Firearms. How have we not gotten to this yet?

mucker wrote:

I'm not sure, but living in canada and growing up , mostly, on u.s. telemedia, gives me a unique perspective...as a canadian, at least me.

The average Canadian vastly overrates their knowledge of the US... it's kind of a Canadian trait.

Quote :

I see my civil situation, as compared, to what I have been shown.

There's Hollywood... and then there's reality. Arnie and the boys shoot benchrest groups with submachine guns in what we're shown on TV... the bad guy always takes the gun away from the frightened victim... but that's not reality.

Quote :

Though I agree every "sound" citizen, should hold , immediate power, like modern arms...it scares me to think that, that would arm every, pschyco/non challant, in the process.

I know many responsible people, and quite a few, less than that.

It does scare many Canadians that people should have the right to "arms for their defense". They tend to forget - or are too young to realize - Canadians also could carry concealed weapons for self defense right up until the early 70's and the Ron Basford - Pierre Trudeau attack on Canadian firearms ownership. And, just like in the US, blood did not run in the streets because law abiding Canadians could carry a firearm for defense. The same was true of England until the early 1900's.

It wasn't too long ago that Florida became a "shall issue" state. The news media screamed this would lead to rampant bloodshed by giving untrained, untrustworthy ordinary people their constitutional right to bear arms. CBC was quite cute about referring to Florida as "the Gunshine State".

So how did that work out for them?

Between October 1987 and July 2011, Florida has issued 2,031,106 concealed carry permits under their "shall issue" legislation. Exactly 168 of those licenses have been revoked as a result of a crime committed with a firearm after licensing - any crime, felony or misdemeanor. Don't we just wish we could get that kind of law abiding behaviour out of the pschyco/non challant we issue driver's licenses to!

Which might explain why you're much more likely to be criminally injured or killed by a licensed driver than a firearm owner.

Quote :

Thing is, about arming americans, it makes sense against a land invasion by china, if their allies supported them...other than that, that's the last serious threat, of a land invasion, of our time.

Thing is, as most Canadians simply don't understand despite their belief of possessing a vast knowledge of all things American, the Second Amendment isn't about providing a military force to oppose an invasion. Nor is it about protecting deer rifles and duck guns. It extends to both those purposes, but that's not it's original and primary intent.

The Canadian view is based on the idea that, when you really, really, really need a cop there (with a gun of course) to protect you, the proper approach is to ask if you can please pick up the phone and dial 911. Reality says that almost all victims of violent crime don't get time to call a cop and those crimes aren't committed in view of a cop. So what you essentially have is a victim lottery - you gamble that you won't draw the black marble, that some other poor sucker does instead.

The supreme human right we have is the right to life. It follows that the right to life means nothing if you don't have the means to protect that right. That's what the right to "arms for their defense" is all about as well as the Second Amendment.

Quote :

As much as I would hate that to happen...the modern economy dictates, and only allows certain threats to be realistic.

Murder, rape, car jacking, aggravated assault... not nearly as exciting as contemplating Chinese shock troops swarming ashore, but a much more likely possibility.

Quote :

Those who use them as a trade, and way of life...will hopefully guide the rest of us in the right direction...because, there is allot of potential to go wrong...as far as I understand.

Education about firearms/weapons can't happen without experience.
Let's listen to the experienced...not those looking for experience.

The same old crap about how only police and military are qualified to use a firearm in self defense, you could put out an eye, etc. I find that amusing, all the more so after spending most of the last 35 years either in law enforcement or in the military.

I'm - still - a small arms instructor in the military, and I was a firearms instructor in the police. And I've been on the two way rifle range a number of times, so I guess I'm "experienced" there as well. If one of the other "experienced" out there wants to postulate on how police and military firearms training is oriented towards personal self defense, please, fly at it.

The reality is that the great majority of the millions of Americans who use a firearm for self defense each year have no formal training in using a firearm for self defense. And yet the streets don't run red with blood from all that potential for things to go wrong.

In fact, civilians shoot and kill about seven times as many criminals each year as the police do. AND (better yet), statistically, they wound fewer innocent bystanders than police do in their shootings.

Old myths don't improve with age.

The essential difference is you won't find many people who will tell you that you really should carry a gun if you know what's good for you. But you'll find no shortage of people who will tell you that you shouldn't carry a gun because of all the bad things that could happen and how unnecessary it is.

gatorfan wrote:

Well, the US still has free speech >>> Clicky

You guys sure like to trot out old news, eh?

That was in 2007; it was an attempt by a university professor (whom I know slightly since I worked at the same place back then) to bring a human rights case against a magazine for an article it published. The case failed, miserably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_complaints_against_Maclean%27s_magazine

It all just points out that free speech is alive and kicking here. On both sides of the argument.

Good to see a lot of us are motorcycle & firearms enthusiasts. I've collected everything from airsoft replicas to US military service rifles. Mostly have them for competition but can be put into service for defense purposes if needed. Got several Glocks, 1911's, S&W revolvers. ARs in different calibers & platforms, M1 Garand, M1A, a couple Marlin lever rifles & a few Ruger 22s.

Maybe we should split this off into a new thread.. a gun rights vs gun control or such.

My last firearm purchase was a waterfowl shotgun i got in utah when i went hunting with my son in law. It is a tristar 12 ga, 3.5" shells, semi auto. It is pretty lightweight, is fully camoed, & has a 28" bbl with changeable chokes. I took it to a skeet range, & like it a lot. But when it has the 3.5" loads in it, it has a lot more kick. But it has a lot of bang for the buck.. if you don't mind the pun. I got it from a dealer right in ogden, new, & it was about the same as from an online retailer like buds. It was a little early for the birds.. the migration hadn't really gotten started.. but i scared a few. Taylor got a duck almost every time we went out.

They have a great dog.. i didn't realize how important a good dog is in waterfowl hunting.

But if we start getting chinese paratroopers dropping in, i don't know how effective the tristar would be. I'll offer my services, but Jager & the other military professionals would probably use my other talents in our home defense.

sturgeon wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

Well, the US still has free speech >>> Clicky

You guys sure like to trot out old news, eh?

That was in 2007; it was an attempt by a university professor (whom I know slightly since I worked at the same place back then) to bring a human rights case against a magazine for an article it published. The case failed, miserably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_complaints_against_Maclean%27s_magazine


It all just points out that free speech is alive and kicking here. On both sides of the argument.

Canadian comedian Guy Earle would disagree.

sturgeon wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

Well, the US still has free speech >>> Clicky

You guys sure like to trot out old news, eh?

That was in 2007; it was an attempt by a university professor (whom I know slightly since I worked at the same place back then) to bring a human rights case against a magazine for an article it published. The case failed, miserably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_complaints_against_Maclean%27s_magazine

It all just points out that free speech is alive and kicking here. On both sides of the argument.

Not if your the defendant out thousands of dollars in legal fees and missed work.

I agree with RydnSeek. Move the stats discussion out of the OP's subject.

His/Her's Sig Sauer P220s (45 ACP). Primarily for protection. We plink around enough to stay friendly with them.

A Beretta 22. Tiny little CCW thing. It was my sisters and I got it when she died. Never shot it.

I'm looking for a long range protection/hunting rifle. Maybe an AR, but I know nothing about guns so if there are recommendations here, let's hear them.

I'd probably want to pick up a shotgun for Pheasant/Turkey around the 40 acres.

X-Racer wrote:

I'm looking for a long range protection/hunting rifle. Maybe an AR, but I know nothing about guns so if there are recommendations here, let's hear them.

What is the criteria for the new rifle? Semi-automatic? Bolt action? Any particular cartridge you're keen on?

"Longe range protection" (from two legged predators) would be tough to defend in court... just saying.

I also was looking for a longer range rifle, & went with a 308 win. It's a very common caliber, & used by the military. It's a little longer & more stable than a 223, with more punch. I was happy with a bolt, & got a nice tikka with ss bbl. I've only fired it a few times, & don't have the scope sighted in yet, but it's a nice rifle. Because it is a more common caliber, the rounds are a little cheaper, though i don't shoot it enough for that to matter. I liked the remington 700 & the tikka, & got a bit of a better deal on the tikka, but i would have been thrilled with the remington.

I also have a 223 in an ar15 variant. Very accurate to ~ 200 yds. Also has inexpensive ammo, & fun to shoot.. not a lot of kick, semi-auto is easy to use. I like both, & will keep both. The 308 is better for large game in the open west, the 223 is a better varmint gun. If i were shopping again, i'd probably get a mini-14 for the 223.. the ruger ranch rifle. Very light & accurate. I've been thinking of getting one, anyway.. but i shoot the ar so little, it's hard to justify it.

But my first choice would probably be a shotgun or a 22 rifle.. or both, if i had to survive in the wild.

If i had to survive chinese troops, i'd probably ride up to montana & enlist in Jager's militia.. he'd probably have me digging latrines & just want me to bring a shovel.

BTW, i opened up another gun politics thread for us to debate the 2nd amendment.

pbnut wrote:

What is the criteria for the new rifle? Semi-automatic? Bolt action? Any particular cartridge you're keen on?

Semi-auto... A .223 (or equivalent).

Then your options are nearly endless.

Looking for "rail-estate" for all kinds of attachements, or more of a KISS rifle? You can really go anywhere with an AR build. Oh yea, build one if it's what you want. You learn how super simple they are to put together, and you avoid the excise tax involved with buying a complete rifle.

X-Racer wrote:

I'm looking for a long range protection/hunting rifle. Maybe an AR, but I know nothing about guns so if there are recommendations here, let's hear them.

Not sure what "long range" is in your mind - for me, it starts around 600 meters. Long range and "protection" usually don't go together, and (my personal opinion only) shooting at game animals at long range is not on - they deserve better than that.

For a hunting rifle, Savage and Mossberg are making entry level bolt guns that are ridiculously cheap - and ridiculously accurate. Unless you live somewhere like here where elk and moose are regularly on the menu, the ubiquitous .308 is hard to beat. If it's all about deer, I'd be looking at the .243/25-06 class. Better choice, but you'll ALWAYS be able to find .308 ammunition. Elk and moose - the 30/06 still tips them over endlessly all over the world. It ain't "the best", but you won't suffer any ill effects from choosing it either.

If you're just thinking of whacking away at long range for fun (and why not, it's fun), a Savage varmint rig in .223 is hard to beat for a combination of accuracy and low price.

If you're stuck on having a semi-automatic and you don't care about the looks a fine firearm has, then a quality AR in .308 will do the job for you. And if you do have protection in mind, a short barrelled upper in 5.56 turns it very quickly into your basic tool for fighting in built up areas.

Quote :

I'd probably want to pick up a shotgun for Pheasant/Turkey around the 40 acres.

There's an endless supply of Remchesters to choose from. I admit to being addicted to fine firearms. I like over/unders, and those over/unders that CZ is marketing in the US are very nice looking indeed and a fraction of the price of what the mainstream manufacturers are offering. And frankly, I think Browning and Beretta are in a competition to made their shotguns more and more gaudy and more and more ugly every year. Compare a present day Browning over and under to my Browning Superposed that I bought back in the early 70's, and you'll see what I mean.

rydnseek wrote:

I also have a 223 in an ar15 variant. Very accurate to ~ 200 yds.

There's no reason an AR won't be accurate as far out as you care to shoot. Not just any AR, but a properly put together AR with quality components will shoot with almost anything. My match rifle will keep 10 rounds inside half an inch at 200 yards all day off the bench, with a scope. That's not unusual for guys shooting National Match, so it's not a freak accident or anything. If your AR is just sorta accurate, then there is a problem with one of the components of the rifle, the build, or the ammunition being used.

Quote :

If i were shopping again, i'd probably get a mini-14 for the 223.. the ruger ranch rifle. Very light & accurate.

You couldn't give me one of those things, and there aren't many who will describe them as "accurate".

Consider this: how many Mini-14s do you see on the firing line at a National Match event? "Zero" would be the correct answer...

Quote :

BTW, i opened up another gun politics thread for us to debate the 2nd amendment.

I've never understood why it requires debating. What is it about "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" which is so confusing?

rydnseek wrote:

I was only pointing out the historical success of the us constitution.. the oldest active constitution in the world, and the only one i know of with a right to keep & bear arms.

One small - and sad - correction here.

The English Bill of Rights predates the US Constitution and is still in force. In fact, the Framers regularly referenced the EBR while drafting the US Constitutional documents. Not surprising, considering their great grandfathers' generation had been the ones who ended the divine right of kings and brought about constitutional government and law.

And the EBR also includes the right of people to own arms for their defence - in fact, that was the basis of the Second Amendment.

However, a quick look at England, Australia, Canada, etc - where the EBR is still part of their constitutions - shows that the governments of those countries have simply decided to ignore that section while keeping the right to vote, the right to elected governments, jury trials, etc.

Looking at how The Anointed One has simply decided to ignore the constitution of late - and previous government attacks on the Second Amendment - that sort of outcome is dangerously close for the US as well. The recent SCOTUS decisions affirming the Second as an individual right were disgusting 5-4 decisions, which also included comments indicating that the issue could be revisited and "reasonable" restrictins were okay.

Ultimately, the right to arms is only protected and defended by the voters, both gun owners and non-gun owners. It is only the force of the vote that is the final protection of the right to bear arms. Courts today are increasingly activist about what the Framers SHOULD have put in the Constitution, and governments are populated by people who serve their personal opinions and kowtow to lobby groups rather than attempting to govern within the restrictions the Constitution laid out for limited government.

If voters don't develop a willingness to throw the bastards out whenever government chooses to ignore the constitution, and elect governments willing to take on SCOTUS whenever they decide to recreate the Constitution, most of the constitution is at risk. Not just the Second, but the limitations on government and everything else.

I guess we can continue over on your other thread now...

Jäger wrote:

rydnseek wrote:

I also have a 223 in an ar15 variant. Very accurate to ~ 200 yds.

There's no reason an AR won't be accurate as far out as you care to shoot. Not just any AR, but a properly put together AR with quality components will shoot with almost anything. My match rifle will keep 10 rounds inside half an inch at 200 yards all day off the bench, with a scope. That's not unusual for guys shooting National Match, so it's not a freak accident or anything. If your AR is just sorta accurate, then there is a problem with one of the components of the rifle, the build, or the ammunition being used.

Quote :

If i were shopping again, i'd probably get a mini-14 for the 223.. the ruger ranch rifle. Very light & accurate.

You couldn't give me one of those things, and there aren't many who will describe them as "accurate".

Consider this: how many Mini-14s do you see on the firing line at a National Match event? "Zero" would be the correct answer...

Quote :

BTW, i opened up another gun politics thread for us to debate the 2nd amendment.

I've never understood why it requires debating. What is it about "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" which is so confusing?

Perhaps the old hillbilly farmer in me likes the simple rifle lines of the mini-14. But for sure, the high tech modernist in me likes the fit & function of the ar.

I've never really shot my ar beyond 200yds.. mostly because our local (national forest) range only goes about that far. We get a lot of leos going there to practice, & some sight in new rifles.. but it's mostly a pistol range.. hardly ever crowded.

I probably have the most fun with a 22. Pistol or rifle, it is probably the most fun to target shoot & plink, just because the ammo is so cheap. When i go up to ogden, i usually go to the skeet range with daughter & son in law.. that's fun too, but for some reason does not translate into ducks. I'm every bit as good as taylor on the range, but he usually gets a duck & i go hungry (not really, he shares it).

Next year i'm going to try & make pheasant season.. tough, because it's only a week. My son bought us turkey tags for xmas.. going up to the north rim this spring.. those are crafty rascals.

Jäger wrote:

Consider this: how many Mini-14s do you see on the firing line at a National Match event? "Zero" would be the correct answer...

I think the main reason is because a Mini 14 is not a US military service rifle. It may qualify under section 3.2 of the NRA high power rifle rules. Accuracy Systems does some sub MOA stuff with Mini-14s but the AR platform is by design, easier to build into an accurate rifle.

sswrx wrote:

Jäger wrote:

Consider this: how many Mini-14s do you see on the firing line at a National Match event? "Zero" would be the correct answer...

I think the main reason is because a Mini 14 is not a US military service rifle. It may qualify under section 3.2 of the NRA high power rifle rules. Accuracy Systems does some sub MOA stuff with Mini-14s but the AR platform is by design, easier to build into an accurate rifle.

It's probably a better fit for shooting varmints in the back 40.. not as ostentatious in the pickup's gun rack as an ar-15. For someone like me, it probably doesn't matter either way. I don't shoot competitively, just plink a couple of times a year to keep up a semblance of marksmanship. If i can hit a can at 200yds, that's good enough for me. Maybe if i got into competitive shooting, i could get into building a nicer ar.. but the one i have seems to work good enough for my limited means & ability. I'm sure it is a 'to each his own' kind of thing. I've never shot a mini-14, so don't have any experience other than what i've read or heard from others.

BuilderBob wrote:

I got rid of my guns when the kids came along. Kids are grown now and I decided a year ago that it would be nice to have something around for personal defense, so I bought a Glock 19.

When I went to Alaska, I decided to bring a pistol, but the 19 was too big for CC so I bought a 26.

When my son was in town over the holidays, we went to the local gun store to look around and ended up buying two Diamondback DB9s. Nice little 9mm pocket guns. Makes the 26 look like a cannon.

So, it appears that my collection is growing again.

I also picked up a glock 19 after my son in law did.. fun to shoot & pretty accurate. ..seems very solid & reliable, as is it's reputation.

So now that i'm in the 9mm platform, i did the same thing.. i was looking at some of the smaller 9's out there, & got a decent deal on a keltec pf-9.. probably very similar to your DB's. Only 7+1, so not as much capacity as the glock's 15+1, but good enough for a small package. It's supposed to shoot +P ammo, but i've not fired any through it, yet. Cheap, lower power 9's are good enough for me.

I've been thinking of getting a 1911.. there have been some good deals on some of those out there, but there are also a lot of differences, which i'm not as familiar with. No more than i'd shoot it, it probably doesn't matter that much, & i should just get something cheap.

rydnseek wrote:

I've been thinking of getting a 1911.. there have been some good deals on some of those out there, but there are also a lot of differences, which i'm not as familiar with. No more than i'd shoot it, it probably doesn't matter that much, & i should just get something cheap.

1911's are pretty popular these days. Seems to be a nostalgia kind of thing; kind of like having a 60's muscle car. They're cool and I used to have to carry one around when I was in the Navy back in the stone age, but I don't feel the urge to own one myself.

I'm all gunned up for the time being. I'm at a weird stage that way. I find myself not currently lusting after any additional cars, trucks, motorcycles or guns for the time being. Maybe I should see a doctor...


...or maybe I should just be happy that I'm content.

I've always had a fascination with 1911's also. Likely because of all the gunsmithing work I did with a PD armorer. I would like to do a frame up build on my own so I would be more likely to keep it for my self rather than sell it off.
Currently I own only one firearm, a Ruger LCP. Its easy to shoot and easy to carry as well as being reliable.
Off the top of the list of guns I most want is a S&W M&P15/22. The 22lr is likely the most versatile firearm/survival tools ever made. If I were limited to only one it would be a 22lr of some sort. A box of 500 rounds won't put a big dent in your wallet or your shoulder, but it will take a good chunk out of your day shooting it all up. The fun factor is a plus when shooting 22's.

Yeah, it's mostly for posterity.. owning a 1911.. something from John Browning. Since i get to ogden all the time, it is even more appropriate. My only other 'Browning' is an older A3 12 ga.

But i also have enough guns, & don't have any real lust for more.. But you can never really have enough, can you?

All this talk about firearms got me fired up, so yesterday afternoon i went over to the 'range' in the national forest.. an area where people have been shooting for years.. even the leos go there to practice.

I was the only one there, so set up & started shooting. I hadn't fired any +p ammo in the keltec, & won't any more. It just jambs. The glock handles it fine. The glock is also much more accurate for me.. i guess because of the little longer bbl (compared to the keltec). But the most accurate was my ruger hunter 22/45. It's just a 22, but i could pick apart clay fragments on the hillside. i also have a walther p22, but it is no match for the ruger, but the ruger has a longer bbl.

And since the Ar's ears have been burning from this thread, i got it out, too. I only fired a few rounds, & only about 100yds out, but it is so accurate.. at least for me. If i can hit a water bottle or can from that distance, that's plenty accurate.. especially with cheap ammo.

+1 on the 22's! They are plenty fun, & are great for practice. I shot more from them, mostly because the rounds are so much cheaper. I also had to put a few through my dad's old 38spc revolver.. great, reliable pistol. Accurate enough with 4" bbl, & easy to handle. But every time i go shooting, & when i shoot all the pistols, i end up liking the glock the best for the larger calibers. But if i had to run out the door & go live in the woods, i'd grab the ruger & a brick of 22lr.

Here's some more "old news" for you Sturgeon. Goes all the way back to 2/22/12.

http://russ-campbell.blogspot.com/2012/02/hate-speech-section-of-canadian-human.html