Firearm Enthusiast Thread

[NurembergVillan]

7 hours ago, rjw63 said:

I think she's cumming

Nah, it's definitely a gun.

[Dom_Wren]

Just bought a Smith and Wesson M and P shield in .40 cal for my summer carry gun.

haven't taken it to range yet.

spring in magazines are awful stiff (oo err missus)

[Dom_Wren]

Edited May 19, 2016 by Dom_Wren

[Dom_Wren]

Had a pretty good day at the range  

100 yards with the AR-15

12 yards rapid shooting with the new smith and Wesson M&P .40 shield. Got some kickback for a small gun  

Edited June 10, 2016 by Dom_Wren

[ThunderPower_14]

Had a pretty good day at the range  

100 yards with the AR-15

12 yards rapid shooting with the new smith and Wesson M&P .40 shield. Got some kickback for a small gun  

I'm a policeman and we used S&W M&P40s. How do they compare with other similar models. It's the only gun I've ever fired (and only in training). I like the feel of it.

[Dom_Wren]

12 hours ago, ThunderPower_14 said:

I'm a policeman and we used S&W M&P40s. How do they compare with other similar models. It's the only gun I've ever fired (and only in training). I like the feel of it.

To be honest mate, ive only really shot M&P's. Ive got the whole caliber range from .380 bodyguard to .45 ACP. I have shot my buddys springifeld XDM and that was pretty sweet in .45, I just really like smith and wessons guns, and the customer service is second to none.

i got my.40 shield for summer carry as its very thin and i got an alien holster for it, i can wear t-shirts and no print is visible, i never fired .40 cal before yesterday and its got quite a kick, but out of the box very happy with the accuracy. A buddy of mine does private security, and they are issued M&P's so it sounds like they have a good reputation.

[Jarpie]

Being new and proud owner of .222rem hunting firle and 16/70 old Bajkal, I can't wait to get to the range to take these out on a spin. Should be getting to hunt goose, ducks, hares etc in next month or so.

I read this topic through and there's couple things I gotta say. I've never understood the thinking "I can't understand why someone would enjoy/like/etc of something". I might not enjoy or want try to bungee jumping, race driving, parachute jumping, base climbing etc, but I can at least understand that someone else might like them.

@Dom_Wren likes to own and shoot "assault rifle", so how does it take something away from you if he buys one and shoots it on a range? Long range shooting is as respectable thing to do as someone playing rugby IMO.

Also if you can't step into someone else's shoes, it becomes very easy to justify to take away their thing, whatever that might be.

I'm jealous of americans second amendment, as we have IMO way too strict firearm laws here in Finland.

[villakram]

1 hour ago, Jarpie said:

Being new and proud owner of .222rem hunting firle and 16/70 old Bajkal, I can't wait to get to the range to take these out on a spin. Should be getting to hunt goose, ducks, hares etc in next month or so.

I read this topic through and there's couple things I gotta say. I've never understood the thinking "I can't understand why someone would enjoy/like/etc of something". I might not enjoy or want try to bungee jumping, race driving, parachute jumping, base climbing etc, but I can at least understand that someone else might like them.

@Dom_Wren likes to own and shoot "assault rifle", so how does it take something away from you if he buys one and shoots it on a range? Long range shooting is as respectable thing to do as someone playing rugby IMO.

Also if you can't step into someone else's shoes, it becomes very easy to justify to take away their thing, whatever that might be.

I'm jealous of americans second amendment, as we have IMO way too strict firearm laws here in Finland.

Sure, but wouldn't it be safer if the guns stayed at the range given how irresponsible so many gun owners are? Or, make it mandatory for gun owners to insure their dangerous tools that they feel the need to have on their person in the vicinity of others. Hence the fabled market would facilitate change in the behavior of gun owners. 

The laws/restrictions are not needed against the guns... it's people that are the problem, and when people have problems they invariably do dumb assed shit. 

Edited October 12, 2016 by villakram
edit: all the silly whitespace

[Jarpie]

16 minutes ago, villakram said:

Sure, but wouldn't it be safer if the guns stayed at the range given how irresponsible so many gun owners are? Or, make it mandatory for gun owners to insure their dangerous tools that they feel the need to have on their person in the vicinity of others. Hence the fabled market would facilitate change in the behavior of gun owners. 

The laws/restrictions are not needed against the guns... it's people that are the problem, and when people have problems they invariably do dumb assed shit. 

They toyed with the idea putting guns to the ranges or hunting club lodges etc, and they came to one simple conclusion...can you guess what it is?

Edit: toyed with it in Finland.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Jarpie

[villakram]

ohhh, ok... why did the chicken cross the road?

[mjmooney]

Why did the chicken cross the road, roll in mud, and come back again? 

Because he was a dirty double-crosser. 

[Jarpie]

Vast majority of the hunting clubs lodges and the ranges are not in the inner city, and many times they're not close to the population, so they'd be easy pickings for criminals to go burglarize, even with the alarms etc as it'd take tens of minutes or even hour or two for law enforcement to arrive.

When it comes to self-defense, It's fine and dandy for people living in the city or suburb that it'd take minutes for cops to arrive, but people living outside of the cities or in the areas where they don't have law enforcement nearby, such as many places in northern finland, carrying weapon for self-defense would be a pretty darn good thing even if it's very remote chance that they'd need it. That being said, I'd probably have people having to go through training courses on how to handle weapons etc and have interviews with psychologists if they'd want carry permit, but with enough safe guards so there'd be proper "due process".

I am very much of an individualist who thinks that people should be at least able to be as self-reliant as possible, and rather have more freedoms than fewer. Smaller state/government would great too, I know, that's crazy idea in europe but as you said, people are dumbasses, so why would I trust them to govern and handle bureocracy?

[Dom_Wren]

Was supposed to go yesterday.....didnt make it  gutted, so busy havent really had a chance. cant wait for thanksgiving to get some range time in.

 

@Jarpie post pics of those guns bruv!

 

 

[villakram]

On 10/12/2016 at 13:13, Jarpie said:

Vast majority of the hunting clubs lodges and the ranges are not in the inner city, and many times they're not close to the population, so they'd be easy pickings for criminals to go burglarize, even with the alarms etc as it'd take tens of minutes or even hour or two for law enforcement to arrive.

When it comes to self-defense, It's fine and dandy for people living in the city or suburb that it'd take minutes for cops to arrive, but people living outside of the cities or in the areas where they don't have law enforcement nearby, such as many places in northern finland, carrying weapon for self-defense would be a pretty darn good thing even if it's very remote chance that they'd need it. That being said, I'd probably have people having to go through training courses on how to handle weapons etc and have interviews with psychologists if they'd want carry permit, but with enough safe guards so there'd be proper "due process".

I am very much of an individualist who thinks that people should be at least able to be as self-reliant as possible, and rather have more freedoms than fewer. Smaller state/government would great too, I know, that's crazy idea in europe but as you said, people are dumbasses, so why would I trust them to govern and handle bureocracy?

All well and good that you are a well adjusted human, but we have an awful lot of data that clearly shows how guns are a bad idea due to humans being less than well adjusted quite often.

You should move here or contact the NRA and set up a local branch. They'll do it if there's money in it... oh, and help you take back your freedoms.

[Jarpie]

On 19.10.2016 at 04:30, Dom_Wren said:

Was supposed to go yesterday.....didnt make it  gutted, so busy havent really had a chance. cant wait for thanksgiving to get some range time in.

 

@Jarpie post pics of those guns bruv!

 

 

This is my shotgun, old Baikal IJ-18, 16 gauge from '61. Has quite a kick and recoil though, might put padding in the stock.

My (brand-new, mind you) rifle had broken hammer or hammer spring, so it went back for repairs. Grumble grumble.

On 19.10.2016 at 19:12, villakram said:

All well and good that you are a well adjusted human, but we have an awful lot of data that clearly shows how guns are a bad idea due to humans being less than well adjusted quite often.

You should move here or contact the NRA and set up a local branch. They'll do it if there's money in it... oh, and help you take back your freedoms.

Based on the statistics I found from quick search in google, there were more deaths from motor vehicle accidents in the USA than from the firearms, do you still trust those same people with the license to drive a car who you don't think are not well-adjusted enough to own firearms? People who are crazy or stupid will find a way to **** things up, if it's not gun, then it's car, knife or axe etc. You can do actually more harm with the knife than with the gun on many circumstances. Sneak behind people in the crowded place and stab them in the back, it's gonna take a while to people notice anything but with the weapon they'll all hear the gunshot so people can take cover or run away, but it's not as "sexy" news as "OMG SCARY GUNSHOTS!"

In Finland we have a lot of guns, but very few deaths by firearms, afaik it's something like 10-20 deaths on average per year. We have more deaths due motor vehicle accidents, and I've never heard anyone demanding much stricter laws concerning who can drive, also more people are killed with knives than guns, if the same people would carry guns, they'd just shoot each other instead of stabbing with the knife. The latest statistics I remember seeing/hearing was that something like 30% of shootings were done by legally owned firearms in Finland, which is very few when you look at the numbers.

For me it comes down to is it worth to restrict someone else's freedom to nanny the very few potential idiots or lunatics, and at least in Finland the gun owners have IMO proved that it's not.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Jarpie

[mjmooney]

48 minutes ago, Jarpie said:

For me it comes down to is it worth to restrict someone else's freedom to nanny the very few potential idiots or lunatics

Yes. It 100% is. 

[Rugeley Villa]

Can't see the fascination with guns. If it's part of your job then fair enough, but for people to be able to buy any gun is crazy.

[Jarpie]

34 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Can't see the fascination with guns. If it's part of your job then fair enough, but for people to be able to buy any gun is crazy.

Mind if I ask where you guys live in? It's easy to speak when you don't know the realities of, for example remote places where people need firearms for self-defense from wilderness, for example.

What about hunting? They mostly do it for pass-time. Hunters keeps the population of some species in check, such as wolves or bears who otherwise could pose danger to the people, or would cause a lot of damage and lost earnings for a lot of people in northern Finland where people gets their living by reindeer herding. Another great example are invasious species such as minks or wild boards in southern Finland where they are not native in. They are not paid, and the state would have to spend fortune to pay people to hunt those species.

AFAIK same goes for many places in the US, where some species would pose a threat for people unless their numbers are kept in check. Also Skeet shooting is popular olympic sport, and many people starts it as a hobby and not a profession, same goes for biathlon which is huge sport in Germany, France, Norway etc.

In Finland reservist volunteering and training is considered as a very valuable pass-time by our defense force, and the volunteers trains on their own time with their own guns, partly by target shooting with semi-auto firearms. I know it probably sounds silly to your ears, but Finland has border with Russia, one of the major powers with whom we had war(s) during WW2 and more or less contentious time during Cold War. They are stable for now, but you never know what future brings.

[El Zen]

Gun control isn't, and has never been, about banning all guns for everyone. Just make sure machine guns are kept away from people who have, y'know, no practical need or reason to kill tens of people in a matter of seconds, and perhaps generally make guns less accessible to the general public than cans of Dr Pepper. 

[Chindie]

3 hours ago, Jarpie said:

Based on the statistics I found from quick search in google, there were more deaths from motor vehicle accidents in the USA than from the firearms, do you still trust those same people with the license to drive a car who you don't think are not well-adjusted enough to own firearms? People who are crazy or stupid will find a way to **** things up, if it's not gun, then it's car, knife or axe etc. You can do actually more harm with the knife than with the gun on many circumstances. Sneak behind people in the crowded place and stab them in the back, it's gonna take a while to people notice anything but with the weapon they'll all hear the gunshot so people can take cover or run away, but it's not as "sexy" news as "OMG SCARY GUNSHOTS!"

In Finland we have a lot of guns, but very few deaths by firearms, afaik it's something like 10-20 deaths on average per year. We have more deaths due motor vehicle accidents, and I've never heard anyone demanding much stricter laws concerning who can drive, also more people are killed with knives than guns, if the same people would carry guns, they'd just shoot each other instead of stabbing with the knife. The latest statistics I remember seeing/hearing was that something like 30% of shootings were done by legally owned firearms in Finland, which is very few when you look at the numbers.

For me it comes down to is it worth to restrict someone else's freedom to nanny the very few potential idiots or lunatics, and at least in Finland the gun owners have IMO proved that it's not.

The car comparison is a complete red herring.

How many of those motor vehicle deaths result from someone intentionally running someone down? Compare that to the number resulting from someone intentionally firing a gun at someone.

It's also fairly difficult to make an argument that a gun is as useful as a car. cars are absolutely dangerous, it's why you require training and a licence to use one and the roads are heavily legislated. But you do a lot with a car and most deaths result from accidents or negligence. The world can't exist as it does now without fast reliable modes of transportation. Guns? It's sole purpose is to injure and kill. That can have its uses as a civilian. You might hunt. But today hunting for the developed world is a pastime, very few people need to hunt. You might live somewhere with firearms and feel the need to defend yourself. Chances are you'll never need to do that and if you do is unlikely you'll ever do so effectively. So yes, cars are dangerous. But they have a multitude of uses. Guns? Nah. A small number of civilian professions may have then as a tool occasionally needed, but the general populous doesn't need one. Cars? Most people might need one.

It's a red herring.

The same can be said of knives and the like. Whilst a knife can stab someone, you use them every day at home, and some physical jobs will use them day to day. It's also a common argument, but with merit, that stabbing someone is a much more difficult action than pulling a trigger. You have to be close, if the victim is aware potentially you're in a physical tussle, and the actual act of stabbing someone is mentally more challenging for most people than pulling a trigger where you are removed from the action (of course you can't account for the disturbed but that is true for anything).

The issue also arises that gun deaths aren't done solely by 'idiots and lunatics'. They're done by normal people who are angry, people who make an honest mistake, and people who are tired, depressed, upset... If you have the mother of all fights with your wife and you know there's a gun in the drawer for 'when a burglar turns up' its very easy to reach over and do something you'll never take back. If you come home and find your partner in bed with your best mate that pistol in the garage for target practice with the lads is suddenly a great tool for taking out your rage. If you wake up on the middle of the night to noises downstairs and the fear kicks in the revolver under the bed is the first thing you grab and your sleep addled brain you fire at the burglar in the kitchen only to find with the lights on its your son having a snack. If life starts to turn on you and everything is going wrong and you feel like you can't keep on, that shotgun is the solution to all your pain. Or maybe it's the device to show the world just how pissed off you are. We live in a stressful world, people snap. It's easier to attack en masse with a gun. Finland might be different, Canada famously has more guns per capita than the US but less gun violence, so environment matters, but that danger is always there and any gun violence that could be prevented by them being gone is a good thing.

The general population doesn't need guns. There is a dishonesty to the arguments that they do imo. People might enjoy having them, their hobby might involve it, but someone's hobby being off the table is a small price to pay to remove that danger from homes. I live in the UK, we have some gun violence from illegal firearms and occasional incidents from legally owned ones (given how strict our laws are on owning any its exceptionally low), but I've never felt the need to own one, and I've never felt in danger of needing one. I find it absolutely astonishing that the likes of the US allow civilians to own a version of a gun most associated with jungle combat.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Chindie