You're supposed to assume it's loaded even when you don't hold it. Even if it's lying on a table, resting on a gun rack, or in a closet, you're supposed to treat it as loaded until you've checked the chamber. I've seen people cause guns to fire by simply bumping them on a table. Admittedly, the guns were defective, but the point is to always treat them as loaded.

Man, that must've been one defective friggin' gun. When did that happen?

About five or six years ago.

It was actually kind of funny. The guy was bragging about how sturdy and accurate the gun was, "because it was made in the hardened fields of Africa". Then the gun went off by being bumped. The range warden came out, found out what gun it was, and told the guy that they had been recalled a few years back for being unreliable. I think it was the Vector CP-1, but I'm not sure.

Lolz.

I had one of my best friends turned into a paranoid gun-nut right after college.

He started out collecting WW2 era guns (which were really cool). We went to the shooting range a few times. Got to fire a Mauser and a Thompson and that kind of shit, which was fun.

But now he's got his concealed carry permit, and refuses to leave his house without a glock or something else. It's kinda creepy.

Holy shit! I like how the end of that listing finishes up:

Do not load?!?!? Ahahahahahahahahahah!

My grandfather was a gun collector. All really, really nice stuff. I don't know much about guns, but from the way Dad was talking about them when he showed me (with the door locked, since he didn't want my brother knowing about them), they were pretty high-quality. They were all left to my grandmother when he died, and a few were left to me when she passed on just less than a year ago. I learned about them two weeks ago.

One of the guns she left me is a revolver, and Dad says he'll give it to me when I'm 21. I, well, want it now. Dunno how I'm gonna suggest the idea to him, much less convince him. But if I do get it, I'm not going to get any ammunition. If I'm going to point a gun at someone (invading my home, for example), I want to use it for intimidation. If they take it from me and turn it against me, I want them to think it's loaded so they use it instead of physical violence. I'll know it's unloaded, so I can grab something heavy and swing it at their head while they try and fail at shooting me.

Anyone see any big, glaring flaws with this plan? I'm known for missing the forest while looking at all the trees.

There are a few flaws. It's on the right track though.

First of all, if the gun isn't loaded, then you are required to bluff the other person. A lot of intimidation comes from body language, and that body language is not going to present unless you're either a master actor up there with Sean Connery.

Second, if they take the weapon away from you, they'll probably realize it isn't loaded within seconds. Guns have distinct weight differences between when they're loaded and unloaded, and it only takes them half a second to pull the trigger and find out it's empty.

Third, if you're willing to swing a huge object at someone's head, why aren't you willing to have a loaded gun? Unless you're in a country which has laws against using a firearm in self-defense, what is the difference?

Fourth, how old is the revolver? Older revolvers are generally hit and miss with how well they work. My great grandfather swore by his hundred year old Webley, and the gun had the chutzpah to prove it. On the other hand, I've seen a 20-year old revolver break because it was dropped on it's side. The gun may not work when you need it.

That's one of the hard things I've found about supporting some gun control. I've never had a problem with the guy who takes his grandfather's Enfield out shooting or hunting. I've never had a problem with the guy who wants to take a heavily modified 1911 out target shooting. But when you blanket refuse to leave the house without some sort of gun, or think that you should have access to the latest and greatest assault rifle, complete with grenade launcher and fully automatic fire, then I think you're going a bit overboard.

I'm somewhat good at bluffing. I've studied a lot of body language and other psychological 'tricks', though I'd never assume it'd get me through scot-free. Still, looking like I'm willing to fire without going overboard shouldn't be too hard. Speaking in a low, in-control voice, controlling your breathing. . . Eh, I'm sure that if I keep talking along these lines, I'll sound overconfident. I get enough of that crap from my mother.

Do blanks carry the same weight as bullets? I'd be just as happy with those.

The problem at the moment is that my room is very sparsely furnished. We're going to eventually paint it, though I don't see that happening for a few months. Mom tends to put things off over and over again, and I don't know how to prepare walls for painting. Besides, if I try, she'll yell at me, even if I get it right. I don't have a nearby object I could use for it, and I'd need the moment of pulling the trigger and realizing it doesn't work to get to a heavier object. Or one of my knives/knitting needles/etc. All else fails, the palm of my hand will have a smashing introduction to their nose. I really need to take more self-defense classes again. Last one was yeeears ago.

Frick, I'unno. But it seemed like a pretty sturdy one. I'm trying to recall what Dad told me it was. . . I think he said .22 Bearcat or something. And from what Mom said of my grandfather, he only bought good guns. And he used them at ranges and such, so I would assume they were functional then. Now, I'm not so sure.

You know, this reminds me, I sorta wrote about this when I was working on North to Maine. I had invited my friend to come out and hike with me for a week or so, but he had refused because he couldn't bring his gun into a national park. The following monologue is sorta my response to him, and everyone else who asked me: "Did you bring a gun?" when they found out I'd thru-hiked.

What's funny is this monologue sorta dates the play, as the republicans tacked on that "now you can carry guns in national parks" law onto Obama's credit reform early last year. I think it still pretty much sums up my feelings on the issue.

But...I'm already afraid, introverted, and suspicious. Maybe I should buy a rocket launcher to chill me out.

You know, ever since the Jodie Foster film "The Brave One" came out, I've found myself meditating from time to time on how owning a gun or having one in hand can change a person. Damaging to our spirit, indeed.

Lo, I bring this thread back from the dead! Woe to the world, etc. etc. ad nauseum... :)

I want to answer the original question. First. Yes. And no, I do not need any knowledgeable person to accompany me. I have my army training after all, as well as a valid hunting license. ;)

I also collect old guns (mostly 19th century cavalry and naval pistols). They are beautiful on the wall, fun on the range ... and could make people very dead.

But. Why do I resurrect threads? To boast?

No. To say that guns do not corrupt. Power corrupts. Guns are tokens, representing power. Guns are instruments with which to execute power.

Do not hand any power to anyone unable to withstand its corruptive nature. And remember to shift the power around...

Skeletor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! :d

See? No gun, just power. QED. :D

http://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45#p/u/71/rHWd62DCzZU

Gun Control I Can Agree With!

That's scary as fuck.

That's Deadman, staring you down with his toy gun.

What's scary about showing an example of a modified Weaver stance?

What's scary about a fat bloke from Kentucky with an empty gun?
Btw nice stock of Porn/guns&ammo on the chair. :)

Your face. moretext

*shivers* chupacabras

I'd like to not that anybody wanting a gun for home defense, but is going with the "I'll point it at them to scare them" route, should buy a couple of blank rounds. You might not have the body language of a person with a loaded gun, but seeing a gun, and hearing a loud BANG makes would-be burglars think twice about trying to take it from you.

Who knows, maybe they'll die of a heart attack:p

Actually pointing a gun without live ammo in it at a random intruder is not the best of ideas.

Admittedly, one of the possible reactions is them raising their hands and surrendering.
Another is them running away.

Then there are a whole set of other possible reactions, including the intruder producing a weapon of their own -- be it a gun, a blade, or just something to bludgeon with -- and attacking. As said intruder will in this case literally be fighting for his or her life, expect no mercy, no quarter and no surrender.

And there you will be. With a fairly small lump of useless metal, fending of the attack.

Art: He is in your threads. - Thinking things through.

It was unloaded for photographic reasons.

no one was holding the camera either.

Oh, I am quite sure you know better Deadman, but there were others talking about "home defense" by means of empty gun and glorious acting.

In my book a very dangerous game, even hiding beneath the bed seems a better choice. :)

I have given the subject some thought since I have a number of rather scary looking (and very much not loaded) guns adorning my walls.
But, I'll stick with the axe. Its scary enough, and real enough.

Your axe still doesn't have the reach of a .38 Special (Known in other parts of the world as 9X29mmR) screaming out of a 4 inch tube.

Could you stop an attacker outside of your weapons strike range (without throwing it)?

It's pretty unlikely in a home defense situation that an invader will be out of melee "strike range" (unless you're living in a friggin' mansion).

Go for the chair!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9VWu...layer_embedded

Alright, let me elaborate a little. I do love these home defense scenarios.

First, that depends on the attacker. If we have someone reasonably professional intent on killing me in my sleep ... I'm dead.

Thats the unlikely intruder, though. The likely one being Mr Dopehead burglar. Mr Dopehead isn't likely to be armed with a firearm -- this is Sweden, and while firearms are frequent on the black market, burglars usually do not have them.

So. Can I stop him outside my strike range? Yes.

What he will be faced with is a most likely naked, quite large man with a wild mane of hair and a beard. Wild eyed, screaming bloody murder and armed with an axe.

Approaching him. Fast.

Will Mr Dopehead stop? My guess is he will either run, or die.

Now, if I had a way of knowing Mr Dopehead would visit, the shotgun would be loaded and ready beside the bed (as the Winchester Safari in .458 WinMag has WAY to much wall penetrating power -- a trait it shares with most loads for .38 special) and indeed be my first choice. But normally, as here be children at times, the modern guns stay in the gun locker. :)

Best fucking image ever.

That is an image I'm having a lot of fun imagining.

A very sensible, reasoned answer. Of course, you're presenting it to an unreasonable man.

motherfucker lol!

when the world achives perfection there will be no need for guns.

but till that day comes...

As I'm a pro-constitutionalist & Libertarian...yes I support the second amendment. It's not about Hunting or just personal defense but having the ability to over throw a tyrranical government be it left or right wing.

I'd love to go to a shorting range. I'd also love to own a Lugar 9mm pistol from WW2 , a mauser semi-auto pistol & a classic mauser rifle. That & a AK 47.

I am absolutely pro-firearms. Looking back through history, we can see that one of the first things any totalitarian leader does is disarm the public so that it cannot fight back. The Constitution was written specifically to avoid that kind of America.

Well, it works within our borders, but I think we need more firearms available internationally. Maybe we could get the World Police to sit down and shut up.

Five examples.

I can only find references to four:
1) Nazi Germany
2) Fascist Italy
3) Cambodia
4) Uganda

North Korea would be a 5th, but there isn't any way to confirm this without inside data.

Nazi Germany didn't ban guns, the Weimar Republic that preceded Hitler had already enacted gun registration and that was a liberal democratic government. The Nazis actually liberalised the gun laws set in place by the Weimar government, with the exceptions being Jewish firearms owners and other 'non-citizens'. The Nazis actually made it easier for Germans to qualify for gun ownership, lowered the age of firearm ownership from 20 years to 18, made regulation more lax than it had been. They banned Jews from carrying all weapons at one point but that was to emphasise non-citizen status, it was doubtful that this was an attempt to hold back an insurrectionary faction because Jews simply didn't have the influence.

I don't know about Fascist Italy.

Cambodia, there's nothing legit about any gun control laws in Cambodia that I have ever seen, just that really irritating chain email about 'the Soviet Union banned guns and then killed millions of people, Uganda banned guns and then killed millions of people' and so on. However, the dates stated in that email are that gun control legislation was passed in 1956, which was twenty years before Pol Pot's purges and had nothing to do with his dictatorship.

Similarly with Cambodia and Nazi Germany, gun control was already in place when Idi Amin took power in 1971, they had nothing to do with his dictatorship.

So of those four examples, three are not viable and one is only viable because it's a 'maybe'.

But Charelton Heston TOLD me that the first act of any dictator was to ban guns, so it MUST be true!

Why, I remember when the gun registry in Canada was introduced, we went along with it. Then the seal clubbings began, and the pups had no way of defending themselves.

The people who speak out the most adamantly about how they should be allowed to own guns ... well, they all seem a little scary and unbalanced.

That's what I'm saying. I hate how the loud, batshit insane minority fucks everything over for the rest of us, the silent majority. I would speak out but I honestly don't have much better reasoning for liking guns than "Man, they're really cool" and for the off chance that I might need one.

Actually, you know what? I don't really give a shit either way.

The reasons why I feel the way I do on this topic...
 

This is part 1 of 6,feel free to check it out...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vAp-HvE1ws

Man, to be honest, I've lived in NYC for almost two months and I've gotta level with you guys; I see no reason to own a gun and well... I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

I tried researching Fascist Italy's gun laws and only came up with websites hosted by people like Deadmanohmanisheretarded Walking.

This post is meant for those that continue to say that the Police and the Military are the only people to be trusted with firearms in public...

DeadManWalking_05 presents....

THE ONLY PERSON PROFESSIONAL ENOUGH TO CARRY A GLOCK FORTY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the White House yesterday. Unfortunately, one of the bags belonging to the Prime Minister's bodyguards did not make the trip from New York to Washington with him, ending up in Los Angeles instead. When American Airlines located the bag, alarmingly it was missing four 9mm Glock handguns it had previously contained.

American Airlines Could Use Some Gun Control

Port Authority police in New York are currently investigating whether the weapons went missing before or after the suitcase was transferred to LAX.

I'm wondering if they were swiped by an airline employee, which should end up being pretty easy to trace, or someone else. Where are those Glocks now, and what kind of damage could they do?

I'd post the statement American Airlines made this morning, but they lost it.