes because I have 3-4 light guns. Those count right?
---

KaptainKiro posted...

Nade Duck posted...

don't really feel a need as a civilian who is comfortable with the size of his genitalia.

i feel the need as a person who has a wife and kids to defend.

no bro u just have a little dong. that's it. he totally got u.
---

Nade Duck posted...

don't really feel a need as a civilian who is comfortable with the size of his genitalia.

---

I have an antique rifle but it is not operational

I could hit someone with it though
---

Mead posted...

I have an antique rifle but it is not operational

I feel so sorry for your wife.
---

Mead posted...

I have an antique rifle but it is not operational

I could hit someone with it though

I feel so sorry for your wife.
---

Yes, I do. But I only use it for target shooting, don't even keep ammunition at home. I just think target shooting is a lot of fun.
---

I don't live in the ghetto and I'm not an enthusiast or a paranoid, so no.

I have a taser and mace but no family suicide stick.

I own a .380 ACP.
---

Yellow posted...

I don't live in the ghetto and I'm not an enthusiast or a paranoid, so no.

I have a taser and mace but no family suicide stick.

there are more reasons to own a gun than just for the possibility of needing it to shoot a person. not trying to encourage you to get one though, guns ain't for everyone and i'm fine with that. only reason I ended up with one though is I inherited it, and my grandfather made me promise i'd never get rid of it.
---

Zeus posted...

Mead posted...

I have an antique rifle but it is not operational

I feel so sorry for your wife.

Seems like you have a fixation on my marriage tbh @Zeus

Go get your own
---

Yes, I have one.
---

Just a peacemaker
---

Mead posted...

Zeus posted...

Mead posted...

I have an antique rifle but it is not operational

I feel so sorry for your wife.

Seems like you have a fixation on my marriage tbh @ Zeus

Go get your own

Given that this is the first time I've even acknowledged it despite your occasional (if not frequent) references to it, it hardly counts as a fixation. However, I understand if you feel that me acknowledging it threatens whatever special relationship you *think* you have with me.
---

Yes I own a few guns.

There are two reasons to own a gun.
1) to kill animals. Hunters need low-capacity rifles to kill animals, and sometimes also low-capacity handguns for protection from other animals.
2) to target shoot for fun.

The number of "goods guys with guns" who use them is tiny each year, to the point it almost doesn't happen. It's absurd to justify a firearm purchase as "protection." You didn't buy it for that reason, you bought it because you thought it was cool and it's fun to shoot. Just be honest about it.

I have several
---

SushiSquid posted...

There are two reasons to own a gun.
1) to kill animals. Hunters need low-capacity rifles to kill animals, and sometimes also low-capacity handguns for protection from other animals.
2) to target shoot for fun.

The number of "goods guys with guns" who use them is tiny each year, to the point it almost doesn't happen. It's absurd to justify a firearm purchase as "protection." You didn't buy it for that reason, you bought it because you thought it was cool and it's fun to shoot. Just be honest about it.

Have you done either of those things?
---

Yup. My father owns more guns than he knows about. Conservatively I'd guess it's around 200. I have owned a Glock 23 in the past, and used it for target shooting. I've been shooting rifles and pistols as long as I can remember. I passed a CCW class that was hosted in my parents' backyard, only not bothering to get my permit because it costs $100. I know guns, I've used guns, I'm comfortable with guns. I like them just fine.

But let me say this: there is no legitimate reason for a private civilian to have assault weapons, anti-materiel rifles, and minor explosives such as tanarite. I've used them all, and they are dangerous and have no purpose beyond killing people or being cool. My father is insane, but luckily not in a violent way. He just as easily could be violent and it's absurd that this shit is just allowed.

Keep your hunting rifles. I like venison just fine. But there's no place in the US for AR15s and other assault weapons. For that matter, I'm all for banning pistol magazines with higher capacities. You don't need that shit.

No but I have considered getting a bow for some sports shooting. Dunno why, I find bow and arrow more fun than shooting a gun.
---

Bersa Firestorm and a Schofield.
---

InfestedAdam posted...

No but I have considered getting a bow for some sports shooting. Dunno why, I find bow and arrow more fun than shooting a gun.

I actually do too. It takes much more skill to shoot a bow than a crossbow or gun, especially at a range. Kind of exhilarating. Just wear a freaking bracer. I don't care how experienced you think you are, everyone makes mistakes and getting whipped by the bow string hurts like hell.

SushiSquid posted...

The number of "goods guys with guns" who use them is tiny each year, to the point it almost doesn't happen. It's absurd to justify a firearm purchase as "protection." You didn't buy it for that reason, you bought it because you thought it was cool and it's fun to shoot. Just be honest about it.

Which is like saying you can't justify car insurance "as a protection" because the number of people who get into crashes each year is almost-infinitely smaller than the total number of people who drive insured.

Likewise, the fact that "good guys with guns" aren't allowed to carry them in a lot of places where they could defend lives -- as we disastrously learned when some "gun-free zones" meant unarmed, law-abiding citizens (including people who left their gun in their car) were victimized by criminals for whom "gun-free zone" meant "nobody can stop me until the cops get here" -- are no longer able to do it. Even a cabbie who shot a would-be mass shooter shouldn't have had his gun where he was.
---

Zeus posted...

Which is like saying you can't justify car insurance "as a protection" because the number of people who get into crashes each year is almost-infinity smaller than the total number of people who drive insured.

Zeus that comparison is unrelated. It's like you came in saying, "Sure, but what's that got to do with the price of beans?" We're not going to play stupid, intellectually dishonest games in this topic. Be honest, be plain, and make real arguments.

Then you edited and added in the classic, "the solution is more guns" argument, which is stupid and demonstrably wrong. Adding guns increases violence. Don't pretend and act stupid here.

SushiSquid posted...

Zeus posted...

Which is like saying you can't justify car insurance "as a protection" because the number of people who get into crashes each year is almost-infinity smaller than the total number of people who drive insured.

Zeus that comparison is unrelated. It's like you came in saying, "Sure, but what's that got to do with the price of beans?" We're not going to play stupid, intellectually dishonest games in this topic. Be honest, be plain, and make real arguments.

Oh? So arguing that one thing is ineffective because you only need it when shit happens isn't like another thing you only need when shit happens? Is that really the defense you're going to try to use today?

A gun is effectively an insurance policy. It's there to protect you IF or WHEN you need it. The reality is that you likely won't need it, just like actual insurance policies, but that doesn't diminish the fact that it's EXTREMELY useful when you do need it, especially because police can take hours to respond to burglar alarms.

SushiSquid posted...

Then you edited and added in the classic, "the solution is more guns" argument, which is stupid and demonstrably wrong. Adding guns increases violence. Don't pretend and act stupid here.

Then you edited and added in the classic, "Adding more guns increases violence," which is stupid and demonstrably wrong. Guns don't create violence, they either carry out or defend from violence.
---

SushiSquid posted...

Keep your hunting rifles. I like venison just fine. But there's no place in the US for AR15s and other assault weapons. For that matter, I'm all for banning pistol magazines with higher capacities. You don't need that shit.

There is a reason for it and the reason for it is the reason it was established in the constitution in the first place.
---

Smarkil posted...

SushiSquid posted...

Keep your hunting rifles. I like venison just fine. But there's no place in the US for AR15s and other assault weapons. For that matter, I'm all for banning pistol magazines with higher capacities. You don't need that shit.

There is a reason for it and the reason for it is the reason it was established in the constitution in the first place.

Plus, as riots in the past few decades have shown us, you DO need that shit. Business owners used high-caliber weapons to defend their businesses from violent looters and anarchists during the LA riots, for instance. Frankly, in these highly unsettled times, there's no way of knowing when a riot may break out in your area since your town is one death away from becoming the next Ferguson.
---

It makes me happy not even remotely needing a gun where or I live or thinking that I need a gun. Very little bad shit is going to happen here.
---

This was put into the Constitution so that we could violently overthrow our government. But by that rule, we should be allowed tanks, armed drones, armed fighter jets, bombs, missile launchers, etc. Clearly we cannot as citizens overthrow the government by force using what is legal still, so that argument has no merit. You're either for the original intent (and thus I am allowed to own nukes), or you understand that technology has changed too much for that to be valid still.

Zeus posted...

Oh? So arguing that one thing is ineffective because you only need it when shit happens isn't like another thing you only need when shit happens? Is that really the defense you're going to try to use today?

A gun is effectively an insurance policy. It's there to protect you IF or WHEN you need it.

No it is not. The rate at which good guys with guns make the situation better is almost nothing. Law enforcement and first responders have a harder job because of the idiot thinking he's a hero. You're also far more likely to hurt an innocent than to actually do any real good. It's not insurance, it's gambling.

Zeus posted...

Plus, as riots in the past few decades have shown us, you DO need that shit.

I actually do accept this argument. Very rarely, you might have a valid defensive purpose for a firearm. But the vast numbers of people killed each year far outweighs this rare occurrence.

I should probably point out that I like guns. I like shooting them. It's fun. But if we had stricter regulations and an assault weapons ban, hundreds of people wouldn't have just gotten shot and dozens wouldn't have died. In exchange for all of that pain, I get to go, "Badass!" when I shoot tanarite with an AR15.

You know what? I'm willing to give that up to protect lives, and I think anyone who isn't is an ass hole.

I own a Glock 30s. For work. I was going to get a 21 but when I have to concealed carry the 21 is too bulky.

SushiSquid posted...

This was put into the Constitution so that we could violently overthrow our government. But by that rule, we should be allowed tanks, armed drones, armed fighter jets, bombs, missile launchers, etc. Clearly we cannot as citizens overthrow the government by force using what is legal still, so that argument has no merit. You're either for the original intent (and thus I am allowed to own nukes), or you understand that technology has changed too much for that to be valid still.

Given America's difficulties in Vietnam and other places, I'd say that guns might be enough to resist an occupying force. More importantly, guns weren't the strongest armaments at the time anyway so your argument is facetious.

SushiSquid posted...

No it is not. The rate at which good guys with guns make the situation better is almost nothing. Law enforcement and first responders have a harder job because of the idiot thinking he's a hero. You're also far more likely to hurt an innocent than to actually do any real good. It's not insurance, it's gambling.

All insurance is gambling. You're hedging on needing it, just as with guns. As for law enforcement, relying on them is a very quick way to die in many parts of the country.
---

No.
And as someone with a history of mental illness and depression, I think it should be illegal for people like me to own them.
---

Zeus posted...

Given that this is the first time I've even acknowledged it

Like so many of your posts lately this is absolutely false.

This isn't even the first time you have mentioned my wife recently.
---

SushiSquid posted...

This was put into the Constitution so that we could violently overthrow our government. But by that rule, we should be allowed tanks, armed drones, armed fighter jets, bombs, missile launchers, etc. Clearly we cannot as citizens overthrow the government by force using what is legal still, so that argument has no merit. You're either for the original intent (and thus I am allowed to own nukes), or you understand that technology has changed too much for that to be valid still.

We don't need to fight the government's tanks, and jets, and missile launchers. All we have to do is fight the occupying force AKA the police. An AR15 is certainly capable enough of doing that. As Zeus pointed out, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. has proven that a couple of guys with rifles can stop an occupying force - and those people are people who started out destitute with virtually no training or education whatsoever.

The government could nuke everything outside of DC, but at that point all they'd be ruling over is a pile of ash.

The government is shitty enough as is. I don't trust them not to be shitty. I like having an insurance policy.
---

Okay. Let's say that's a valid reason to have guns. Can you honestly say that your paranoia about the government should outweigh the thousands of lives lost to firearms that wouldn't be lost if guns were less common and more regulated? And I'm not just talking homicide. Two thirds of gun deaths are suicide, and we know that if you make suicide harder, people are far less likely to kill themselves.

Is your paranoia about something that isn't likely to happen really worth thousands of lives? I think that anyone who honestly believes it is, is an ass hole.

SushiSquid posted...

Okay. Let's say that's a valid reason to have guns. Can you honestly say that your paranoia about the government should outweigh the thousands of lives lost to firearms that wouldn't be lost if guns were less common and more regulated? And I'm not just talking homicide. Two thirds of gun deaths are suicide, and we know that if you make suicide harder, people are far less likely to kill themselves.

Is your paranoia about something that isn't likely to happen really worth thousands of lives? I think that anyone who honestly believes it is, is an ass hole.

Yes.

Because you're implying that gun control would automatically save thousands of lives and also negating the lives guns save.

Let's go back to Australia.

In 1995 prior to the gun ban, the homicide rate was about 18 in 100k. To about 13 in 100k in 2006. About 1/4 reduction in the homicide rate over 11 years.

The US homicide rate in 1995 was about 82 in 100k. In 2006, it was 6.1 in 100k. Roughly 1/4 reduction in the homicide rate.

I don't think you can definitively say that Australia's homicide rate dropped with any sort of significance solely because of the gun ban. Both homicide rates dropped at approximately the same right over the same amount of time. That doesn't necessarily imply that the gun ban DIDN'T help, but it also doesn't mean it did either.

Homicide is down across the board and has been trending downward for a long time. I believe it will continue to go down as we focus our efforts on other things.

And yes, my paranoia about the government is more important than some lives lost. I'm sorry. If you want to start down that road then you have to question every single thing you do. Is thousands of lives lost worth you not having to walk to work? Are thousands of lives lost worth you being able to cut up your chicken? Are thousands of lives lost worth implementing insane traveling restrictions?
---

a_doyle_42 posted...

It makes me happy not even remotely needing a gun where or I live or thinking that I need a gun. Very little bad shit is going to happen here.

very little bad shit happens where I live and everyone and their brother has guns here. but hey thats the perks of living in a low crime rural area. chances of anything major happening are slim.
---

No but I do want to buy one eventually
---

Yes. Sadly not enough of them. I need to get a few more but them moneyz.
---