Gun Debate Discussion

I don't really like manual safeties which have a reason to be only on single-action semiautos.

Carrying a chambered pistol with no manual safety switch on my breast would make me two hells of nervous, double action or not...

Then again, I don't really know anything about pistols. Only fired one a few times when our lietenant felt like lettting us have a go with it...
 
Carrying a chambered pistol with no manual safety switch on my breast would make me two hells of nervous, double action or not...

I would trust double action or the Glock Safe Action mechanism, but then, it is not the kind of gun you would want to use for spree killing or sports. It is a feature better suited for law enforcement, not for fun, such mechanisms are pretty disturbing if you use the pistol often.
 
I would trust double action or the Glock Safe Action mechanism, but then, it is not the kind of gun you would want to use for spree killing or sports. It is a feature better suited for law enforcement, not for fun, such mechanisms are pretty disturbing if you use the pistol often.

Well, for sports (if you mean competitive shooting) the weapon is loaded at the shooting position and never decocked (and if you do it you can cock it manually anyway). SA trigger break on any P22x or P23x is pretty crisp, and the Glock is in the same category because you don't really have a long, hard pull on it.

Around here, people swear by the SIG P210 which is a really accurate weapon with a beautifully set trigger. It's a SA weapon, with unfortunately some drawbacks: its manual safety only cuts off the trigger and magazine feed, but doesn't stop the weapon from firing if dropped with the hammer cocked in some circumstances. This has been corrected with the P210 Legend. Then the weapon's beaver tail is too small and some shooter can get bitten by the slide (ouch), something which can be fixed with a longer beaver tail.

Anyway, those are expensive and valuable weapons. Spree shooters and gangstas go usually for cheaper weapons like the Intratec DC-9 or clones of it. Your average street criminal or average nut doesn't care about weapon accuracy or reliability, because those guns end up treated really badly (ever seen a gangsta cleaning his weapon? they can't even hold them properly) and often discarded if things become too hot.

---------- Post added at 21:33 ---------- Previous post was at 21:25 ----------

Then again, I don't really know anything about pistols. Only fired one a few times when our lietenant felt like lettting us have a go with it...

That must have been the P220 which is the Swiss Army sidearm. It's actually a great weapon, I own one though I seldom shoot it. 8 round single column magazine, heel release. Cops used it as well, but it's IMHO too large for everyday carry.
P220s and all its descendants can be carried with a round chambered and the hammer down quite safely. They're not going off on you, ever. The firing pin can only be released if the trigger is pulled beyond break. They're also very reliable, it takes a lot to jam one.
 
I would venture to guess that the members here on the forum that do carry a weapon concealed (legally of course) are far and away more intelligent than the average 'gangsta' portrayed on the national news or television drama.I also must say that the debate carried on here is much more cordial than several other I've had the (mis)fortune to overhear or partake in, and once again would like to say "thanks" to all the members here who represent a different snapshot of society.

I've been carrying legally for 12 years, and have only 'needed' to use it once. That was to put a deer out of it's miserable dying condition after being hit by a truck along a rural highway in east Tennessee. The prime reason that I got my concealed carry permit was to be able to do legally what I'd been doing for years anyway. Apart from all the rules that I learned when dealing with guns growing up, I've established a few of my own while carrying. Ghostrider does bring up some good points in his initial post, when I first started carrying I found that it is very tedious to be on high alert at all times. I've also discovered that it's generally also not necessary.

Going out to eat with the family is one thing. Walking my kids dance instructor to her car, while she has the dance fees for the month in one of those "lock bags" that banks issue is another.

"Gun Control" isn't an easy topic/issue. If it were, there'd be no issue. To me gun control is the ability to hit your target. And I can, I'm not very fast, and I'm certainly no John Wayne. The Hollywood portrait of a gun owner is more like Mel Gibson's character in Lethal Weapon (or worse). Which I am also, not. Now the control of guns is bound to be a crock of, well, you know... Realistically I don't think it's even possible (outside of a complete police state). There are probably as many firearms as there are bottles of liquor available. If a teenager wants to get wasted on Old Harper, he'll find a means to do so, the same is true for a firearm.

I hope this gun control debate continues here, it's very informative to hear what the members think. Somewhat enlightening, but not altogether surprising. And (so far) very cordial. Thanks guys.
 
this is easily the most sophisticated debate iv ever read. 90% of the time its nothing but "guns r bad" and "right to bear arms, i wanna bring my BAR to the bank for my own safety!!!"

i like how the intelligent community here actually thinks about their responses and makes valid points and arguments.
 
Not really wishing to be a caster of a bad omen on myself through saying so, but I don't think I'll ever have or even hold a firearm. It's better to fall victim to crime than criminalize myself. There is a peaceful way out of the two thirds of nasty situations a mere citizen can get into, and out of the remaining third, only a small fraction are situations when having a weapon is a plus. I realize I'm not a "warrior", and I can never get a proper training, so despite my potential ability to obtain a firearm, I voluntarily reject this choice, because I don't want to join the crowd of armed irreponsible imbeciles.
 
Not really wishing to be a caster of a bad omen on myself through saying so, but I don't think I'll ever have or even hold a firearm. It's better to fall victim to crime than criminalize myself. There is a peaceful way out of the two thirds of nasty situations a mere citizen can get into, and out of the remaining third, only a small fraction are situations when having a weapon is a plus. I realize I'm not a "warrior", and I can never get a proper training, so despite my potential ability to obtain a firearm, I voluntarily reject this choice, because I don't want to join the crowd of armed irreponsible imbeciles.
:rofl:

Well, Dirty Harry said "A man's got to know his limitations".

You are probably underestimating yourself, but I too would rather 'grin and bear it' even if I were armed, rather than risk the life of others or myself. In Tennessee and many other states, the gun owner (rather the one who pulled the trigger) is legally and financially (and I'd add morally) responsible for the bullet when it leaves the barrel. I can't remember exactly the line from Steven King's "Dark Tower" books, but it goes along the lines of "I shoot with my mind". My thoughts are that if I can keep a cool head, things may not go my way, but I'm alive at least. Conversely if I make a rash decision, then I may get myself killed, and the criminal could add my gun to his inventory.
But if I've got a clear path to shoot, the bad guy might not get a chance to be a repeat offender. But there is a long mental checklist to go through first.
 
90% of the time its nothing but "guns r bad" and "right to bear arms, i wanna bring my BAR to the bank for my own safety!!!"

That is potentially the funniest firearm related comment I've ever heard, it covers both ends of the gun control spectrum... :lol:
 
Any American on the forum who carries a gun can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that most Americans who bother to carry a gun do carry it loaded.

Absolutely. It defeats the purpose if you carry it unloaded IMO. When I do carry, mainly if I'm not sure about my destination, I will also slide a round into the chamber before walking out of the door. Once home, I remove the round from the chamber as a safety precaution. Under normal circumstances, simply having the gun loaded will suffice. As others have said, it only take a moment to chamber one.
 
Well,some excursion in personal psychology:

When I got my first assault rifle in the army, the immediate feeling I had, when I got it handed, was a heavy weight of responsibility. you hold it in your hands, and it is just as heavy as you expected, but then, there is also new mass on your shoulders. A really chilling feeling. When I first loaded it with live ammo, the feeling was way more intense. From that point on, a decision of me could mean the death of somebody else. It could be a good or a bad decision, but generally, a decision that I don't want. Not then, not today.

As soldier, you have to take this responsibility. You might not like it, but it is your duty, and in that moral codex, you use it as the soldier in your head would, and not like the civilian that you left back home. Had the interesting result that I was generally shooting in training situation, when others still hesitated. And was generally approved by my trainers, that I decided not a millisecond too late. The situation was escalating quickly, as intended in the training.

Luckily, training was NEVER like the real world. In the real world, people don't want to push the situation to the limits. It is no rehearsal anymore, in which you can just start again. It is no Hollywood movie either. you don't get Warsaw pact terrorists sabotaging people, you get slightly drunk and risk seeking teenagers. And there, you really see what guard training is actually about: Not the fastest way about shooting the intruder with a single shot right in the head. But about knowing all options and alternatives before you need to do that, and how to control the situation towards not needing to waste ammo or time at all.

The feeling of responsibility did never go away. You grew confident on it, learned that it was somewhere between the fear of actually having to use deadly force, and the excitement of having so much power at hand.

Why it matters to that thread? Because gun owners never automatically also get guard training. Many gun-owners are really believing that, if they just wave around with their pistol and shout a lot, the bad guy will stop. or that by shooting the intruder, the work is done. And that just training at a shooting range, will also make them better in guarding their house and family. The opposite is the case. Without the training, they are just as dangerous for their families, as the possible intruders.

If you have never practiced reading the situation in which you are in, you will also not know what kind of force is now needed, or if it might even be wiser to take a step back and get in a better position. You might even not think about the need to have a second buddy in a good position to give you cover, because the real world enemies are never like training targets. They will try to move you into a better position for them as well, if they are as smart and evil as they can really get. In that moment, having a second pair of eyes is extremely good for your health. Even if this second pair of eyes is just shouting "Watch out!"

Such training is never mandatory. People really believe for fighting the bad government or the bad criminal, all training you need you get from the shooting range, but that is wrong. The shooting range is only perfecting the final 1% of the force you have available. If you don't know about the other 99%, these 1% will become 100% you have. Either you shoot instantly and maybe kill an innocent person or a criminal that could have survived otherwise, or you die yourself. Which is the glorified situation that idiots brag about, but which professionals disdain.

I would say, many who did law enforcement here, know the other 99% well and don't need any lecturing. But I suspect, they are a tiny minority among all gun owners. And I am pretty sure, that they also know the responsibility better than people who are thoughtless enough to buy a gun without also buying the proper training. People who have the training likely also know, why a gun alone doesn't disarm a situation and that a bad guy can not only be armed himself, but also be not alone on your property, before you ensured that.

I know that now, as civilian, I am not trained in the other 99% and likely poor in the 1%. I couldn't take the responsibility, because I can't be responsible, not able to do the proper decisions needed. Having a gun now, would mean much more danger from my side, than from any thinkable attacker, that did yet never come here.
 
Just to add in my opinion on this. My experience with guns is quite limited - I did quite a lot of handgun shooting at summer camp in Switzerland one year, and target shooting for about a year at school (with rifles and jackets etc). I completely suck at aiming pistols, but am ok at the target rifles (that said, it's fairly hard to miss the targets when you're lying down and wrapped up in a strait jacket).

That said, I thoroughly dislike guns in all their forms for the simple (and somewhat naive) reason that their one and only reason to exist is to cause suffering, and I'm in general opposed to objects which exist for such reasons.

Here in England, I'm very happy that I can rely on the following bit of knowledge: if I see someone on the street with a gun, that puts them into one of two categories. The first is that they're police and the second is that they're a criminal. Given that most criminals over here don't dress up as police (at least none that I've heard of!), it'll be quite easy to tell them apart, and to react if necessary (i.e. don't approach criminals who have guns, and dial 999 ASAP). Simplicity isn't always good, but in this case I think it definitely is.

Whilst I would definitely prefer it if all guns were to suddenly vanish from America (and indeed the rest of the world) and be replaced by rubber chickens, that is hardly a practical solution. The fact remains that America is filled with guns, and that isn't going to change anytime soon. Whether or not people actually do benefit from having a gun, the fact that a criminal in the USA is very likely to have one is a strong argument in favour of allowing people to own weapons.

So despite my opposition to guns, I do support a limited form of gun-ownership in the USA. I think people should be allowed to own guns, but I think they should be strictly controlled. I see no reason why people shouldn't have to go through a lengthy registration and approval process each time they wish to purchase a firearm. Additionally, I see no reason why anybody should be allowed to own an automatic weapon of any sort. I suspect they are utterly useless for home defense (at least I sure as hell wouldn't want to try and defend my home with one), but are rather just another manifestation of 'badassery'. I think the same applies for extended magazines. If you can't hit someone with 1 out of 20 rounds, I doubt you should be allowed to have a gun.
 
Last edited:
If you can't hit someone with 1 out of 20 rounds, I doubt you should be allowed to have a gun.

completely agree with you there. if you dont have the accuracy and patience to make the first shot count, you are in no position to be firing the weapon. There is no telling where or what or whom that stray bullet might hit.
 
That said, I thoroughly dislike guns in all their forms for the simple (and somewhat naive) reason that their one and only reason to exist is to cause suffering, and I'm in general opposed to objects which exist for such reasons.

Here in England, I'm very happy that I can rely on the following bit of knowledge: if I see someone on the street with a gun, that puts them into one of two categories. The first is that they're police and the second is that they're a criminal. Given that most criminals over here don't dress up as police (at least none that I've heard of!), it'll be quite easy to tell them apart, and to react if necessary (i.e. don't approach criminals who have guns, and dial 999 ASAP). Simplicity isn't always good, but in this case I think it definitely is.

Whilst I would definitely prefer it if all guns were to suddenly vanish from America (and indeed the rest of the world) and be replaced by rubber chickens, that is hardly a practical solution. The fact remains that America is filled with guns, and that isn't going to change anytime soon. Whether or not people actually do benefit from having a gun, the fact that a criminal in the USA is very likely to have one is a strong argument in favour of allowing people to own weapons.

So despite my opposition to guns, I do support a limited form of gun-ownership in the USA. I think people should be allowed to own guns, but I think they should be strictly controlled. I see no reason why people shouldn't have to go through a lengthy registration and approval process each time they wish to purchase a firearm. Additionally, I see no reason why anybody should be allowed to own an automatic weapon of any sort. I suspect they are utterly useless for home defense (at least I sure as hell wouldn't want to try and defend my home with one), but are rather just another manifestation of 'badassery'. I think the same applies for extended magazines. If you can't hit someone with 1 out of 20 rounds, I doubt you should be allowed to have a gun.
I agree with this. From what it seems, America does not consider guns a major threat or question their existence, but the second amendment was created during a completely different atmosphere. Most people don't require guns to survive anymore. Hunting for food is pretty much gone; all it does is diminish the wildlife population. Guns don't appear to protect the population from tyranny either. Self-defense, hardly. Strict controls are good.
 
It's better to fall victim to crime than criminalize myself.

Your choice but keep in mind that 1) defending yourself is not a crime and 2) falling victim to a crime may have life-lasting consequences you don't want to know about.


There is a peaceful way out of the two thirds of nasty situations a mere citizen can get into, and out of the remaining third, only a small fraction are situations when having a weapon is a plus.

I'm curious, where did you get your figures? Yes, there are ways to get out of a nasty situation (mainly knowing where not to go, and here we could talk about what kind of free citizen am I if there are places that are off-limits to me simply because there be hoodlums there and my tax money is not being used to clear them up). Anyway, having a weapon doesn't mean you can let the guard down, on the contrary it means it goes up, but again there are those among us who like this option. Having pepper spray (the good defence type, not the "slightly more irritating than Paco Rabanne" type that is sometimes sold at supermarkets) is always good.

I realize I'm not a "warrior", and I can never get a proper training, so despite my potential ability to obtain a firearm, I voluntarily reject this choice, because I don't want to join the crowd of armed irreponsible imbeciles.

Lol, I'm no "warrior" myself. I tend to do my utmost best to avoid dangerous situations like any sensible individual who likes his skin where it is does, even in my line of work. Choices are choices and I respect them, I just don't want anyone imposing them on me. Which happens to be fashionable in the current political climate.
 
By the way, Ghostrider, what do you think about the new Gunlaw in Switzerland we're voting on just now?
 
By the way, Ghostrider, what do you think about the new Gunlaw in Switzerland we're voting on just now?

I'm of course contrary. It implies every Swiss male is a dangerous psycho who is constantly threatening his wife and kids and can't wait to shoot them dead, and all Swiss women are helpless DIDs who need a benevolent State to watch over them. Insofar, the Swiss soldiers have shown to be very responsible in keeping their weapons and those who don't want them at home can already have them deposited at the arsenals.

As for suicides, I would like a research on what's the number 1 cause for them in Switzerland: I suspect it's mainly economic reasons and it's something some lobbies wouldn't like to talk about. Moreover, why put an accent on suicide prevention when in Switzerland we have suicide-assistance associations like "Exit"? Are we supposed to think suicide is right only on receipt?

What I would like to see in firearms law is:

1- mandatory training and qualifications. We have them in the Army, we can have them for civilians. To obtain a carry permit you have to pass a strict exam. I propose a mandatory FREE course sponsored by shooting clubs. We have firearms instructors volunteering at shooting events to train gunewbies (now that's a horrible neologism), most of them would be willing to volunteer time for such a program which is also supported by gun clubs.

2 - stronger involvement of police personnel in civilian awareness and safety training. This is something the rank-and-file cops would like to have and we already have some initiatives in this sense, but only at city level. It should be federal or at least cantonal-

3 - bring back the off-service volunteer courses for active military personnel. Besides being great fun, it really helps bringing the citizen-soldier and his Army together, and improves greatly training at NCO level.

As you may have garnered, I favor an active involvement which is what citizenship should be about - active participation. The State is me, in part.
 
Also, I would suggest doing a tiny research, if the number of depressed people is higher or lower among people in the Swiss army. ;)

My first guess, judging the really slightly higher number of suicides there, is that it is exactly the same as among civilians in Switzerland. About the causes, that should be left to psychologists, I think we are talking about many individual causes, that maybe show a common pattern, but no real single cause.

And yes - having something like Exit legal in a country, and forbidding people to use their rifle for the same agenda, sounds a bit hypocritical. Most customers of Exit can be cured (or at least kept alive and pain-free until they die at a statistically normal age), and just decide to leave as long as it is their decision...often with a lot of convincing work by Exit people (at least here in Germany) to do the final step.

I think suicide is a dishonorable act and a waste of sophisticatedly assembled biomass (we can build container ships faster than a single human) and expensive support (life long service and software upgrades needed).
 
Your choice but keep in mind that 1) defending yourself is not a crime and

By your law, probably. By Russian law, you only have a right to defend yourself if you don't excess the limits of necessary self-defense. That means (Criminal Code Article 37) , you only can respond to offender in deadly force if he is posing a clear and immediate lethal danger for your life or for a third person's life.

If you killed the guy and fail to prove in the court that "immediate lethal danger" was there, (a judge may or may not agree with you on that), you are not protected by this article and are a convict of murder.

Also, in case the attacker doesn't use a lethal weapon to attack you (for instance, if he is trying to hit you with a chair or a metal rod he just picked up, or even a knife), you absolutely has no right to fire at him, unless you are predeterminedly vulnerable person (junior age, disabled, pregnant, etc).

If the judge is kind to you, a case of excessive defense can be used to count down the imprisonment term a little, but you have a big chance to go there nevertheless.

In addition, out of all possible encounters, an average civilian has much worse chance to prove he was in his own right to defend himself if he faces an organized crime or crime conducted by policemen... Which happens often, and where guns are usually involved.

2) falling victim to a crime may have life-lasting consequences you don't want to know about.

Bad things happen.
 
By your law, probably. By Russian law, you only have a right to defend yourself if you don't excess the limits of necessary self-defense.

That's exactly the same here: the force used in defence must be proportional to the force used to attack you. Which means that if the bad guy uses a weapon of any kind, you're justified in retaliating. This is the difference here between our laws and yours: a knife, broken bottle and most other objects are classified as lethal weapons. Of course, if someone attacks me with a melee weapon and if I'm far enough, I'm going to run as fast as I can. If I have the option, I'll use pepper spray. Even if I draw in this case I'll issue the warning "Security agent - DROP YOUR WEAPON OR I'LL SHOOT!" (PIs are classified as "security agents" in Switzerland).

Bad things happen.

Not on me and my loved ones on my watch, not if I can help it, dude. :)
 
By your law, probably. By Russian law, you only have a right to defend yourself if you don't excess the limits of necessary self-defense. That means (Criminal Code Article 37) , you only can respond to offender in deadly force if he is posing a clear and immediate lethal danger for your life or for a third person's life.

Is the same in Germany, especially by the German Soldier law, but you can usually count on having the judge decide in your favor as long as you don't push your luck too far.

You notice the same processes for example in Afghanistan: Because Germany is formally not in war, all actions in Afghanistan are treated as if the soldier was acting inside Germany. People might not understand the problem with the decisions of Colonel Klein, but practically, he really pushed against the limits of valid civil self-defense by calling in an air strike.

Yes, that means that you are actually really able to call in an air strike for your self-defense or the defense of others. You just should not expect to get away easily. ;)

Every time, German soldiers are shot, or German soldiers are shooting somebody, the German general attorneys are notified and have the right to start a investigation. Usually, they don't, but for notable events, you not only had the internal Army investigation running, but also a civil one.

Which is not really special if you know about the legal system inside the German Army. Soldiers are ALWAYS punished twice for the same crime. First according to the soldier law, second to those civil laws that apply. It is a complex and pretty unfair system (In a brawl in a pub, you can end up getting a much harder punishment as the other guy, only because you are soldier, even if you act in defense, but can't prove this properly), but it usually works. The only real discipline problems come from groups that are not subject to the same mechanisms - the special forces. But this is changing already, the special forces are getting dragged more and more under parliamentary control again.
 
Back
Top