Poll: Poll: Have you ever shot a gun? (Also note which country you live in)

[Smagmuck_]

Last gun I fired was a Beretta 92FS or the M9 for you MW2-nerds out there. Yeah, I can say that the pistol had a lot of kick. It had an open hammer or firing pin, I can't remember which. I put five rounds down range, four of them head shots, the other right through the heart. Now, it's the gun that's acurate or I am. My personal favorite is the Springfield XDM 9mm. Nineteen round magazine. Low recoil and it felt good to fire. I still have the bottle I shot up. ^_^

 

[ma55ter_fett]

A 22 rifle (target shooting) and a 12 gauge shotgun (deer slugs at a paper target) I have never been hunting, it?s not that I disagree with it or dislike meat (venison is damn good) I just don't care to freeze my ass off in some tree in the godforsaken wilderness while squirrels laugh at me.

 

[Cryogaijin]

Gang cultures are a perfect example of this egotistical style of gun empowerment, and of its negative impact.

Which are happy to switch to knives and baseball bats, and have in areas they can't easily get guns. Fortunately collateral damage from knives and baseball bats tend to be less than from firearms.

Some food for thought on the subject: One of the main problems with America's "Gun culture" is that it is hidden and fairly slipshod. One can say what they like about the level of protection that a glock 19 or an XDm affords you, but in truth, the system works best when there are no guns at all, or EVERYONE has one.

If no one has a gun, no one has that advantage. If Everyone has a gun, then everyone is on equal footing. The problems occur not so much from the concept or the object of the gun, but the inequality of force that exists because of its presence. The whole mentality of the argument changes. Much "crime of opportunity" disappears because criminals KNOW the person they're casing is armed.

Some more food for thought: Silva, you seem to be overgeneralizing about gun owners. As a thinking person you should know that generalizing about a group ALWAYS fails to account for the whole group. As I've previously stated, I'm more interested in wildlife photography than shooting aminals. Also as I've previously stated, none of my firearms has been used on anything other than paper. I don't glorify guns, I don't personify guns, I don't anthropomorphasize guns, and I don't get egotistical about them. Saying that I'm part of some sort of dark "torture culture" is plain ignorant.

More food for thought: "Standard police techniques" being used to round up the US's existant 300 million guns? You're really advocating the US government seizing private property? When there aren't any records of who owns what? What are they supposed to do, do a census like house to house search for them? The illegality of that is. . . staggering. . . in the US.

 

[Silva]

Gang cultures are a perfect example of this egotistical style of gun empowerment, and of its negative impact. Which are happy to switch to knives and baseball bats, and have in areas they can't easily get guns. Fortunately collateral damage from knives and baseball bats tend to be less than from firearms.

Exactly how I put it, yes.

Some food for thought on the subject: One of the main problems with America's "Gun culture" is that it is hidden and fairly slipshod. One can say what they like about the level of protection that a glock 19 or an XDm affords you, but in truth, the system works best when there are no guns at all, or EVERYONE has one.

If no one has a gun, no one has that advantage. If Everyone has a gun, then everyone is on equal footing. The problems occur not so much from the concept or the object of the gun, but the inequality of force that exists because of its presence. The whole mentality of the argument changes. Much "crime of opportunity" disappears because criminals KNOW the person they're casing is armed.

I'm not convinced that things would be better if everyone had a gun. Yes, there would be less "inequality" and criminals would never feel as safe attacking people, but that's impossible to create. This would be fine for a society where there were no children, but I'm not so convinced it would make the children safer in any way. There are always the young and the disabled for criminals to take out, and that's the real inequality guns foster and exaggerate. Even if everyone has a firearm, there will always be vulnerable people who will not protect themselves and may not have anyone around to protect them, either. It's not like you can or should arm children, so "everyone" is a bit of an exaggeration, too.

Some more food for thought: Silva, you seem to be overgeneralizing about gun owners. As a thinking person you should know that generalizing about a group ALWAYS fails to account for the whole group. As I've previously stated, I'm more interested in wildlife photography than shooting aminals. Also as I've previously stated, none of my firearms has been used on anything other than paper. I don't glorify guns, I don't personify guns, I don't anthropomorphasize guns, and I don't get egotistical about them. Saying that I'm part of some sort of dark "torture culture" is plain ignorant.

As I already said, I am expressly not generalising about gun owners. Actually, as a thinking person, I genuinely hate and detest any level of generalisation. I'm speaking about the nature of the equipment you have around you.

I'm speaking about a culture that ultimately likes guns or enjoys their presence, and therefore increases sales of guns, increasing the profits of gun dealing companies, which in turn pushes up pro-war attitudes through the way those funds are used (in lobby groups), which in turn creates a thousand other social problems. I'm not speaking about owners, but what they cause unconsciously, what surrounds them unconsciously. Therefore, your notions about conscious intent are both irrelevant and unrelated to what I was saying.

Not only that, but I was referring to the potential for gun ownership to cause these things in the owner. I was not saying that this is always the result. It isn't, and so I wasn't even speaking about yourself. You've just excluded yourself from my statement by saying that potential hasn't expressed itself for you. What you haven't done is disprove the fact that said potential exists: and you won't, because you can't.

I would also like to ask you, politely, to not put words into my mouth. That is not how I put it, and it's rude to start talking about ignorance when that was not at all what I was saying.

More food for thought: "Standard police techniques" being used to round up the US's existant 300 million guns? You're really advocating the US government seizing private property? When there aren't any records of who owns what? What are they supposed to do, do a census like house to house search for them? The illegality of that is. . . staggering. . . in the US.

In US terms, yes, it would require a revolution of reform on several layers of legislation to make it both legal and feasible. This isn't the case everywhere. Either way, a level of compensation to private owners could potentially be a part of such a seizure, which can make it more of a forced trade than "thievery", perhaps through taxation returns or other stimulus.

 

[tsb247]

Hmmmm... Let's see...

I've fired a too many weapons to count. I've fired all manner of rifles, handguns, and shotguns. Shooting is my hobby and it is damn relaxing. It's not cheap though. The act of firing a gun is like lighting dollar bills on fire. Although, I will assert that it is worth each and every penny!

Oh, and I'm an American - as if there was any doubt.

 

[OmegaXzors]

I've shot pistols, shotguns, and rifles of all sorts. I like on the west coast of the United States. I actually don't use them very often because most of them don't belong to me. Also, I have a heart like butter so even shooting trees tends to make me feel guilty.

 

[Dart DeathClaw]

I own a few hunting rifles, and a few side arms. Lowest caliber, .22 revolver. Highest, 30/06 bolt action rifle. I know how to clean, maintain, and even reload (The part where you put a bullet back on top of the brass casing if you didn't know), but I don't really know the type/model/name/serial code for my weapons. Like an AA-12, or a spaz, or even an M1A1 carbine. I have a rifle, I like to shoot said rifle, I'll maintain said rifle out of sheer love for it and respect to my grandfather for giving me it. I live in the USA. Arizona to be more precise, and seeing as I know the law of my state I can go out into the desert faaaaar away from any building and I practice accuracy on empty bottles into the side of a mountain. Safety, and fun times.

 

[Scythax]

Yes, don't own my own anymore but I've fired Steyr AUGs, M4s, .22s, .303s, .44 magnum, 22./9mm pistols, 12/8-guage shotguns, under and over as well as horizontal, and pump of course (U&O shotguns are fun as heck) a desert eagle and an old black powder musket once. The AUG and M4 were both in my cadet days at Singleton.

I live in Australia, Canberra.

 

[Code Monkey]

I live in Canada, and big surprise, I've never even seen a real gun in person.

 

[Sabrina Devonic]

I live in Canada and I own two guns.

 

[Mr Companion]

I live in cornwall (england) so I have never even seen a gun in my entire life.

 

[HK_01]

Never fired one and probably never will. I live in Germany.

 

[tsb247]

I won't bother quoting all the people who quoted me, that would be unwieldy, so let me just address those who disagreed generally.

First, a correction. Despite various assumptions, I'm as wary as anyone should be about cars, and I realise that they kill more people than, well, anything else. Actually, I lost my half-sister to a car accident when I was 5, and she was like a second mother to me, so I know the danger well. Most people who get in a car with me joke that I'm a grandfather in a 21 year-old's body, because I'm terribly concerned about danger in the space around me, especially if other drivers nearby are doing risky things.

Second, let's get this really out of the way: guns are not a safety or protection tool. They do exactly the opposite. This is why America has much higher gun deaths than Australia or England. We have gun restrictions and regulations limiting it to only a few gun club members, who use them solely on the range or when hunting, and have permit screening to keep people who are off their rocker from ever really getting a rifle, and you guys often do not. If you really wanted "protection" you'd buy body armour and a riot shield, not a gun - those are made for killing, and that's what they do. Try blocking a sword with a gun and see how much it "protects" you. That's not what they're designed for.

Frankly, to many commentators looking in, your Constitution's Second Amendment has done a lot of damage to your society. The only time this would become useful is in the case of zombies, and for those of us not paranoid enough to carry a gun every day just to keep ourselves "safe" like Dick Cheney kept his mate safe, that's hardly a legitimate reason to own one.

Finally, pretending that guns, especially assault weapons, are just "tools" and saying that gun owners are at fault is a nonsensical red herring. Without guns, there would BE no gun owners. Ergo, without guns, there would BE no gun deaths. Yes, stabbings would become more common, but by removing the most efficient means to kill someone quickly and leave without much chance of dying themselves, you change the rules of violence significantly. You make it harder for criminals to do their job.

Loving guns is like loving cemeteries. You know where they'll take you, and where your life will really be in the meantime if you surround yourself with that tool - in a place of death, or a modern dungeon surrounded by instruments of pain and murder. Since most gun owners appear to be religious these days, I'll point out that even Jesus said it - "Those who draw the sword, die by the sword." That could apply to any weapon, so get rid of them before you do something stupid.

I will have to disagree with everything you have said, and I address my grievances point by point.

1. Your argument concerning guns no being for, "safety or protection," is not particularly strong. What you fail to understand is that when you are faced with a life-threatening situation you can do one of two things. You can either trust your life to the individual that may mean to take it, or you can act. People carry concealed weapons, or simply own guns at home in the event that someday they need to act. I own a .45 in the event that someday I may need to defend myself, and to be quite honest, there have been a couple of situation where I have almost needed to use it.

If I had not had it, there have been several instances where I may have been killed. Having the weapon visible on my hip deterred a violent attacker more than once. It certainly kept me safe and protected me, and I did not even have to fire a shot.

2. The Second Amendment has done nothing to damage America as a whole, and I am offended by your assumption that it has. As I mentioned above, my gun has kept me from harm, and there are thousands, well, millions of law abiding citizens in the U.S. that rely on their weapons for the same safety. Here's the punchline - Millions of gun owners in the U.S. kill nobody every day. Your argument seems to hinge on the notion that just because a few people are irresponsible, everyone who owns a gun should have theirs taken away. I've got news for you, that won't happen - ever.

People who advocate the banning of guns (any guns) don't realize that the statistics related to firearms related deaths rarely account for suicides (which could easily be carried out without a gun and probably would), accidental deaths - see unintentional, and many account for criminals who were killed by the police while attempting to carry out a violent crime (which may or may not involve a firearm in use by the criminal).

3. Nobody can be completely vindicated for a crime by simply blaming the weapon used, but (again) I think you are missing a large piece of the puzzle. For one, the question of what constitutes and 'assault rifle' is hotly debated, and I do not feel like getting into it now. Second, an 'assault rifle' is no more or less dangerous than any other weapon - all will kill a person just as dead.

I will point out a flaw in your logic by stating that guns will never go away so they cannot be removed from a society completely. Once something is invented, it cannot be uninvented. Simply attempting to ban something because it's convenient for your particular set moral standards or political views has proven ineffective time and again. Remember when Alcohol was banned in the U.S.? Besides, even if guns went away, are you suggesting that death by another means is either a.) preferable or b.) less serious than death by a firearm? People will always find ways to kill each other. That's a fact. Removing guns from a society will not change anything. Let's face it. There are FAR more brutal and painful ways to die than a gunshot. For instance, being stabbed, beaten, suffocated, etc. If I had to choose, I would rather take the bullet.

I would also like to further the notion that all guns are indeed tools and are subject to the will of their operators. They will harm no one unless the operator is either careless or intends malice. It is as simple as that.

I don't think you will ever understand, and I don't think you possibly can. Maybe it is because you live in a different culture, or maybe it is because you won't let yourself because you feel that your ideals are untouchable or too dear to your heart, but firearms do not make an unsafe society. You just haven't had any real exposure to them, so you obviously don't know what it's like to live with them. I get the impression that you are simply biased due to your culture and political affiliation. If I could buy the people like you plane tickets, bring you to the U.S., and show you what it is really like here, you would probably be singing a different tune.

In all of my time spent around guns, I have only seen one death (suicide) and I have never personally been threatened with one. Sure, I have had people threaten to kill me with blunt objects, but I have never been afraid of getting shot. Even when I worked in some rather high-crime areas, I never once feared catching a bullet, and knowing that my .45 is nearby gives me a feeling of security that you cannot possibly fathom.

Disagree if you wish, but I will maintain that until you have lived in a society where firearm ownership is acceptable, you have no right or reason to complain. Why should you? You are thousands of miles away and our internal politics are of no concern to you. Again, if I could bring you here and show you myself, I would. You would quickly learn how responsible the average gun owner in America is. You would also realize that the average person in my state encounters about 14 guns per day and never even realizes it. Why is this? It's because people with concealed weapons permits know what they are doing (having had to take an 8 hour class and pass a written test along with a qualification - must be renewed every two years), and they are well-informed, law abiding citizens.

 

[Crystal Cuckoo]

Nope, and I live in Australia.

Can't really explain why I don't want to shoot a gun, other than the fact that I would be holding Death in my hands.

 

[HippySecond]

I shot a F88 AusStyre in army training, not really in combat thought, so I did'nt select one of the options

 

[Cryogaijin]

I'm speaking about the nature of the equipment you have around you.

The nature of the equipment is "tool" Anything more than that is giving it mystical powers, which guns patently don't have. As I stated before, you are treating guns as a talisman, not as simple inert lumps of metal and composite plastic. That is a form of "Magical thinking" you know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

The same sort of thing happens in many cultures in respect to swords and other ancient weapons, it is hardly restricted to guns. Many cultures considered their swords to be the real soul of their warriors, etc etc, despite the fact that again the sword is just a tool.

But to point something out about your original post on the subject: Escapist Magazine is an electronic gaming magazine. Guns are HEAVILY featured in the majority of games, and usually incorrectly. Complaining about how the editors and journalists for a gaming mag are tolerant to almost *gasp!* pro-gun is like complaining about members of greenpeace being pro whale.

 

[Leviathan_]

I haven't, but I'd like to.


I live in Belgium btw.

 

[SadakoMoose]

I only got to shoot one gun in my life (Irish Gun laws are very strict) and that was a c96 Mauser. God I love that gun.

Lucky...
Was it the 7.63 Mauser or the 9mm version?
Also, how was it to load the thing?
I've never used a pistol with an internal cartridge before

 

[jdun]

It generally saddens me that guns are so well-loved by the members of this forum. It now makes sense why The Escapist can have a National Rifle Association member writing articles with a clear pro-gun tone without getting castigated, or even really criticised, for it.

Well I for one agree with you. I find this glamorizing of guns disturbing. They don't seem to be mere tools the way some here talk about them.

And for someone whos unarmed and forced to rely on their wits, the prospect of being around those who own a gun, let alone loads of them like some posters here, is a disturbing one.
And YES, cars, powertools, anything that can be used to kill or hurt instantly makes me uneasy, ive had some close calls in my life and im always wary of the possible danger that comes from a stranger being that much more better armed then me.

No wonder, you live in London. For a second I thought you were an American.

Anyway, in the USA the person that stand in front or back of you in a grocery line might be carrying a conceal weapon. It's not a big deal. I carry a conceal Glock 19 so does all my gun friends.

Wits won't save you from violent criminals. In the move maybe but not in real life. The cops won't save you either as you are well aware. The only person that is responsible for your own personal safety is you and I think we both agree on that.

Ever seen an elderly person beaten to death in a violent crime? It's not pretty. In the USA guns save millions of citizens from violent crimes. These people do not want to be victims of crimes. They refuse too sit down and get rape.

I've google home invasion.
http://www.google.com/search?q=home+invasion+family+die&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

These people got their home invaded and was killed in the process. Beaten to death in most cases. In their home mind you. Where was there wits? Where was the cops? What would have save these people. A gun.

For example this elderly lady refused to be rape and kill in her own home. When the violent criminal broke down her door she start shooting. That save her life.

http://rpginn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1202&Itemid=1

Another example is this rapist that just got out of jail and tried to rape the lady in her home. The only thing that prevented her from getting raped and than killed was a small caliber handgun.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Sammie%20Fousts%20story.rtf

Here is another person minding his own business. Doing his job like any other day and violent criminals show up. He shot the criminal to protect himself. He refuse to be a victim. He defended himself four times.

http://rpginn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1072&Itemid=39

Here is another person that refuse to become a victim.

http://rpginn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=195&Itemid=39

More and more people especially female are arming themselves because the only thing that going to protect them isn't the cops or wits but a firearm.

Wits only work in the movies I'm afraid.

We clearly come from very different worlds, some of the things you say make no sense to me (why the constant reference to movies? What did I say to give you the impression i base my views solely based on films? Especially considering in previous posts I hinted that my views were forged out of first hand experience)

People in grocery line that may or may not have a gun IS a big deal, as mind blowing as that might sound to you. You and your gun toting friends might feel safe and in control, but I sure dont as i dont know these people with guns are responsible users.

As for siting down and refusing to be raped, you dont need a gun for that ¬¬ As others have said in this thread there are plenty of household items that can double as weapons, guns are made to kill and such extreme force is unnecessary in most cases.

Your home invasion argument also makes no sense to me and strikes me as fearmongering.
The links you show either have the attackers armed with guns (in which case you are actually arguing my point for me) or show the victim to have been stabbed while caught unaware (so a gun wouldnt have changed anything) or have the victims die to a fire (guns are useless in those situations).
Didnt check every single link but of those i saw, NONE has me thinking "yeah if only they had a gun", I dont see how you reached such an extreme conclusion. As others have said here, there are plenty of household items that double as weapons, why the need for WEAPONS designed to kill?

The other examples you give don't convince me at all, they in fact genuinely horrify me and more so the way you keep repeating "they refuse to be victims". So being unarmed is akin to being a walking victim? It sounds like your gun fixation is more to reassure yourself then, an impression confounded by your scaremongering justifications.
And in each case, I dont see why the gun cant have been replaced by something else, kitchen knife, powertools, etc.. Refusing to be a victim doesnt mean you need to have a gun at all.

Hell, I can use such ways too, and I feel they might even support my views more then they do yours.
Columbine school massacre, or ANY of those college/office shootouts you have over on the other side of the pond. All of that was possible only because weapons are so freely available.
What would you propose then? That all the students and teachers should have had their guns on them?
That everyone needs to be armed at all times?
I'm genuinely terrified of this world you envision.

More and more females carry guns with them? Just wow, isnt pepper spray enough anymore? So when usa girls go out to a nightclub they all have guns in their purses? I seriously hope they dont get too drunk then cos we certainly wouldnt want irresponsible or risky behavior when such lethal means are at their disposable.

Alcohol+high emotions+guns doesnt sound like a reassuring combo to me at all.

Another thing I'd like to comment on, further showing just how different our world views are.
You seem to think the police as worst then useless, and unreliable.
Maybe in your country, over here they do a decent job.
And what do you have against wits/intelligence getting you out of bad situations? What is so unbelievable about it? You don't want to hear about my life story, but quick thinking has saved my ass on a few occasions, sure a gun would have made it easy I guess, but then I would have had blood on my hands, thats assuming I would even have been able to pull the trigger.
Or I would be dead because the attacker had free access to a gun, instead the worst ive ever faced was knives.

I'd make some catty comment about how you should stop watching action films where the protagonists solve their problems by shooting stuff, but meh, its a shot in the dark, I have no clue if you do. Main impression I get from you is that of fear, that having a gun means you feel safe and in control. I can understand that, but its not healthy nor does it make the world a safer place ><

The wits part is what made me think you don't how things works. You can have all the wits you like but when someone break into your home no wits will stop him/them. Only something lethal, like you know a firearm.

Do you think a 120lbs female by herself can stop a 250lbs 6'2" in her own home from getting rape using house hold items? Tell that to all the females that got raped and killed in their own homes/apartments. You basing it on fantasy. It's not going happen in real life.

Do you want me to show you more reports on how gun prevent home invasions? Here is a small list of citizens stopping home invaders.

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

Here is a video where a man stop arms attackers from entering his home. He killed one and the other three fled.
http://rpginn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1019&Itemid=39

Here is a lady that pull out her shotgun and killed a home invader.
http://rpginn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1112&Itemid=39

Here is a lady using her wits and her gun to turn the table of a robber.
http://rpginn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1140&Itemid=39

I can go on and on. Millions of Americans are save each year using their weapons to stop crimes.

Now lets go to your country.

Girl, 15, found stabbed to death in her own home. What happen? Should she able to defended herself with none firearms items in her own home? Where was the police?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7432088.stm

Guns campaigner stabbed to death. This lady that promoted gun control find herself stabbed to death. Where was her wits? Where was the cops? Shouldn't she be able to defend herself with the items around her?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_yorkshire/7430668.stm

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Here is the truth. Cities that have the most armed citizens have far fewer crimes that cities that has the most gun control laws. Do you want to know why? Criminals don't want to be killed. It's that simple.

Pretend you're a criminal.

1. You see a 120lbs lady by herself. You see a 250lbs man by himself that can knock your head off. Which would you rob? The defenseless lady because she doen't pose lethal threat.
2. You see a armed 120lbs lady by herself. You see a 250lbs man by himself that can knock your head off. Which would you want to rob? The 250lbs because chances are that he won't kill you.
3. You see a armed 120lbs lady by herself. You see a 250lbs armed man by himself. Which would you want to rob? None because both can kill you. That's brutal logic.

Criminals pick the most weak and defenseless to attack. The weak are the most that benefit from having a firearm to defend themselves.

And finally the Gun myths. What you posted is all myths that have no facts that are base in reality.
http://rpginn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=200&Itemid=39