I currently have: 1) Snubnose .38 S&W 2) SigSaur 380 3) S&W 39-2 (9mm) 4) Makarov I want: 1) Glock 23 2) Kel-Tec P-11 3) Ruger P-95 (9mm) I am partial to the 9mm and 40 cal weapons. Not much recoil.
This thread started with the original poster asking for feedback on a specific model of gun. It doesn't look to me like it was intended to be a debate on the merits of gun ownership or the 2nd Amendment. So if you want to discuss or especially whine about either of those things, start your own ****ing thread and leave the gun nuts alone.
Brian - can I assume you will police every thread that strays from topic now? For those of you proclaim to keep guns for self defense, particularly home defense, what do you do? Do you keep the gun loaded, under your bed? My feelings are that if you have the gun, you need to be prepared to use it, quickly, and be prepared to deal with the consequences. I don't think I could do it, but good for you guys that can. The New England Journal of Medicine claims that guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense. Other interesting statistics are on this web page. http://www.athealth.com/Consumer/issues/gunviolencestats.html I shot a Glock (no idea what model) last week at an indoor range. Growing up in Australia, I never saw a handgun until I arrived in Houston 5 years ago. The power of these things scares the living daylight out of me, especially the percussion. It lools so much easier in the movies
Just because someone owns guns, is pro active in regards to their personal safety and protection, an believes the rights provided to them under the constitution of the united states should not be infringed upon makes them a "gun nut"? I'll never understand this reasoning. For those of you who are ready to rely on the police for you personal protection just be aware that in 99% of all violent crime (murder, rape, etc.) the police arrive after the crime has been committed. Having a 1% chance that the police are going to save me, my wife, or my children from someone intent on violating our life doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Enough of my pro personal freedom rant... Now to the topic addressed in this thread: I personally own a first generation Glock 19 (9mm) and I love it. I almost never shoot it, but it is as accurate and reliable as any gun I've ever shot. Over the past couple years I've grown very fond of guns from the old west. I belong to a couple clubs that do "Cowboy action shooting" which has expanded my gun collection with numerous colt clones, lever action rifles, and old style shotguns. We shoot live lead ammo at steel targets in a timed scenario complete with props, costumes, etc. Amazingly I've shot thousands of rounds of live ammo over the past few years, from numerous types of guns, and never shot a person. I must be a bad shot, but you probably wouldn't want to test me by threatening my life.
Off topic but I didn't breach the subject, and to prevent mis information... Is a firearm in your home "22 times more likely" to be used to kill or injure a family member than to be used for protection? Or "43 times more likely?" How about "18 times more likely?" Anti-gun groups and politicians say it is, citing research by Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D. Dr. Kellermann's dubious conclusions provide anti-gunners propaganda they use to try to frighten Americans into voluntarily disposing of their guns—in essence, to do to themselves what the anti-gunners have been unable to do to them by legislative, regulatory, or judicial means. Kellermann admits to the political goal of his work, saying "People should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes." ("Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home," New England Journal of Medicine, Oct. 1993.) Anti-gun groups have seized upon his most recent attempt in this regard, a "study" from which the bogus "22 times more likely" risk-benefit ratio is derived. ("Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home," Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care, Aug. 1998.) The study suffers numerous flaws common to previous Kellermann efforts, including the fact that it is a very small-scale survey of sample jurisdictions that are not representative of the country or even of one another. Most significant, though, Kellermann severely understates defensive uses of guns, by counting only those in which criminals are killed or injured. Dr. Edgar A. Suter, writing in the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, explains the error in the context of an earlier Kellermann study, which compared family member deaths to killings of criminals: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected—not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1% to 0.2% of defensive gun usage involves the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000." ("Guns in the Medical Literature—A Failure of Peer Review," March 1994, p. 134.) Similarly, criminologist Gary Kleck notes, "More commonly, guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps referred to or displayed, and this sufficient to accomplish the ends of the user." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, p. 162.) Kleck's 1995 landmark survey of defensive gun uses found guns used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually, a number much smaller, obviously, than the number of criminals killed or wounded. ("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.) Kellermann's "22 times more likely" study suffers yet another flaw: only 14.2% of criminal gun-related homicides and assaults he surveyed involved guns kept in the homes where the crimes occurred. With a similar sloppiness in his "43 times more likely" study, suicides (never shown to correlate to gun ownership) accounted for the overwhelming majority of gun-related family member deaths he pretended to compare to defensive gun uses.
For those of you who can't understand why people are sometimes disturbed by what they call 'gun nuts': When you say things like 'you can take my gun when you come and pry it from my cold, dead hands' that sounds a little bit like you both value your gun more than your life, and are eager to become involved in a conflict that you can resolve with your gun. I know you (probably) don't mean it that way, and are simply attempting to relate why your gun is important, but perhaps this is a little too subtle for the average person. To get an idea what this sounds like, think about applying it to any other object that groups have tried to outlaw in the past. For instance, "If they want to take away my vodka, they can do it when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers." This would make you sound like Nicholas Cage in "Leaving Las Vegas". If someone owns a car and spends all of their time 'tricking it out' and making it into a hotrod, most people assume that they perhaps would like to be a race car driver. This would seem to be a non-threatening hobby, and if they happen to speed around every once-in-a-while, it's probably not the end of the world. If someone owns a gunsand spends all of their time 'tricking them out' to be more like super high tech millitary weapons, then, in the same vein, people assume that they harbor some secret, unfufilled desire to be a commando, or a seal, or something. People find this threatening, because one who goes 'over the line' with this fantasy doesn't end up breaking some minor law, like speedlimit rules, but rather ends up in a post office with a SWAT team that has them surrounded. Again, I'm not necessarily saying that any of these beliefs are actually true, I'm just suggesting that for those who aren't 'there', some of these positions/statements can seem to be a precursor to an outcome that is less than desirable. IMHO, gun advocates do themselves a disservice every time they appear obsessive, or confrontational. These people would be better served with a less 'threatening' approach. Of course, if you are a gun owner who spends your days secretly pineing for someone to break into your house so you get the chance to kill someone with your gun, then you are actually a nut, and you can just ignore the preceding.
Ottomation - More people die on our nations highways every year than die by the hands of lawful gun owners, yet you don't hear people trying to deny people the right to drive. Your parallel between people "tricking out their rides" and "speeding around once in a while" and people standing up for their constitutional right to bear arms just doesn't make sense to me. For one, speeding around is not as harmless as it seems. It is the end of the world for innocent people every day at the hands of people engaging in the harmless pursuit of being a wanna be race car driver on public streets and highways. Innocent people are killed everyday! If you want to race your car find a club, join the scca, go out and drag race at Houston Race Way park just don't endanger my life our public streets. A person who owns a gun for sport, pleasure, or protection is not breaking any law and is not a threat to you or your family unlike a person playing race car driver on our roads. When it comes to guns and gun owners rights I'm neither obsessive, or confrontational, but I grow tired of peoples personal freedoms and rights being violated by misinformation and lies being spread in the national media. You may choose to relinquish your right to protect yourself and your family if you so wish, or you can depend solely upon the police department for your protection, just don't try to deny me the right to protect my family if ever threatened. I don't know a singe gun owner (and I know a bunch) who "is secretly pineing for someone to break into their house so they can get the chance to kill someone with their gun". Most hope and pray that they never have to pull their gun in self defense but would rather be pro-active when it comes to personal protection and rely on themselves instead of relying on someone else, yet millions are set on denying them that constitutional right. Not speaking up or trying a "less threatening approach" will leave us with our rights, because our rights are being threatened.
Ok, you're missing the point. The car thing was probably a bad example. Instead try someone who buys a bunch of guitars, and spends hours practicing and preening. I am saying that if someone on the outside looks tries to figure out why this is so important to them, it is not unnatural to assume that this person would like to be Eric Clapton, and that this is their way of maintaining this fantasy. This could be a completely incorrect assumption. Perhaps the person really wants to build guitars, or maybe they just do it as a way to pass time or thinks it will attract women, but the outside perception is still there. Many people who see firearms naturaly latch on to the violent aspects of firearms. They assume, therefore, that someone who might spend quite a bit of time with their guns is secretly harboring a desire to do more with the gun. As they are conditioned to think of guns as killing machines, they naturaly assume, rightly or wrongly, that the person harbors a desire to go to war or kill their wife or something. The reality is irrelevent. They become afraid of this person because of how they project this intrest to play itself out. First, you are accusing me of many things that I think I've shown I don't believe with earlier posts in this thread. I'm not trying to take away your gun, and your comments seem to me to smack of unproductive and misdirected indignation. I'm simply trying to explore the concept of why some people are afraid of gun buffs, and it seems to me that you think this is an attack on you. In reality, you said something to the effect of and I was trying to see if I could help you understand this concept. People who want to control guns are not evil people, they just don't understand your position fully. To say, however, that there are no people who are attracted to the 'power' or ability to inflict death that a gun provides would be unrealistic. I'm not saying it's even .01%, but there are some, because that is one of the aspects of the device in general. For example, I heard someone on NPR the other day, in a story about Pit Bulls, a guy say something to the effect that having a pit bull is sort of like openly carying a gun in that people get out of your way, but it's better because you won't get hasled by the cops. Clearly, this individual viewed a handgun as a source of intimidation, and was attracted to guns for the wrong reason, so there's at least one out there. Let me give you another example. On 90.1 the other day in the morning I heard some guy talking about the recent trend to seek reperations from the white man for slavery. Generally, this is a concept that I am against, even though I have sympathy for some of the concepts, and generally consider the machinations to be rather benign. This host's arguement, however, basically consisted of repeating several times "The white man owes me money!", and it was finally topped of with a rather vague series of threats that black people should just take the money if white people didn't give it to black people. Setting aside whether this concept has merit or not for a second, as a white man, I can say that my receptiveness to the concept of reperations took a huge turn for the worse as a result of the way that the concept was presented. Apply this to your constitutional rights. A well presented arguement about the constitution, and the need to defend your family serves you better than saying "If you want to take away my gun, come and get it copper!", despite any feelings of satisfaction, or any sense of moral superiority. Perfectly constitutional rights have been usurped in the past. Just because you are right, doesn't mean that you'll win. I'm only trying to help you understand how your positions affect the people who's tacit aproval is required in order for your rights to be stolen. Finally, a minor point: The constitution it seems to me, is not giving you the right to keep and bear arms for protection of your family, but rather for the purpose of enabling you to be part of a well regulated millitia for the security of a free state. In the end, I agree with you and it leads us to the same place, but the difference is important to me.
I'm getting a Clock 12 C (central) -- I was thinking of getting a 12 M (mountain) but then I'd always be an hour early or is that late.
gun nuts??? gun nuts????? Was that necessary? Do you mean if one likes guns that they are a nut? Or was your comment innocuous? If your statement was innocuous my apologies for not picking up on that. If your statement was intended to call us nuts because we own guns...well then it was totally unnecessary.
I know who he is...I just don't know that much about him or how he views things like this. If you can shed some light on it I'd be very appreciative.
I'm curious how many gun lovers who believe that "Guns don't kill people, People kill people" are also are against the legalazation of drugs because "Drugs Kill"?
Put it this way, before I changed my mind a bit on the subject, those were always our most heated debates.
Ottomation - Thanks for trying to enlighten me. I'll try and do the same for you. First I never stated, "If you want to take away my gun, come and get it copper!" Second, "People who want to control guns are not evil people, they just don't understand your position fully." This may be true yet they are trying deprive me and others of their rights. How considerate of them. Nothing personal, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I find this to be a major point and please allow me to retort. The language and intent of the framers of the Second Amendment were perfectly clear two centuries ago. Based on English Common Law, the Second Amendment guaranteed against federal interference with the citizen's right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. Also, the revolutionary experience caused the Founding Fathers to address a second concern-the need for the people to maintain a citizen-militia for national and state defense without adopting a large standing army, which was viewed as the bane of liberty. Like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment recognizes a preexisting right and protects it from being infringed. As the U.S. Supreme Court said in Cruikshank v. U.S. (1876), the right to arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed." Similarly, in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), the court observed, "The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.'" While lower federal courts have been divided on the meaning of the Second Amendment, in each of the few Second Amendment-related cases in which it has ruled, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the right to arms is an individual right. As an examination of law review articles makes clear, most constitutional scholars agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds notes, the "'Standard Model' in Second Amendment theory" is that "the Second Amendment protects the same sort of individual right that other parts of the Bill of Rights provide." The Texas Constitution... Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. (Art. I, § 23 ) Note: The Texas Declaration of Independence stated that "[The Mexican government] has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defense -- the rightful property of freemen -- and formidable only to tyrannical governments."
After re-reading this, I realized how condecending this sounded. Sorry, I honestly didn't intend that to sound so pretensious. This was my attempt to syntheisise Refman's statement: With what would have happened if guns became illegal. By "you" I was kind of referning to the general group of people who had presented confrontational positions in this thread. I probably should have differentiated somewhere in there. Again, sorry. Agreed. I guess that perhaps somewhere in there I was thinking not about the staunch gun control advocates, but perhaps the apathetic misinformed people somewhere in the middle? Helping to educate these people would probably help preserve your rights. I imagine that trying to convince pro-control advocates to change their position is probably pretty futile. I guess I probably didn't make this too clear. I didn't intend to imply that this was any type of 'state right' or anything. I was trying to say that it was an individual right, and the reason for making it an individual right was further clarified by the fact that it was for a millitia, as opposed to bird hunting, or suicide, or specificaly, personal defense. The Verdugo-Urquidez ruling, which you can read here only mentions the second amendment in passing. It's actually a case seeking to define the phrase "We the people" whereas it applies to a Mexican National in Mexico, using evidence obtained without a search warrant. This guy was attempting to imply that the gov't should have obtained a warrant. Basically, the ruling states that 'we the people' and the attendant constitutional rights in the constitution and bill of rights apply both to people on US soil, and US citizens around the world, but not this guy. This would seem to be somewhat relevant to the recent discussions about terrorists, and rights on the US base in Cuba, as well as the rights of Padilla and Lindh. Cruikshank vs. US, which can be read here as it refers to the second amendment makes it clear that the only right which is protected it that of the individual's rights to own guns with respect to the federal government. It very clearly states that the US government can not become involved if a state passes a law outlawing firearm posession. This case is, it apears, really a Reconstruction-era civil rights case. I found a pretty good analysis here. I think if you read these decisions in their entirety, there relevance to the second ammendment today would seem to be minor, though Verdugo-Urquidez seems to reference some cases that I have not read that would seem to support your position. As regards the statutes of English common law, and the intention of the framers of the constitution to imply their applicabiliy, I can honestly say I have no idea about either the particulars of 18th century comon law in England, nor the constitutional congresses intentions as regard them. I will defer to your judgement on the matter. I didn't know this. Intresting. I wonder whether in practical terms what would happen if there was a conflicting federal law. I know that law<-->law the federal superscedes, but constitution<-->law would be a bit more difficult to arbitrate...
A quick perusal has revealed to me that what is known as the 'justification clause' (ie why the constitution grants the right to own firearms) is generally considered unimportant, so I guess the general legal concensus would favor your opinion on the "personal defense" subject after all. Learn something every day
Ottomation - I enjoyed our discussion on the subject. I never would have strayed from the topic at hand (a glock 18c) if people hadn't started calling people names (gun nuts). I think you agree owning a gun, or feeling you have the right to own a gun, doesn't make you a nut. Sorry if at any point I sounded condescending, it wasn't intended.
