DreamLyrics™ Play-by-Post Forums Front of House Our Community Review Film TV Firearms

OK ... it just struck me ... with so many people in movies 'dumping' perfectly good guns of all sorts ... why go to the gun store? Just go down to the dump, spend a bit of time ... and you have a gun that 1.) didn't cost you anything and 2.) one that cannot be traced back to you <vbg>

We're likely on far opposite ends of this discussion. I've never fired a firearm and intend to leave this planet having never done so.

I'm with Neptune!

I have never had a gun ... don't =plan= to get one, but ya never know. With the way things seem to be going here ... <sigh>

As part of my involvement with BSA I shoot long guns with teens and adults all the time. Always comes with a safety course first and always with a licensed instructor present. We do archery as well so not just firearms.

Guns are tools. Like knives, lawn mowers, hammers, and screwdrivers. They have no mind of their own. They have the potential to be dangerous if handled improperly and like any other tool have the potential to be used to harm someone else. However that is on the person using them.

It is very important for youth to understand the danger guns can pose if handled improperly and how to treat them with caution and respect as (especially here in the US) they are likely to come into contact with firearms during their life and having learned how to handle them safely could save their own life as well as others.

I don't hunt and I don't own any guns, but I can tell you that target shooting, especially with black powder muzzle loaders and flintlocks, is a ton of fun.

<sigh> yeah all of the 'tools' you mentioned can kill people. But ... so ya know ... even a bar stool or a pencil can be lethal.

And yeah, education is very important!!

FWIW, I have shot muzzle loaders and a 1911 a couple of times over the years. Doesn't make me want to have one around the house though <wink>

I taught archery and target practice for the BSA as well when Michael was young. Always heavy emphasis on safety.


I own a 12 gauge shotgun that I bought years ago. Deputy told me one time that you pump a 12 gauge and 99% of home invaders will leave. No one wants to mess with a shotgun.

I also own the .38 that my dad carried as an F-man which was a civilian police group deputized to help patrol out in the country in rural Illinois where I grew up.

I've done my share of clay pigeon shooting. Mostly with under-and-overs. Shot pumps, pistols, revolvers, SMGs and rifles, full auto, burst fire on holiday.

If I was allowed, I'd definitely own an MP5K-PDW. That thing was such a joy to shoot and very handy.

My dad ... ummmm ... 'retained' the 1911 auto from his time in the service (just after ww2). My brother and I ... borrowed ... it a couple of times to 'kill' the evil trees in our yard <chuckle> That was my only experience with a 'hand gun'.

I 'learned' 'long guns' mostly at Culver where I was in a 'competition' rifle group <g> It was only 22s though <wink>

Yeah, 22s are what we use in scouts mostly for target shooting. Although there is also Skeet shooting using shotguns. No pistols.

I have gotten to use black powder rifles a few times at special events and it was a blast.

There is a 'site' here called 'The Old Fort' (as in Fort Wayne <g>). It is a recreation of the fort that was here until 1819 (=if= memory serves <g>) Not sure if it is still manned and open for 'visitors', but 'back in the day' they had 'actors' (like me <g>) who 'played' notable people that manned the fort.

We were lucky enough (in my day) to be given some 'training' on the loading and firing of the 'breach load' muskets that were used there. It was 'educational' and fun <wink>

There is a distinct difference between rural and urban need for guns.

Some groups should have guns, like police, soldiers and security guards. As most have stated, safety and maintenance training are critical. The issue is really about "civilians". If you are a hunter - especially if you consume the animals that you shot, I understand and I sure hope you've been trained and are not a lunatic. I was vocally anti-guns after Sandy Hook but after a conversation with a colleague, my position softened.

Urban and suburban communities do not need guns but those who live in a rural community do. It's a matter of how long it takes for police to get to you when there is trouble. In a residential suburb or city, it's a matter of a few minutes. In a rural area it could take 20 minutes or more for help to arrive. Otherwise, the argument that a gun makes you safer doesn't hold water for me.

I am OK with gun ownership as long as there is mandatory training and testing as well as a certification process that includes psychological evaluations and criminal background checks.

As for military grade weapons, <sheesh>

I should note that me and my household have been felony crime victims 9 times in my life. 4 autos stolen, 4 burglaries and one pickpocketing. One of the burglaries was a break-in to my apartment. My wife was at home with one of my sons asleep in his crib. A man broke in through the kitchen window and my wife confronted him. Had she had a gun, she would be dead. The police explained that burglar, seeing an unarmed person, decided to bolt out the door. She was safe because she was not a threat to him other than to turn him in. Most thieves are looking for money, not life in prison.

It's interesting to note that my wife had to unlock the door for him!

I disagree ... a bit <wink>

If you could keep guns out of the hands of the 'bad guys' ... I would have less of a problem with 'gun control'. The problem is that ... if there are guns, the bad guys will have them. In that sense, urbans probably need them more than rural folks. Have you ever had to get a 'police response'?? In the time it takes them to 'get there' ... you could all be dead <shrug>

I agree with the 'licensing' thing though. I mean ... ya gotta git a license to operate a car for crying out loud ... of course you can still kill a lot of people with a car <sigh>

Yeah. Here's a question regarding the need for guns for self-protection in rural versus urban areas. When was the last time you were mugged in a forest?

The stories of armed people protecting themselves and others from criminals (even, in fact, stories of armed civilians saving police officers) are endless. But of course so are the stories of people hurting themselves or others with guns, which simply points out my original point. A gun is a tool. It should not be used in untrained hands. If you are afraid of it, or not willing to become trained in its use, and practice often to ensure you know how to use it, you are better off not having one.

And all of the above aside, I was not speaking about pistols or even using guns for hunting or for self-defense. I was talking about target shooting, which I should be able to do no matter where I live.

Just because I have not been mugged doesn't mean that it isn't happening to others <shrug>

I agreed that something along the lines of a 'driver's license' for gun owners would be good. Oh!! Wait!! Almost every place in the US =does= require a 'permit' to carry a hand gun and ... at least where I have lived ... you had to 'pass' a test to get it.

So where have you lived that did not allow 'gun ranges' where you could shoot??

Never mind MikeD. You're not following what I was saying, which was basically agreeing with you. But talking about handguns for self-protection, it is more than having safety training and getting a license. You have to practice all the time, and have the right mind-set. You can't be afraid of the gun and think others will also be afraid and all you have to do is waive it around like a magic talisman and criminals will run away. If you take it out you must be prepared to use it. Once you hesitate, that is when the criminal can take it away from you and use it on you. If you are not willing to use it you shouldn't have it.

There is no legal handgun ownership or handgun shooting ranges in the UK. And rifles (and rifled shotguns) are limited to bolt-action, lever-action only.

You can get pretty much any kind of smooth-bore shotgun though, and for those you don't need a full firearms licence, only a basic shotgun licence.

Hunting is remarkably bureaucratic. The cartridge you're allowed to use is linked to the largest quarry you're hunting.

So if your firearms licence grants you permission to use your 7.62mm rifle to hunt deer primarily, it can be extended to hunt smaller quarry with the same 7.62mm rifle.

However, if you want to shoot smaller quarry only, such as fox, you would need a .223 rifle and would not be granted permission for a 7.62mm. Phew!

Also, a slightly funny note from an American perspective. In the UK your rifle will generally be illegal without a suppressor.

And how effective is your gun control? FWIW, it pretty much sux in the US :-/

It's very effective at keeping guns out of the hands of everybody tbh. Getting a firearms licence is a pain in the jacksy and you can only get a hunting rifle with it anyway, so what's the fun in that!

There are target shooters and hunters who enjoy their sports, so I shouldn't complain. Neither really appeals to me but I do enjoy shooting more high octane firearms. Still, if it really bothers me I can travel to Prague or Las Vegas for that sort of thing.

As for criminals, firearms offences in the UK are very rare compared to the US and the weapons available on the black market are usually shoddy quality, Eastern European surplus. So that's the benefit of tight gun controls.

In 2019 (latest data), UK had 0.0049 gun murders per 100,000. The USA by comparison had 4.6 gun murders per 100,000 in 2017 (latest data).

UK-style controls wouldn't work in the States though. Too many weapons already in circulation and porous borders North and South.

Just so ya know ... a =large= percentage of the guns in the US that are used for 'bad things' are 'illegal'. Bad guys don't seem to have any problem getting guns <sigh>

Absolutely. You can only have effective gun control if you can control gun availability. Controlling gun ownership is the easier and more minor problem to solve.

Yes, Neal. Rabbit has already escaped from the hat here. There are more guns than people in the US. Additionally, there's the pesky Constitutional issue guaranteeing people a right to own guns. Because of that the gun control arguments here are not about eliminating private ownership, they are more about trying to prevent Felons and people with mental health issues from getting them. Most other discussion is just about where you can carry your gun and where you can't. Automatic (so called 'assault') weapons have always been illegal, but some people like the look and feel of semi-automatic weapons that look like assault weapons. Personally I don't see the appeal, but some do.

Differently than in the UK, since it is so easy here for criminals to get high quality guns (whether legally or illegally) there is a secondary argument about people who want to have a concealed handgun for self-protection. Where can they carry it? What licensing and training do they need? etc.

And to make it all the more complicated, here in the US every state has its own laws. There are a few Federal laws but most firearm laws are local. What is legal here in TN is illegal in NY or CA forex.

Fwiw, if you vote for me as president, not only would it be highly improbable and a waste of your vote but I would ban all manufacture and sale of handguns and handgun ammunition in all States. Private citizens would only be allowed to own shotguns or rifles. They could be fully automatic assault rifles for all I care, so 2nd Amendment nuts can shut up. They just couldn't be under certain dimensions and neither could their cartridges.

No one wants to lug a rifle around everywhere unless they really have to; just ask infantry grunts!

Nem ... yeah, pretty much like everything ... for example, the people driving around in cars with out a license and/or ... more often ... the appropriate insurance <sigh>

However, if it was as simple as enacting 'laws' ... how is it that there are so many 'unregistered' illegal firearms on the streets ... when (as far as I know) ... there are not many places in the US where you can =legally= have an unregistered firearm ... and yet they 'abound' (at least here in the US <g>) :-/

Zeim, yeah, I appreciate my 'right' to own a firearm for the protection of me and my family. And I don't particularly like the idea of folks being able to legally wander around with automatic assault rifles and the like. But I =do= get why some people don't 'trust' the 'establishment' to 'protect then' while there are so many 'illegal' weapons out there. And I also get that it is a 'land of confusion' for those that want to have 'legal' protection.

Nem - You would need to get a constitutional amendment, ratified by a majority of those gun toting wackos (as well as regular folks), to implement that sort of change. And keep in mind ... that would just mean that only the 'bad guys' and the ... never around when you need 'em ... 'authorities' would have them <shrug> While I am not 'enthusiastic' about our current situation ... it =could= be a lot worse!!!

Well, put in this way, the War in Afghanistan averaged 10 violent deaths per 100,000 over its 20 year span. And that's with Taliban, al-Quaeda vs the might of the NATO armed forces using every conventional weapon at their disposal including air power.

So given the scale of the problem in the USA, I think bold measures would be required whilst protecting the 2nd Amendment, with the understanding that you wouldn't be lopping off the problem in one fell swoop, rather strangling it off slowly but surely.

Vote NEM! "We don't need to make America great again, it already is great!"