Two questions for gun control people

[rebelcowboysnb]

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

I feel ambivalent about gun control. Too many idiots have guns. On the other hand the regulations target the wrong people. That said, nobody needs an assault rifle in civilian life. Nobody.

Nope, nobody.../scarcasm

 

[chickened]

I feel ambivalent about gun control. Too many idiots have guns. On the other hand the regulations target the wrong people. That said, nobody needs an assault rifle in civilian life. Nobody.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... some say the idiots should not be allowed to reproduce. I respect your opinion on the matter though.

 

[Q9]

Just a hypothetical example to illustrate a point. I understand the doubt that you raise in the case of the US regarding particular types of gun and the move to ban or limit them.

You are more of a gun expert than I, Dennis. What long barrelled gun would you suggest for reasonable defensive use around the home land to supplement a hand gun?

I had in mind a .22 Ruger or CZ but today handled a couple of Remington pump action shot guns. One of those might be a better deterrent than a .22, provided that my wife could also manage it. Rather nice to handle too. Made me feel like an old time London bank robber except that they weren't sawn off! The cost would be about the same as for a .22 but the ammunition would probably be more expensive.

Would a shotgun be more suitable?

I know the question was for Dennis, but I can't resist throwing in my input. A shotgun (for home defense) is better than a .22 in almost all circumstances. If your wife doesn't like heavy recoil, a 20 gauge is more than suffecient. Ammo is definitely more expensive, but you get far more from one round of 12 or 20 gauge than a round of .22LR. Of course, for cheap practice, .22 beats all.

 

[Q9]

How about a stock of Cocaine? Would that be OK?

Hey, if you wanna get stoned and ruin your own life, be my guest. IMO, ending the drug war would go a ways towards kicking the legs out from under the cartels, as well as dramatically decreasing our prison population so that we have room for actual criminals.

 

[Q9]

I feel ambivalent about gun control. Too many idiots have guns. On the other hand the regulations target the wrong people. That said, nobody needs an assault rifle in civilian life. Nobody.

Technically speaking, assault rifles (that is, full auto) have been strictly regulated since 1934. You've basically got to sell your soul to the BATF to get one.

Guns that look military (AR-15, AKM, FAL, M1A, etc.) are used for all kinds of things; aside from the "don't tread on me" factor, ARs and AKs are extremely popular for predator and hog hunting, all of them are commonly used in three-gun competitions, and the battle rifles (in 7.62 NATO) make fine deer rifles. ARs and AKs also do great for home defense with the right loads - AKs absolutely devour hollow points, and there are AR loads made specifically for home protection.

 

[hemet dennis]

Quote: Yep agree with Q9 and also what I think it was Rebel said it depends what the other players bring to the game and how many there may be. Sometimes the best defense is track shoes. Ever heard of living to fight another day ?

Quote: Another one where I agree with Q9.

Quote: It seems they keep lowering the standard to be an assault weapon. England now thinks a knife is an assault weapon and needs to be regulated.

 

[bakerjw]

I feel ambivalent about gun control. Too many idiots have guns. On the other hand the regulations target the wrong people. That said, nobody needs an assault rifle in civilian life. Nobody.

Why does our DHS need more than a billion rounds of handgun and rifle ammunition? The DHS is not the Army and they are certainly not locking down the borders. As it stands, that's enough ammunition for several years in a combat zone. The reason that most people have ARs, AKs, and SKSs is in case an agency like the DHS is directed to crack down on US citizens. It's happened in many countries in the past.

 

[bakerjw]

Just a hypothetical example to illustrate a point. I understand the doubt that you raise in the case of the US regarding particular types of gun and the move to ban or limit them.

You are more of a gun expert than I, Dennis. What long barrelled gun would you suggest for reasonable defensive use around the home land to supplement a hand gun?

I had in mind a .22 Ruger or CZ but today handled a couple of Remington pump action shot guns. One of those might be a better deterrent than a .22, provided that my wife could also manage it. Rather nice to handle too. Made me feel like an old time London bank robber except that they weren't sawn off! The cost would be about the same as for a .22 but the ammunition would probably be more expensive.

Would a shotgun be more suitable?

Many people have visions of grandeur when it comes to using a handgun to stop an intruder in their house. The point is, that you will usually be startled awake and have to get your bearings, so I am not a big fan of handguns for home defense. I have a couple of different handguns that I carry depending on the occasions, i.e. Winter clothes or Summer clothes and for home defense I have a few shotguns around the house. Next to the bed we have an Escort tactical with 3" 00 buckshot shells.

The rack of the slide will usually scare off most intruders but if they are persistent, it will shoot a fairly wide pattern.

I also have an old Ranger 12 gauge out near the back door that is used when I deal with predator problems. Dogs and fox are known culprits when I've lost birds.
Another that I just picked up is a Mossberg 500. It is like the escort and very easy to use and find after market parts like flashlight mounts if needed.

So for home defense. I always opt for a shotgun. The 00 buckshot is more than .22 long rifle but you should never even need to use it other than taking it out to see how it shoots and what kind of pattern that it has. The pattern is how much the shot spreads after coming out the barrel.

 

[hemet dennis]

Quote:
Well you have to ask how many armed agents work under the DHS. They have 7 sub agencies the customs and border protection, Immigration services, U.S. coast guard, FEMA, Secret Service, TSA, Federal law Enforcement Training Center.
Then you have to figure how many rounds does each agent need to practice and stay qualified each quarter ? Also how many replacement agents will they need each year and how many rounds will it take to get them proficient to be qualified ? Most of the contracts for all that ammo are filled over a 3 to 5 year period. Most agents will have to be trained and qualified on more then one type of weapon. 99.9% of the ammo they buy will be fired in practice and qualifying.

So when you look at it that way is that really a lot of ammo ?

I'll bet there are more DHS armed agents then the Army has in Afghanistan.