Thread: Gun advocate shot by husband

There are only two things a handgun is better for than long gun- concealment and portability. They are more or less useless for hunting, other than for dispatching mortally wounded game, and are not necessary for that. (I know some people hunt with handguns for sport, but if you need to kill something for food and you have a choice you never would choose a handgun.)

Gun advocates will say that other than hunting, firearms are useful for home defense and, increasingly as we hear in the anti-Obama protests, to defend against government tyranny. As to home defense, if you need anything more than a pump action 12 gauge, which is a typical hunting weapon, you probably need to hire security. As to fighting troops or cops in an insurrection, maybe in the wildest militia fever dreams, but otherwise it's just crazy talk. In any case, I still don't see why handguns are needed by the average person, and think they should be strictly regulated. They are good for killing people, and nothing else, as Lynyrd Skynyrd said.

Originally Posted by robuzo

They are good for killing people, and nothing else

well, they do have the advantage of making a small man bigger

Dog, I take that to be in jest. We Amerians are no crazier than anyone else on this third rock from the sun. Like I said, if everything goes to shit, I would rather have a gun.

Robuzo, Lynyrd Skynyrd from what I have seen is an avid hunter. Hunting for large game like deer, elk or bear, a rifle is probably better than using a shotgun. With a rifle you can reach out and touch the game. A shotgun is good for birds at a close range. I bought a 357 magum pistol when I was in business and went to the bank weekly with payroll. I had a permit to carry a concealed weapon issued by the local sheriff. You are correct that a pistol is only good for hurting another person, like I said, if everything goes to shit, I would rather he be dead than me. Survival of the one who draws first, with the biggest gun, that is why I bought a 357.

Andy it nothing to do with making a small man large or a large man small. It has to with protecting ones personal freedom and liberty. What is wrong with that?? Throughout all of mans history, there have been those who wanted to take what others had. The one who fared the best were the ones who were armed the best.

like DD said, a shotgun is good enough for that

Andy, when you walk into the bank with $50,000 cash and a shotgun the tellers and guards probably will get a little upset. With a pistol concealed in my pants, no one knows. If questioned why I am carrying, I have a legal permit. If a shotgun was so great, then all police officers would be carrying them. Don't get me wrong, if I was a thug breaking into someones home, I would hate to be looking down the barrel of a 12 gauge. You might miss with a pistol, but not a shotgun at 10 feet.

Originally Posted by BillyBobThai

Robuzo, Lynyrd Skynyrd from what I have seen is an avid hunter.

Before or after their plane crashed and half the band died?

Originally Posted by BillyBobThai

Hunting for large game like deer, elk or bear, a rifle is probably better than using a shotgun. With a rifle you can reach out and touch the game. A shotgun is good for birds at a close range.

No kidding. I was comparing long guns to pistols.

Originally Posted by BillyBobThai

I bought a 357 magum pistol when I was in business and went to the bank weekly with payroll. I had a permit to carry a concealed weapon issued by the local sheriff. You are correct that a pistol is only good for hurting another person, like I said, if everything goes to shit, I would rather he be dead than me. Survival of the one who draws first, with the biggest gun, that is why I bought a 357.

First of all, someone in the circumstances you describe has legitimate reason to carry a concealed weapon. Actually, in some places where a permit is not required to carry a concealed firearm, like Vermont, the crime rate remains low; even that is not the big issue as far as I am concerned, although I still don't see the logic of not placing serious controls on handguns. In any case, the NRA has become so extreme that they pretend there shouldn't be any limit on the weapons an individual can own- rocket launchers, whatever- convert your pickup into a Somali-style technical, or put a machine gun nest on the roof of your suburban home. They oppose the application of chemical signatures to explosives used in demolition. They are mad.

Second, "Survival of the one who draws first"- do you think most criminals, especially robbing a payroll, are going to give you an opportunity to draw if there is anyway to avoid it? Different story, of course, if someone is approaching or otherwise blocks your vehicle, but the speed of the draw is something that mostly matters in the movies.

Third, is BBT a new nic for an old poster? You write a lot like another poster on here. Sorry in advance if I am mistaken.

Originally Posted by BillyBobThai

Andy it nothing to do with making a small man large or a large man small. It has to with protecting ones personal freedom and liberty.

My uncle, a good but occasionally bellicose man of about 5'4" always said that people were a lot more polite when it was legal for everyone to carry a pistol. I thought he had a point, actually. The problem is, even, maybe especially, in such circumstances you are still far more likely to shoot or be shot by someone you know well. Of course, probability doesn't always figure really high in people's calculations- lots of people won't swim in the sea because they worry about bitten by a shark, but don't have a corresponding and much more justified fear of big dogs when walking through a neighborhood

By the way, for the Brits on here, a 4" knife thrust to the torso, neck, or certain large areas of the limbs is a more grievous wound in a lot of circumstances than even a couple of gunshots. Inside a certain distance a knife is only a less lethal weapon than a pistol because it requires a bit more skill and a certain determination. Nonetheless, the way the UK is trying to ban knives is almost as comical as it is tragic. That societies even need to do that suggests a deep rot. What's next, walking sticks? Tire irons? Cars (a popular homicide weapon)?

Robuzu I am indeed a new person to this forum. I have been reading for a while and not posting. I am now upcountry in a village where no other farangs live so I guess this is my way to talk to others and not go crazy.

I agree with you to a point about the NRA. The problem as I see it, is that the NRA goes overboard because if they do not, the left wing of my government will take any oppertunity to chip away at the constitution and take away the right to keep guns at all.

Originally Posted by BillyBobThai

Robuzu I am indeed a new person to this forum. I have been reading for a while and not posting. I am now upcountry in a village where no other farangs live so I guess this is my way to talk to others and not go crazy.

I agree with you to a point about the NRA. The problem as I see it, is that the NRA goes overboard because if they do not, the left wing of my government will take any oppertunity to chip away at the constitution and take away the right to keep guns at all.

What makes you think a left-wing would necessarily be anti-firearm possession in the US? It's a city-country thing in the US, not even a red state-blue state thing. That's what makes it so hard to work out. A federally-insured (Constitutional) right to bear arms means that towns and cities, not to mention states, can't pass laws to control firearms. It is the hard-right wing that is the most interested in big government intrusion on state and local rights in this case, although apparently the right-wing are typically too dumb to get that point or see the irony that they are the ones in favor of big gummint trumping local community interests.

Originally Posted by BillyBobThai

I am now upcountry in a village where no other farangs live so I guess this is my way to talk to others and not go crazy.

oh dear, nobody I know has managed to stay sane on TD

Robuzo I will agree that the right wing of our government has been more committed to preserving the right of the people to keep and bare arms, but at the same time they are just as bad a the left wing at wanting to keep big government. As long as the government is in charge of everything, the populace has less freedom. The U.S. Constitution gives certian rights to the federal government, all others defer to the state and local governments. We as Americans need to make the federal government abide by the constitution. The closer the government is to the people, the more responsive and accountable it will be. The federal government has a place in our lifes, but they have extended it far beyond what was first envisioned by our founding fathers. We need many changes made to the political system on a federal level in the U.S.. I think it is either time to rewrite the constitution or add some new amendments, and then make the federal government abide by the constitution. Period.

blimey BBob, you must be lonely up there