Looking at getting a firearm; advice please

[everythingsxen]

I am looking into getting a firearm.

My main factors involved in what I want are:

1. Price
   
   
2. Availability of ammunition
   
   
3. Ease of maintainance
   
   
4. Stopping power
   

The top 3 are the important ones. As far as stopping power, my primary want is anything above a .22 .

I am pretty narrow in what I want, basically either a shotgun or semi-automatic pistol. ARs are out of my price range and rifles lack the rate of fire (and those that do have the ROF I am looking for are too pricey).

I have been looking online at various online gun retailers and I stopped at the local gun store today.

I have found several options in the 9mm and .45 catagories for less than $200. Shotguns are also pretty cheap, coming in at less than $100.

Anyone out there have other recommendations for weapons, maybe sites I have not found or suggestions/stories about good weapons. Thanks in advance for any advice.

(cross posted in the lounge)

[DoNotRefill]

1. best bet for a handgun? Makarov....

Get it in 9x18mm. They're cheap, reliable, and reasonably hard-hitting.

For a rifle, blow the $350 for an AK clone.

[7th_Sephiroth]

145. i recently bought a generic 12ga. pump shotgun

you want stopping power, get some federal brand Rifled slugs, thier basically .100cal bullets, and you can get them 5 for about $2.50 at wal-mart, you dont want shot for self defense, too much collateral damage

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. <sigh> If you really feel you must...

Have a weapon to defend your home, get a shotgun. Easy to use, lots of stopping power, low penetration of walls and the sound of jacking the slide is sometimes all you need.

Are you REALLY prepared to shoot someone? Are you REALLY prepared for the legal nightmare that will ensue, just as sure as the sun will rise tommorrow? Are you REALLY prepared to live with the knowledge that you shot and perhaps killed someone? Are you REALLY prepared to go to jail for a long time, because you screwed up or a prosecutor wants to hang your scalp from his/her belt?

You better be. All are possible. Very possible.

[everythingsxen]

3. Yes I feel I must have a firearm

The points you made about shotguns are all the very reasons I am interested in them.

As far as your other points, yes I am REALLY prepapred for all of the above. However, I am a good shot and I mainly want it for peace of mind. With the encroachments on so many of our other civil liberties here in the US, I want a weapon while I can get one. There are no children in the house and I intend to use utmost caution with it.

[Wcross]

9. Are you REALLY prepared to submit to the will of a criminal?

<sigh> Why wouldn't I shoot someone who has broken into my home? How do I know his/her intentions are limited to economic gain and not murder and mayhem? Anything outside my home is free for the taking, including my vehicle. If you are a stranger and cross my threshold I have to assume the worst.The legal "nightmare" is far less foreboding than death.
You did get the correct weapon for home defense. I would buy a 200 dollar Mossberg 500. But it would be a good idea to get some practice in at the range and not assume racking a round into the chamber will scare off an intruder.

[iverglas]

4. I have a headache

Should I use acetaminaphen, or ASA, or one of those new-fangled things?

I can buy codeine over the counter, of course; long live freedom of choice.

Oops ... I guess this should have been posted to Health/Education/Social Policy. My headache is a matter of urgent public concern!

[everythingsxen]

6. Ooook......

Well, uh thanks for the input...

[iverglas]

8. allow me to explain

since apparently it wasn't clear. (To you. It was to everybody who lives down here.)

This is a forum that many of us like to think of as being for the discussion of issues of public policy -- just like the forum called Health/Education/Social Policy.

Yes indeed, this one is called "Crime, Drugs, Death Penalty, Guns, Etc."

Well, Health/Education/Social Policy is called "Health Care, Education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Housing, Tobacco, Etc."

Would any of us really expect someone to start a discussion in that forum of the relative merits of different brands of cigarettes from the smoking pleasure point of view?

[FeebMaster]

10. I usually limit my posts on my preferred tobacco brands

to posts on smoking or new smoking bans in LBN and GD.

[everythingsxen]

11. I see..

Well I posted this in the Lounge and was told to go post here.....

So... there you have it.

[iverglas]

32. hmm, I wonder

Could it be that the real place to post it might have been a firearms discussion board? Surely there are one or two of them on the internet. I mean, I'd think there would be.

I've always been under the impression that Democratic Underground was a place for discussing politics, social policy, economic issues ... you know, that kind of thing. When I want to discuss knitting patterns, or cat breeding, or perennial growing, or deck building, I suspect that I will go find a knitting, or cats, or gardening, or home reno discussion board somewhere on the internet. Beats me why I'd think that Democratic Underground was the place to look for that kind of info, let alone why I'd do it in the Justice and Public Safety forum ... or the Health forum, or the Civil Rights forum ...

[Columbia]

35. If you don't like it...

Just click this next to the thread.

[iverglas]

39. If I don't like it

I'll say so.

[Columbia]

63. As we are reminded so often

[library_max]

77. Yes, isn't it annoying when people who don't agree with you

are allowed to post their opinions anyway?

[Wcross]

120. Ya reckon it could be a tumor Everythingsxen?

Don't let the resident Canadian get on your nerves. See, they don't have a homicide problem up there in Canada despite a comparative rate of gun ownership. She has been racking her brain on ways to blame our murder rate on the guns rather than the real issues. Geez, I would have a headache too.

[iverglas]

147. substantiate that

See, they don't have a homicide problem up there in
Canada despite a comparative rate of gun ownership.

I gather that this bit of popular wisdom is commonly attributed to Michael Moore. If he has indeed been spreading it, he has some 'splainin to do.

Do you have a source for the notion that the rate of firearms ownership in Canada is comparable to the rate in the US? I have some that say quite different, but I'd love to see yours.

When the actual fact that there are more than 3 times more firearms per capita in the US than in Canada is considered -- oh, and something like 7 times more handguns -- instead of the myth that firearms ownership rates are comparable, the bottom kinda falls out of whatever it was you were saying there, I'd say.

If I actually had been looking for ways to blame our murder rate on the guns rather than the real issues, wotever they might be, I guess I could stop now ...


(a little grammatical clarifying done on edit)

[ROC]

5. Look at a shotgun

A pump action - a Mossberg or a Remington.

[Upfront]

7. Agree With Roc

Make it a 12ga. pump. They work and they scare hell out of who they are pointed at, which means they may run, and you will luck out.

[Zister]

12. House Gun? My 2 Cents

A shotgun is a good choice just check the different models to see which one feels best to you (I prefer Remington). Take it out and get confident with it. Practice Practice Practice because in a bad situation you will fall back on your training without a thought.

I always suggest a good revolver for a house gun.(Smith 66 686 or Ruger GP100) You will almost never have any type of failure with a revolver. No fail to feed or jam due to fail to eject. You dont have to worry about problems with mag springs being loaded to long. Revolvers are simple and a easy to take care of.

Once you make your choice make sure to have the Knowledge and Training to be safe, accurate and responsible.

[Jack_DeLeon]

13. Do you just want a weapon for your home?

If its going to be pretty much a house only gun then yeah a shotgun is good.

Myself I plan on applying for a concealed carry license later in the year so I got a .45cal 1911.

[everythingsxen]

14. Yeah, I am primarily interested in home defense

A shotgun is looking like the best option.

The local gun store happens to have a nice pump-action for $99 and they also have a defensive shotgun class, so I think thats going to be the best choice.

[DonP]

15. Good used 12 Ga pump

You can find a good used 12 ga. in a Mossberg, Browning, Remington or any number of other reliable brand names that have proven themselves over the years.

Take the defensive use course and a basic shooting course as well, if you feel the need to refresh yourself on the 4 rules.

IMHO, avoid the tendency to go with 0 or 00 shells. Too much penetration.

No. 6 to 9 birdshot will give you the same result and ... you can go trap shooting with it to get some fun practice in.

[slackmaster]

16. New Mossberg, under $150

Check for specials at Big 5 Sporting Goods or Turner's or similar.

[Wcross]

20. Can't beat a 1911!

I have three pistols, all are 1911 type in .45 caliber. I can't understand people that go with other inferior calibers and designs.

[VTMechEngr]

93. oh come on

A .357 is always fun to shoot. And its hard to screw up a revolver.

[Wcross]

122. But I am comfortable with my 1911!

A good old wheel gun is also a great option. No offense intended!

[7th_Sephiroth]

146. if you can drop the grand

get a .50 cal desert eagle, beats the crap out of a 1911

[CO Liberal]

17. My Advice? DON'T DO IT!!!!

You don't "need" a firearm to be safe - no one really "needs" a firearm to be safe.

Period.

[Retired AF Dem]

18. I guess I can give up my Sig

while I drive my armor truck. I'm sure my messenger (the guy that leaves the truck with the money) would also feel safe not carrying his Ruger. You did say no one really "needs" a firearm. :)

[CO Liberal]

24. There's a Difference...

...between carrying one as a requirement of your job and having one during off hours to "feel safe".

[Van23]

86. Nooooooooo!!

For God's sake, don't give up your Sig! They are the best guns ever! I love my P220!

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wcross]

21. Ah, the Ostrich approach to self defense.

Stick your head in the sand and hope people leave you alone. What ever floats your boat.

[Zister]

22. Nothing wrong with being prepared

More than 800,000 violent incidents are stopped or prevented by a citizen with a firearm every year. You can hate guns if you want to but you cant say that nobody needs one. Bad people do bad things to innocent people every single day. There has never been a time in this Country that firearms were not sold to common everyday people. I think that several hundred years of buying selling and trading firearms is proof enough that 'somebody' needs them.

[CO Liberal]

23. And I Think You're Wrong

And I'm exercising my First Amendment right to say so.

People were bought and sold for hundreds of years in the slave trade as well, but that didn't make it right.

[Wcross]

34. Aw, come on! The first amendment only covers newspapers! n/t

[CO Liberal]

44. Not Even Close

In case the Second Amendment is the only part of the Constitution you're familiar with, here is the complete text of the First Amendment (underlining emphases mine):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

[Wcross]

57. There is that pesky "people" word again!

How is it that the "people" in the first amendment are not the same as the "people" in the second? I have studied the bill of rights and do not pick and choose, I support the entire bill of rights.

Now, as to my comment about the newspapers- sarcasm bites sometimes.

[library_max]

68. Then I'm sure you've read the first part of the Second Amendment.

The part that makes it relevant only to the militia, as every court decision since Miller has affirmed.

[OpSomBlood]

70. And the militia is every able-bodied citizen.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with standing military forces.

[library_max]

73. Thus says OpSomBlood, but the courts don't agree.

That's why every single standing US court decision on the Second Amendment has been in favor of the gun control measure and against the gun owner. Note, for example, Silveira.

[EconGeek]

149. False...and nonsensical. The Guard didn't exist at the time. /eom

[library_max]

150. Whatever are you talking about?

Who said anything about "The Guard"?

The Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in order to allow the militia to preserve the security of the state. The Miller decision and every decision after it ruled that that means that the Second Amendment has no relevance outside the context of the militia.

In the time that has passed since the Miller decision, the armed militia has ceased to exist - and with it, the relevance of the Second Amendment. There is no standing decision in which the Second Amendment was used to uphold the supposed rights of any gun owner. Not one.

[EconGeek]

151. Creative misreading...

You can say it doesn't say what it says as much as you like, but it still says what it says, and the RKBA would still exist even *without* a second ammednment.

Have you read the Bill of Rights, including the pre-amble and the 9th ammendment?

The ninth is:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The second is:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Note that this does not say "the right to keep and bear arms shall be granted to the people".

It explicitly recognizes it as a pre-existing right. What the second ammendment says is that the right shall not be infringed.

And the pre-amble states that the constitution is *not valid* without the Bill of Rights.

The armed militia still exists. It is not necessary for the second to have any meaning... but it does exist as it is merely defined as the whole of the populace who are armed.

You guys think that it give the national guard rights. But it doesn't. It doesnt' give anyone rights-- it recognizes the basic pre-existing right to defend yourself.

[library_max]

153. Every standing court case in the United States disagrees with you.

Every single Second Amendment case has found that the Second Amendment did not apply to the defendant or appellant's case. Every single one was decided in favor of the gun control measure and against the gun owner involved. Every single one.

There is no armed militia. An armed militia, as US v. Miller makes clear, is formed, organized, and regulated by the state, for the use and protection of the state. It is not just a bunch of numbers on the census. No government entity has assembled an armed militia in decades. There isn't even a draft any more. Wake up and smell reality.

[library_max]

51. You do know that those 800,000 statistics are made up, right? /nt

[CO Liberal]

25. In My 51 Years On This Planet...

...I have never had occasion to think that I needed a gun. Even when I lived in the town next to Newark, NJ.

I don't have my head stuck in the sand. I just don't have it stuck up my ass, like a lot of pro-gunners I've come in contact with here in Colorado.

[Columbia]

26. You have had a lucky 51 years then

Here's to another 51 years of the same. :toast:

Unfortunately though, there are many others who do not share your fortune.

[CO Liberal]

27. And Many Of Them...

...are dead today because someone in their family "needed" a gun.

[Columbia]

28. And how many are alive because of it?

[CO Liberal]

40. No One Knows For Sure

Because based on what I've read on this board, there are no reliable statistics on "defensive" gun uses - except those instances where someone with a gun shot at a cop.....

[Jack_DeLeon]

33. I've never "needed" my seatbelt...

but that doesnt mean that I will stop wearing it.

One never knows what the future holds.

Tis better to have and not need than to need and not have.

[CO Liberal]

41. Another Apples And Oranges Pro-Gun Argument (as usual)

How many sniper attacks have been committed with a seat belt?

How many robberies are committed with a seat belt?

How many estranged husbands or boyfriends have killed their ex-wives/ex-girlfrineds with a seat belt?

How many kids have died in schools when another student snuck in a seat belt?

How many little kids have found a seat belt, played with it, and killed another kid?

None.

You pro-gunners peddle so many apples and oranges that you should go into the produce business....

[Wcross]

36. How special.

What qualifies you to decide what others need? If you don't choose to own a firearm it is of no concern to me. If you actively fight against my ability to be armed I have to wonder why it would concern you.

[CO Liberal]

38. I'm Not Actively Fighting Against Your Ability

I'm just questioning it.

[Wcross]

58. If you support gun control groups....

You are activly fighting against what I see as my right to self defense.

[library_max]

52. For one thing, because you can't guarantee that your gun

won't fall into criminal hands. Now can you?

[Wcross]

59. No more than your car won't be stolen......

..and used to mow down people waiting for a bus. I do have a safe for the guns I am not using, where do you keep your car?

[library_max]

66. Let's try to keep this rational, shall we?

Unless you have evidence supporting the ridiculous contention that cars are commonly stolen for the purpose of committing acts of violence? We know that a large percentage of guns used in homicides and other violent crimes are stolen guns.

[FeebMaster]

69. I know every time me and my buds go on a drive by

we use one of our cars.

[library_max]

74. Doesn't count then, clever. You didn't steal it. /nt

[FeebMaster]

76. Exactly. (nt)

[Wcross]

79. Ever hear of drive by shootings?

[FeebMaster]

81. They obviously use their own cars. (nt)

[library_max]

82. So, regarding keeping this rational, I'll take that as a No. /nt

[library_max]

50. Better than the OK Corral approach.

But, as you say, . . .

[Wcross]

60. What would the O.K. corral approach be?

Are you saying if I defended myself in my own home it would equate to a feud years ago in the old west? I guess we can agree to disagree on the use of firearms. If my life is threatened I would have to react. I am not going to call for a person with a gun to come to my rescue.

[library_max]

67. It's generally safer to submit than to shoot it out.

Especially since your gun is in the safe or the cabinet and the burglar's gun is in his hand.

Just out of curiosity, has your life ever been threatened? Have you ever actually used your gun in self-defense? Because I think a lot of you folks are just keeping the elephants away.

[OpSomBlood]

71. I refuse to submit to the will and judgment of a criminal.

If that's your approach to self-preservation, that's certainly your prerogative.

[library_max]

75. Cops and others who know will tell you that submitting is usually safer.

This "submit" business is what I was getting at when I referred to the need to feel powerful.

Are you going to answer my question at all? Have you ever used your gun(s) in self-defense?

[Wcross]

78. I have yet to be forced to defend myself.

It is like having a fire extinguisher, haven't needed one yet but I keep one just in case. I have used a rifle in defense of our country and was trained to do so. It really isn't in my nature to be passive and submit to a criminals whim.
So is it safer to submit to a serial killer/rapist? How do you know what type of criminal you are dealing with? Do you do a short interview while you wait for an officer to come? How does that work?

Maybe I am keeping elephants away, it has worked perfectly!

[library_max]

83. Nobody's ever going to use your fire extinguisher to kill somebody.

Your gun(s) on the other hand . . .

Keeping the elephants away always works perfectly. You could get the same effect with a squirt gun for a lot less danger to your household and the world at large.

[Wcross]

84. Yeah, but I have it to fight fires.

I own firearms for personal protection. The intended use of a fire extinguisher is to put out small fires before they get out of hand. The purpose of my firearm is to give me the most effective means of self defense. Thats probably the reason they are so popular with cops.
I applaud your stance that it will never happen to you, that criminals roaming the streets looking for a victim are as rare as elephants in the United States. I like to have an insurance policy in case your theory is incorrect.

I guess we agree to disagree.

[library_max]

87. Man oh man.

Did you ever see the movie "A Christmas Story," starring Peter Billingsley and Darren McGavin? There's a great scene in it where little Ralphie, who wants a Red Ryder BB gun for Christmas, imagines himself saving his family from a whole platoon of bad guys with it, followed by the tearful gratitude of his mom and dad that he was able to save them with his Red Ryder BB gun.

Apropos of nothing, of course . . .

[Wcross]

88. That is a classic Christmas movie........

Of course it has no bearing on whether or not a citizen should keep a firearm in the home for self defense. I feel it is in my best interests to take an active role in my own safety rather than to depend on others.
I live in a rural part of Tennessee with very sparse law enforcement coverage. I also have livestock to protect from various critters and the occasional rabid animal.
You really have to get out of the city from time to time Library......

I

[library_max]

89. I've lived in rural parts of Arkansas and Indiana.

Never needed a gun. Never knew anybody who did. I knew a lot of people who thought they did, but the elephants never showed up.

[Wcross]

90. "I knew a lot of people who thought they did"

And you thought they didn't. How special. As an adult I choose to own firearms despite the fact that you think I ought not to.

BTW- How did you dispatch critters that were raiding your hen house?

[library_max]

91. Chicken wire.

I never kept chickens myself, but that's what worked for my neighbors.

When I say some of them "thought they did," I mean that they never actually found a real-world self-defense use for those firearms. That wasn't just my opinion.

[Wcross]

92. So you need a body count?

You never really NEED a firearm until you need one. Would one have to have been a victim in the past before they are in need of a firearm? What frequency of criminal assualts would one have to endure until a gun is needed? From my point of veiw I require a gun before the first one occurs. Its the only way to be sure (thats a line from aliens-segorny weaver)

BTW- chicken wire is used to contain the birds- it does a piss poor job in keeping the coyote and skunks out.

[library_max]

94. Nope.

To be generous to your argument, I'm willing to consider both before and after the gun is purchased. You've already said that you've never used your gun in self-defense in civilian life. Neither did any of my neighbors. I don't need a body count, but there should be some actual facts to back up the argument that people in the country need guns. Some demonstration that they're not just keeping the elephants away. Their unsupported opinion, or yours, isn't good enough.

BTW, it kinda depends on how much chicken wire you use, and of what grade. If you skimp, you get what you paid for. If you don't, it's much more effective than trying to watch your henhouse, gun in hand, 24/7.

[Van23]

96. Guns save lives

Guns are used 1.5 million times each year for self-defense against criminal attacks. See Gary Kleck's "Armed" and "Point Blank". More work has to be done in order to get stats like these because the vast majority of defensive gun use is not reported to the police. Usually only gun use that results in a kill becomes a statistic. However, the research and the numbers are out there for anyone who is interested.

In response to Kleck's argument, even Marvin Wolfgang--America's leading criminologist and vocal advocate of banning handguns--stated that he can find no way to refute Kleck's research (See "A Tribute to a View I have Long Opposed" in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86 (1995) p.188.

Wake up all you anti-gunners!!! The cops can't help you in an emergency situation.

To all my fellow pro-gun lefties: Keep packin'!
P.S. In spite of Handgun Control, Inc. propaganda to the contrary, offering no resistance to a criminal attack increases your chances of getting injured or killed. See Kleck above.

[TX-RAT]

97. vast majority of defensive gun use is not reported to the police

Why is that?

[Van23]

98. Good question

I have no idea, but I suspect that the cops can't really do anything in such a situation. If no one is injured in the attack, the cops probably have better things to investigate.

[TX-RAT]

99. cops can't really do anything in such a situation

Especially if nobody calls them.
Can't imagine why the wouldn't want to report, unless they had warrants, or other legal problems.

[library_max]

101. Or unless we're talking about purely imaginary incidents.

You can get in a lot of trouble for reporting those to the police.

[Wcross]

118. Sort of like the imaginary threat of law abiding gun owners Huh?

[library_max]

100. Those figures are lies that have been widely refuted.

The "research and the numbers" are largely made up. For example, criminal acts that aren't even attempted are counted. Now, how do you attach a number to that? How do you decide how many times a bank would have been robbed if it hadn't had an armed guard, not counting actual attempted robberies? Ten times, a hundred times, a thousand times, eleventy skadillion times?

Ask an actual cop if you want the truth about what it does for your chances of survival in a criminal attack when you try to draw on an attacker who already has his gun in his hand.

[TX-RAT]

102. I love it when they use UN-reported stats.

[Van23]

105. Refuted?

By whom? Sorry, but you're wrong. As Kleck says in his book: "An ounce of evidence outweighs a ton of speculation."

Kleck is wrong? Prove it.

[library_max]

107. Prove it, my dear sir?

Kleck based some very large estimates on some very small samples. If his methodology were to be used for the defensive gun injuries he reported, they would almost equal the total gun injuries in the country. That is to say, more than 90% of all US gun injuries sustained due to defensive use of firearms. Now that's just plain nuts. Which either means that the methodology is 'way off or the data is suspect. Far be it from me to suggest that some gun owners might lie to the nice researcher about their self-defense heroics, but that seems to be one reasonable conclusion.

[Van23]

114. Ahhhh....

Then I can assume you've read the book? You must have if you're so sure of his sample sizes. If not, you have no right to give an opinion. Read it then tell me where he's wrong!

Until then, I'm going to keep my Taurus safely next to me for protection and continue fighting for my RIGHT to own a gun.

[Wcross]

119. Refuted by the widely refuted anti-gun "advocates"?

I see your refute and raise you two. Come and take them.

[Wcross]

104. I have a spotlight-all it takes is patience.

I have killed numerous critters that decided to feed in the hen house. You may have lived in a rural area, but I know you didn't raise livestock.Most people around here would consider you nuts if you didn't own a gun or two. As a matter of fact, guns have been handed down from generation to generation for years.

Does it matter if people "need" guns? Guns are legal to own and plenty of people have decided (without asking your opinion) that they need a gun for reasons that are none of our business. (remember that we are talking about regular people)
I guess if these people don't actually "need" a gun then the gun will probably sit over the hearth as a decorative piece or in a gun cabinet. Perhaps the owners will take up hunting for which they will "need" a good rifle or shotgun? Maybe they will take up skeet or trap shooting, surly they will "need" a gun to pursue this sport? Or in my case, just in case?
Go ahead and insist that "Nobody needs a gun", I will choose free will.

[library_max]

106. The problem with your "free will" is that it gets 30,000 Americans killed

every year.

The neighbors I had felt the same way, because guns had been in there families for generations. It had nothing to do with facts or any kind of reasoning, just doing things the way they'd always been done. Like segregation and spousal rape.

[FeebMaster]

109. Of course the majority of those 30,000

choose to take their own lives.

[Wcross]

112. LOL- My decision to be a responsible gun owner killed 30k?

I sense a pattern with you anti gun folks. If you can't shame gun owners for the fact that they own guns, blame them for something outrageous. I have been accused of having a mental illness, a Nazi, a Klansman, a repooplican on this board.
Now, since you can't come up with any better argument, I am akin to a murderer, racist and rapist.

I am a normal well adjusted individual that goes to work every day. I have never been arrested in my life. I pay my taxes promptly every year and volunteer my time to my community. I even adopted a whole family of dogs when my neighbors house burned down and he had to leave them.




(Don't they look happy?)-(BTW- two additional dogs are not pictured)

I have answered your question as to if I "need" them or not. The answer was a yes. I am confident in my decision, your accusation of criminal behavior on my part is laughable and shows desperation on yours.

[Van23]

115. Beautiful dogs!

Don't feel bad about all the ad hominum attacks from the anti-gun rights folks. Kleck actually devotes an entire chapter of his book "Armed" to dissecting how the media treat pro-gun people. We are dismissed as rednecks and "bulletheads" and morons. That's a typical response from people who can't marshal evidence to support their views on this subject.

Hang in there...and keep packin'!

[Wcross]

116. Isn't it funny how they all march to the same drummer.

Its sort of like there is an anti-gun brainwash program somewhere out there. I also love how they feel that repeating the same lies over and over will somehow make them true.

[Van23]

121. Yes..

The anti-gun rhetoric spouted out by fellow "progressives" is simply a feel good argument that solves nothing. Millions of people in the US own firearms. Do we really want to extend the power of the state to confiscate them, thus leaving us at the mercy of criminals and the federal government--especially under this administration? No way!

Gun control is the liberal equivalent of the school prayer argument so many right wingers espouse. "Yeah, make those kids start praying! That'll stop them from having sex!"

[library_max]

124. Geez, could you try a little harder to mischaracterize my post?

Spin, spin, spin. Very impressive. I never said that you were personally responsible for 30,000 gun deaths. But the "free will" you tout, i.e. the "right" of private citizens to own guns with little or no restriction, is responsible for those deaths.

And "because I want to" isn't a statement of need, no matter how important you think your desires and personal whims are.

[Wcross]

127. Now I see why you get confused about the second amendment!

Nope, I reviewed what you posted.

"The problem with your "free will" is that it gets 30,000 Americans killed"

Now you state that I mis-characterized your post? How so? Does the word "your" refer to a collective group of people? I don't think so.
I like YOUR hair.
YOUR car looks like it needs a wash.
Is that YOUR dog that just pooped in my flower bed?
Now look at the above statement you made.
Did I spin it or did you fail to communicate clearly?

You still haven't explained how gun ownership equates to spousal rape or advocating segregation. I am waiting with baited breath to hear what you really meant by that!

[library_max]

130. Moving your argument again, I see.

The word "you," mister scholar, is both singular and plural. That means that the possessive, your, is likewise both singular and plural. When referring to hair, a car, or a dog, it is obviously singular. When discussing more abstract matters, context is more important. When I refer to 30,000 gun deaths, it's pretty obvious that I am talking about everyone who opposes gun controls and not just you individually, unless of course you are trying really, really hard to misunderstand and pretend that it's a personal accusation.

And now belatedly you bring up the references to spousal rape and segregation, which I raised as other examples of ideas that "ran in the family" (and often still do) in the rural US. And before you squawk that I'm being elitist or unfair, I grew up in and have spent most of my life in rural and small-town America.

[Wcross]

134. Clear communication is difficult for some people.

Repeat after me. "I want to outlaw private gun ownership in the United States". That was easy wasn't it?

There is nothing to be ashamed of library, you have a voice and you should state clearly what you believe.

I disagree with you strongly and will not accept any new restrictions on my right to own a firearm. I don't care if you question my "need" to own a firearm, your opinion is of no concern to me. Sleep well tonight, maybe it will be the evening you discover a sudden "need" for the protection a firearm affords a person.

[library_max]

135. Sure, when all else fails, try a threat. Very nice.

I'm glad at least that you're not trying to rehabilitate your thoroughly dishonest argument from the last couple of posts.

I am every bit as impressed with your "right" to own a gun as I am with George III's "right" to be king and Robert Lewis Dabney's "right" to own slaves. I do sleep well, knowing that I am on the right side of history on this issue.

[Wcross]

136. When all else fails, play the victim. Very nice.

Just where was this threat? How do you feel threatened? In what way?
I merely stated that tonight may be the night you discover a need for a firearm. I believe in having the tools I may "need" on hand.

I suggest we agree to disagree on the issue and leave well enough alone.

[Wcross]

137. By the way, I am sure you will get this one deleted too.....

Have a nice day!

[library_max]

138. Sput, sput, sput . . . threat? . . . sput, sput, sput, . . . what threat?

Sleep well, maybe this is the night someone will try to kill you in your sleep.

What, that was a threat? How could anybody take such a harmless, well-meaning wish as a threat?

Save it. Use it as a downpayment to buy yourself some shame. And I'm not talking about shame for being a gun owner, but shame for slinging shit and pretending it's chocolate ice cream.

[Wcross]

139. Now for the real quote-

"Sleep well tonight, maybe it will be the evening you discover a sudden "need" for the protection a firearm affords a person."

Does that equate to your- "Sleep well, maybe this is the night someone will try to kill you in your sleep."

(try copying and pasting- that way you can be exact on what was said.)

I have nothing to be ashamed of, I was merely pointing out that being prepared before the fact is preferable to having a sudden and unexpected need for which you aren't prepared.

Sleep well.

[library_max]

140. Having no shame and having nothing to be ashamed of are not the same.

[Wcross]

141. Getting back to the POINT of this thread.........

What type of firearm do you suggest everythingsxen needs to get for home protection? I have suggested a nice Mossberg 500 with pistol grip stock and a .45 1911. Both types will put an intruder down for good and will not penetrate too awfully bad.

[MrSandman]

142. For price and ease of maintenance...

I still stick with the .357/.38 revolver or shotgun.

BTW, I like my P220, so MY preference is the .45.

[Wcross]

143. A revolver is much easier in all respects but....

I just have a thing for my 1911's. They have never failed me in the past and I like the idea of a large caliber. The ballistics are perfect for an automatic pistol. The .357 is an excellent choice as well. I would say whatever is comfortable for the shooter.
No doubt on the shotgun, it is the most effective close in weapon available today. I have Seliot & Beloit (spelling is off) 00 buck shot, 12 .32 balls per round.
In my opinion it would be foolish not to resist someone about to do you harm. I have yet to master the art of mind reading so I do have to assume the intruder has the worst of intentions.

Its OK to be a pacifist if thats what you wish to be. Nobody should force you to fight. Nobody should insist you keep a gun for self defense. On the other hand, who has the right to insist you fore-go the tools you need in order to resist if you wish to?

[MrSandman]

144. I was using his/her criteria...

I like my Sigs, but started with a Python due to ease of maintenance.

[Van23]

152. My Sig

I LOVE my Sig P220 .45. It's the best gun I've ever fired! You mentioned a Python...that's Colt, right?

[mbnd45]

47. I have experienced a home invasion

while I was home and asleep. I didn't know until the next morning when my stuff was gone, but I think it's safe to assume anybody robbing your house intends you harm. Especially if you wake up and wind up having to confront the robber.

[TX-RAT]

48. I didn't know until the next morning when my stuff was gone

Sounds like someone needs a dog.

A great item to have, for home security. I highly recommend one.

[library_max]

53. From a safety viewpoint,

there's a helluva lot to be said for sleeping through a burglary. Or pretending you're asleep, if necessary.

[TX-RAT]

54. Or pretending you're asleep, if necessary

Now that would be tough to do.

[EconGeek]

148. This is why police are giving up theirs...

In droves, too!

[OpSomBlood]

29. My recommendations:

I would recommend a pistol over a rifle or shotgun for home defense.

I own three pistols: a Glock 21 (.45 full-size), a Glock 23 (.40 compact) and a Kahr P9 (9mm concealment). I keep the G21 in my nightstand.

You really should shoot a .45 before going that route. A lot of people find that it is too much gun for them. If you're only going to own one gun, I would recommend a Glock 22, the full-size .40. It's a good combination of comfort and stopping power, and it is very fun to shoot. Glocks are very reliable, accurate and simple to operate.

[everythingsxen]

30. Thanks for all the recommendations

I understand this is a touchy issue (which was why I originally posted to the Lounge, not wanting to actually debate gun issues, simply wanting advice), but I do appreciate the advice of all concerned.

I am not totally commited to yet, but leaning heavily towards, a shotgun.

Thanks again for the info.

[greendeerslayer]

31. some good advice above....

....but I'll stick my two cents in - shotguns are okay, but difficult to practice with, many ranges won't allow them. The Ruger .357 is a gun you can use to practice shooting straight, also could be used in IDPA. The Makarov is an outstanding little gun, at least the German and Russian models, kind of light but but that can be a good thing too. I'd steer away from a 1911 untill you're more experienced, the safety is tricky. Glocks are outstanding, a 19 in 9mm would be ideal if you can find a used one.

[Endangered Specie]

37. You ever considered a baseball bat?

Or a large blunt object?

[CO Liberal]

42. You Can't Feel Macho With a Baseball Bat....

[Endangered Specie]

46. No...

but if you mistake a family member for a burglar, of if a family member plays with it... I know which situation will cause a significantly lesser feeling of machoness.

[Wcross]

61. How about my 80 year old great Aunt?

How do you think she feels with her .38 revolver in the nightstand? I think rather than "macho" perhaps the correct word would be safe. What good would a little old lady be with a baseball bat?

[library_max]

108. How about her?

She ever shoot anybody? Think she can? After you've pointed a gun at a violent criminal is a hell of a time to find out that you can't make yourself shoot it. National crime statistics show that resisting most kinds of person-on-person crimes (robberies, rapes, etc.) more than doubles the chance of serious injury or death to the victim.

[FeebMaster]

110. So we go from

'guns make it so easy and psychologically easy to knock someone off' to 'gee if it ever comes down to living or dying do you think you could kill the person trying to kill you.' Could you folks make up your minds?

[library_max]

125. Kinda depends on the person who is holding the gun, Feeb.

Which ought to be obvious, even to you. Think. There is more than one kind of person in this great U S of A. If everyone were exactly the same, your argument would make some kind of sense, but as it is . . .

Since the lack of effective nationwide gun control laws means that pretty much anyone can get pretty much any kind of gun pretty much anywhere, a lot of people who are not someone's 80 year old great aunt will also get their hands on them. Only a small minority of the population is willing to kill casually, but your side continues to give that minority full and free access to any guns they want. But you figure that if a stone-cold killer and your great aunt both have guns, everything should come out hunky-dory.

:dunce:

[FeebMaster]

129. Nice spin.

I still wish you folks would make up your minds.


"Since the lack of effective nationwide gun control laws means that pretty much anyone can get pretty much any kind of gun pretty much anywhere"

Sure, as long as they don't care about breaking the law.


"Only a small minority of the population is willing to kill casually, but your side continues to give that minority full and free access to any guns they want."

Of course, your side wants to disarm everyone in the hope that you can prevent that small minority from getting guns.


"But you figure that if a stone-cold killer and your great aunt both have guns, everything should come out hunky-dory."

You're right. I'm sure things will turn out much better if just tat stone-cold killer has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat. After all, there are lots of ways to defend yourself from a knife, right? That 80 year old woman could use a chair or run away, right?

[library_max]

131. None so blind as they that will not see. /nt

[FeebMaster]

132. I'll say.

If those gun control folks would just spend a little time reading the AWB and some of the other federal firearms laws maybe they wouldn't be so incompetent or at least not as ignorant.

[MrSandman]

117. Are you sure it doubles?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0204.pdf

On edit: There is another active thread to discuss the "dangers" of purchasing a firearm...s

[Wcross]

123. So lets just take the option away from her Huh?

She doesn't have a track record of shooting people. She hasn't been assaulted yet either, so thats a wash. Criminals tend to prey on the elderly and those that can't defend themselves physically so she has taken precautions.
She lives in Williamson, New York. If you want to test the theory.

[library_max]

126. Okay, fine.

Make a law that no civilian except your great aunt can own a firearm. I'll support that. But what you're supporting is a law that says that every idiot, undiagnosed psycho, and unconvicted criminal should also have full access to the same firearms, plus all the diagnosed psychos and convicted criminals that can get them from the above. That's nuts, your great aunt to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[library_max]

133. That's the way it now works, and you know it.

Patchwork half-measure local and state gun controls don't work worth a tinker's damn. Gun traffickers move freely because there are no border crossings, no customs checks, between states and municipalities; so the state or county with the most lax gun laws becomes the gun provider for the entire country if need be. Anyone who works in law enforcement and tries to enforce gun laws will tell you the same - patchwork doesn't work.

Neither, of course, does throwing away the key after the fact. What we're trying to do here is to get the guns out of the hands of people before they commit the crimes. Ten or twenty years added to the sentence won't make the victims one bit less dead. It's been proven over and over again that draconian sentences, and even the death penalty, do little or nothing to deter violent criminals.

Your last line, of course, is simply beneath contempt.

[Pert_UK]

43. From the DU rules (long version):

"Posts that are unrelated to politics or public policy belong in the Lounge or the Meeting Room."

In other words, if you want to talk about gun rights and policy it belongs in here, if you want to talk about guns themselves then it belongs either in the Lounge, Meeting Room, or outside DU.

[FeebMaster]

45. Maybe you should read the thread.

Besides, his lounge thread got moved here.

[Pert_UK]

64. I did read most of the thread....

and did see that he'd been told to post here rather than the lounge.

I was pointing out that in fact it doesn't belong in here either.

I suspect that the rules should in fact be interpreted as, "non-political / public policy posts should be made in the Lounge or Meeting Room or not at all."

This is a forum on Jusice and Public Safety, not a Gun Forum or Best Buy website for gun recommendations. If the Mods don't want it in the Lounge fair enough, but why do we want it in here on a political website?

[FeebMaster]

72. Don't look at me. I don't make the rules. (nt)

[DoNotRefill]

113. but it has public policy/political implications....

Should he wait until September and buy a newly-relegalized assault weapon? Or should he simply buy a dog?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

55. corollary

"Posts that are unrelated to politics or public policy belong in the Lounge or the Meeting Room."

In other words, if you want to talk about gun rights and policy it belongs in here, if you want to talk about guns themselves then it belongs either in the Lounge, Meeting Room, or outside DU.

If DU members don't want your particular non-political posts in the Lounge, there is no earthly reason to think that DU members want your particular non-political posts in J/PS.

Examples of how the corollary works:

- if your posts about the relative merits of Playboy and Penthouse are regarded as offensive and/or inappropriate by DU members in the Lounge, you might assume that they will be regarded as offensive and/or inappropriate in Civil Rights etc.

- if your posts about the pleasure you take in pulling the wings off flies (hey, that ain't illegal) are regarded as offensive and/or inappropriate by DU members in the Lounge, you might assume that they will be regarded as offensive and/or inappropriate in the Environment forum.

And if your hobby isn't treated with the same respect and tolerance in the Lounge as someone else's hobby, you should maybe have the courage to stand up and demand to know why, and demand that respect and tolerance. Instead of taking this injustice out on the small minority of DU members who frequent the J/PS forum, many of whom are no more interested in your hobby than DU members in the Lounge -- and of whom there would very obviously be many more if they weren't required to tolerate the crud that isn't tolerated in the Lounge or elsewhere.

That's kinda like kicking the dog because the boss was mean. It may be mean of the boss to prohibit these hobbyist posts in the Lounge, but the boss's meanness doesn't justify behaving boorishly toward other people.

If I were to post incessantly in the Health/Education ... Tobacco forum about my favourite cigarettes and urge anyone who asked my opinion (or not) to take up smoking my brand, I would be a boor. Y'all feel free to make your own inferences.

[FeebMaster]

56. Lucky Strikes are a fine prepackaged brand.

They're toasted you know.

[Columbia]

62. That reminds me

I was given some Iraqi cigarettes last April and they were sadly lacking. Very little tobacco. I think it was mostly stuffed with random leaves and bits of paper. I guess it's the thought that counts though.

[Wickerman]

95. Cheeeeerist Columbia

I think you figured out how they got the WMB out. They simply ground up all the product and packaged it out into ciggies.

[Columbia]

111. Hmm...

Could be. That could explain the glow-in-the-dark blood I cough up every hour on the hour...

[T Town Jake]

65. Well, here's my take (long, but well worth it!)...

So, you’re looking at first purchasing and then possessing a firearm, eh? Well, first we must determine exactly what you mean when you state I am looking into getting a firearm.
You stated something using words from the English language (vulgar American English, if I may be allowed to note), but I’m not sure the words you used meant what you stated in the context of understanding the various Strawmen/Flawed Analogy/Garbage In-Garbage-Out/Pot-Calling-Kettle-Black issues brought up by what is increasingly apparent as an attempt to state something so simply without taking into account the ontological significance of the words invoked.
What exactly ARE words, anyway? Do they mean anything? Aren’t they all just typed/said/heard collations of thoughts that are inherently suspect as being dangerous arbiters of random causation, in lieu of well-ordered connectivity? Especially when one considers Social Causation as a factor in ordering sub-systems of thought on the scale of both the dynamic and the reflective?
I happen to think so, and so do most decent people who aren’t involved in the basic self-deception that stating something is not the same thing as believing it, at least without not further analysis of WHAT is meant in the aforementioned things you stated that I do not agree with. Got it now, eh?
I thought not, so I shall elaborate. Words belong to sentences, and sentences usually form themselves into paragraphs, and those paragraphs in turn get very complex in the expression of thoughts much above that of a “Yes” or “No.” But aren’t the very words themselves suspect when arranged in a manner that disagrees with my opinions in any way, shape, or form?
Yes, indeedy, they are.
Allow me to extrapolate: I read your “post” (so-called), and felt that it belonged anywhere else other than in front of my needy, offended eyes. So, as is my wont, I started to think of ways to ridicule the content in my very own special way. I could have simply said: “I disagree; have a nice day,” but that would have been inadequate to serve my image of myself as a Great Intellectual. So, instead -
HALT!
Let’s examine, shall we, the exact etymology behind the phrase “have a nice day” before we go any further, hmmm? How ABOUT that? Hmmmm? Even though I myself typed it, I nevertheless feel that You’ve forced me to use a misogynist PHRASE in my very own response! How dare you, sir...
Anyway, though I know it’s slightly off-topic, let us just examine this phrase “have a nice day” which I feel you imposed upon me to type, even though you hadn’t solicited my reply (technically) to anything you asked in this post.
The phrase “have a nice day” from someone even thinking about purchasing a firearm (let alone anyone who is a regular RKBA-type) is inherently outrageous to me. You never said it to be sure, and I’m the one whom brought it up I know, but let’s just think about this for a little bit:
Saying “have a nice day” to someone is the equivalent of empowering the powerful and further disenfranchising the powerless. The “Day” refers to the Sun, and so when you say have a “nice day” you are giving credence to a thing that insists on continuing to use precious non-renewable fuel to fuse two Hydrogen atoms into a more complex element, expending large amounts of light & heat in the process, namely, the hate-filled Sun.
Don’t you see the obvious analogy? By doing so, the Sun refuses to recognize the Moon and even our very own Blue Earth in a manner that would share it’s selfish glory with all celestial bodies within it’s gravitational pull! I’d be willing to bet that at the core of that selfish, unfeeling, Misogynist medium yellow star there is an unregistered “assault rifle” floating around somewhere in the Solar Core...and it’s probably an AK-47, too, damn-it!
To HELL with the Sun; it’s undoubtedly a right-wing asshole (probably Freeps too, undercover at DU as one of our very own “pro-gun Democrats“ when it‘s not too busy consuming all of those “non-renewable“ Hydrogen Atoms)...the better phrase to use would be “have a nice following twenty-four hours” because it would be soooo less offensive. It would put the Sun and the Moon on an equal basis at least in terms of the language employed; sorry nothing makes me so mad as to witness the Moon being disrespected because it doesn’t have the luminous powers the Sun happens to be hogging in an inherently selfish manner, without any care given to The Common Good of the Solar System...Damn. When even the Sun seems to support Guns by continuing to shine, I know the Universe must be stacked against me...must KEEP typing to overcome it...
Anyway, back to the original topic...
Well, *sigh*, I’ve typed so long I don’t remember exactly what the original question was, but I do know that I must have answered it. Mentally “superior” types such as myself never type so prodigiously and endlessly without “winning” our “arguments” in the end. I could parse your silly words further under an electron microscope, and to a degree that I’m sure would make Leo Tolstoy himself beg for brevity - and mercy.
But all of it can be summed up thusly: I disagree with your stated desires, and the “advice” you’re soliciting, so I‘ve decided to “counter“ your post by tip-tapping on my computer keyboard meaningless, endless sentences & paragraphs with the hope that you‘ll weary of the effort involved in deciphering my gibberish, and eventually quit reading (let alone think about “replying“ to) my bilge.


<Extreme Sarcasm *OFF*>

You posted in the right place, alright. I’d ignore the sniping (please pardon the pun) from those whom wish you’d never asked such a question in the first place.
Actually, a shotgun is the best choice for home defense - you’ve gotten some sincere, valid advice in this thread thus far from those whom aren’t simply interested in polishing their abilities to sneer through a keyboard. But I would urge you to take a gun safety course before purchasing anything - and heed the lessons taught. SAFETY is the first, last, & CONSTANT consideration when it comes to the handling of firearms. Period, end of sentence.
All the best to you in the future in this regard (but take that safety course!).

[Gord]

80. I'll suggest

the brand new Ruger 45. The P345 with Rail. It's a great stopper, and has excellent safety features.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976487252.htm

Cost? Hard to beat that for a new high end gun.

[Van23]

85. Good Guns

The people who are pleading with you not to buy a gun have obviously never been victimized. Buy a gun and learn how to use it properly. In a self-defense situation requiring an emergency response, the cops can't help you.

I recommend a .45 ACP for home defense. While rifles and shotguns are more powerful, the indoor blast of both is literally deafening and can cause brief disorientation...a dangerous thing if you're being attacked.

For carry, use either a .38 Special or a 9MM. Rossi makes excellent .38 Specials and they are reasonably priced....about $300 for a new one. Taurus makes a wide variety of good carry revolvers, also. For the .45, I use a Sig P220. Either a Sig or a Glock are your best bets.

[Dont Hurt Me]

103. There are many good firearms

to choose from. But if you want only for home defense don't full around...just get a 12 ga shotgun and shoot 00 buckshot in it. That way you don't have to worry about aiming as much. I would get a pump due to price and reliability. Mossbergs are cheaper but A Remington 870 is probably the most tested and reliable one there is. Some things you might want to consider depending on funds(you can alway upgrade later)

1. I have a tactical 870 (basically a police version) It has an 18 inch barrel which is shorter than a hunting model. Thats better for maneuvering around the house at night. It also has a two shot tube extension which allows you to hold 7 shots in the gun.

2. I would get a Surefire light for it. You can get ones that are built into the fore arm. They are a little expensive though. around $200 but well worth it.

Here is mine...