'The' Gun Thread (Page 15)

Friends don't let friends buy glocks...

Glocks are good guns, and there's no question they work well.  I personally never liked the looks of them, and more importantly I've always hated the trigger only safety.  Probably the biggest reason I am such a Springfield fanboy is because of the grip safety in addition to the trigger safety.

Haha glad I could help. Mostly that site depresses me. The prices are outright ridiculous! $.30 a round for .22. Over $1 a round for anything .223.

I know it'll come down eventually but there isn't going to be much "shooting for fun" this summer until the prices start falling. Luckily I have been able to find decent priced 7.62x39 so my SKS bullpup is getting some use. But I haven't shot the AR in months, not gonna pay 30-06 prices to shoot the AR.

Yeah, I know what you mean.  I ended up grabbing 5 boxes of "Hornady TAP 223 Remington 55 Grain Urban Hornady V-Max Ammunition" for $22.99 a box.  I'm not sure what they used to go for, but I'm OK with a buck a round for home defense ammo.  I pay about that much for my Gold Dot .40 & .45 Hollow Points.

Yeah the self defense stuff doesn't seem to be too terrible. But the plinking ammo sure is hard to get at a decent price. I finally found a local shop that had 9mm at pre-craze prices. I bought the whole shelf!

Why is it that way?  It's an interesting question because we carry them everywhere (there's actually hooks outside the shower stall and in the port-a-johns for towel and for weapon) when we're in theater.  There are guards on critical facilities and at the gate so the first thing you see on-base is a guy with a weapon, that may make you think everyone is armed. 

The reasons are probably that you have 18-20 year olds with table of order weapons that they probably shouldn't be carrying around things they could leave around (18-20 year olds leave stuff unattended from time to time or so I'm told), they could sell them, etc.  So the counts and controls on the government's weapons are pretty tight.  

You can have a weapon in your house and in your car (if you're travelling to and from a range/hunting) but the troops in the barracks have to check it in to the armory or the rod and gun club.  That's probably because when they're not in the barracks, the weapon is unattended and you never leave a weapon unattended as a general rule.  

In short, I don't know.  In the old days (like way back), you'd have officers and Staff NCOs allowed to wear their sidearms all the time.  So that would be one way to go (highly trained and responsible individuals).  But even those guys could snap at some time. The difference would be that they're not the only people armed when they do snap (think Major Nidal Hassan who shot-up Ft Hood).

But knowing the current climate and the commander in-chief, we'll likely see vehicle and room searches and more rules about not having weapons on-base. Treat everyone like the lowest common denominator. 

I bought 40cal at $245/1000 just before the sandy hook shooting.  I was iffy on it as it was not what I usally shoot.  So glad I did.  The lake city 5.56 if you can find it, over a buck ka round that's crazy

Government Cover-up of Ammo Buys Implodes

15 Congressmen have written a letter to the DHS demanding to know why the federal agency is buying so many rounds of ammunition and whether the purchases are part of a deliberate attempt to restrict supply to the American people. 

Bingo!!!  Wonder how much longer until this is called Bulletgate, or Ammogate.

Then you combine it with:

DHS buys 7000 full-auto assault rifles, calls them 'personal defense weapons'
and
purchases of around 2,700 armored trucks

Where's my dam tinfoil hat... I know it's around here somewhere.

The only statistic that really matters from that article is that you have a .0166% chance of dying from a gun via homicide and you have a .0102% chance of dying from a gun via suicide.  Considering the death rate from car accidents is around 100 per 1M or .01% which is pretty close to the suicide rate I don't see what the big news flash the article is trying to portray.

The whole injecting race into it is silly in my mind.  It has nothing to do with race, it has to do with where people live and their economic status.  If I'm a poor white dude, living in south Chicago I will have every bit as high of a chance of getting shot as a poor black dude.
Same story for living in rural America, if you're black or white, you have a far less chance of being killed by a gun.  Statistically, there are a lot more poor black people who live in dense urban areas so of course there will be a higher homicide rate.

I'm not big on the whole gun debate because I really feel both sides make good points...but the part I bolded above Tony is probably not true.  Last time I looked at the #'s, an overwhelming majority of shootings/killings were not "minority on white"  or "white on minority."  

I think you missed my point.  You are correct that statistically black on black are the highest rates of homicides.  However, my point was that it's not because they're black it's because they're poor and they live in dense urban areas.  Statistically there are far more blacks in this category so yes there are more black on black deaths.  But, it isn't because they're black.

Maybe what we should be limiting are the number of people who can live in a city block?

It seems less densely populated areas have less crime.

We limit how many people can be in a jacuzzi, pool, bar, restaurant.

My answer for that is increased use of surveillance video cams and life imprisonment for violent offenders.

btw, Tony, I get your point and it's a good one.  

Why does a poor, black, dense urban area necessarily equal a higher homicide rate? A couple sentences before that, you said that it had nothing to do with race, but then you say that putting a lot of black people into a crowded area means a higher homicide rate.

Yikes.

I think what Tony's getting at is that it doesn't matter what the folks look like, if you pack a high # of folks into any densely populated area, and there is little economic opportunity, you'll have high homicide rates.  Correct me if I'm wrong Tony.

100% correct.  If you flipped the races and had a high density of white folks (or any other race) into an urban area with little economic opportunity you'd still have the same homicide rates.

Bought myself an M1A and a Benelli Nova this weekend.

Heavy Metal 3 Gun, here I come!

Did you read the article you posted? The only correlation they attempted to show was between gun ownership and suicides. They said nothing of overall gun deaths. I thought the point of gun control was to make it impossible for people to kill each other... looks like it isn't working according to the article. 

If the point of gun control is to abolish suicide then I suppose you have to agree with Bloomberg that we should be prohibited from doing anything (soda, cigs) that might damage our health or cause us to die earlier than we would otherwise. 

Nope this is a legal one