S&W announces .50 caliber Magnum, largest ever

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by ddtlm
MrMacman:


Yeah, I keep a cop in my pocket in case someone mugs me.


Multiple people just told you why.


What does this have to do with anything? Now you're just ranting.


Lots of guns can easily kill a person with one shot, just depends how they are aimed.


Has anyone here suggested that this particular gun is what they want to use for self-defense? I only recall people talking about handguns in general, or smaller handguns.

A 'cop in the pocket' is not needed. I use what is called 'self defense' and no I don't reach for a gun, I use what is at the end of my arms, some people here use it to weild a weapon. My hands are weapons, you can to learn how to use your hands better than a massive gun.

Yeah I'm ranting. I mean there are many things wrong with a SYSTEM that CHECKS if you are a felon and STOPS YOU FROM GETTING a GUN. Very pro- gun people only see the words in Capital and ignore that the system would effect them if they haven't been robbing places or are a felon.

Yes many guns kill people if they are well placed, but if someone comes charging at you with a knife, you take out your gun and blow them away with one shot, I think that no one needs this kind of gun.

On to your last point. That this gun will not be used in self defense. So far I have heard 2 uses: Killing snakes (why not a knife?) and again self defense.

I mean sure if you need to kill something... wait that is a rifle. Ok, I give up give me uses where I am not in a jungle or in need of self defense that I would need a gun this big?

Kyle don't be like that. I doubt the people who created this technology to make nuklear bombs (Ah, I love my Bush words) wanted war to come over having or not having ones.

On a side note: Since these bullets can stop s car can they rip through a vest as easily as they can rip a man to shreds? Thanks.

 

[Lz0]

The public don't have hand guns in Australia and it is almost impossible to get a license to own a rifle.

Reports of violent crime involving gun death are very rare in Australia.

If a nutter goes into a bank with a gun and five of the public in that bank are carrying hand guns three people are going to die.

If you think it is a population issue you are wrong.

In the UK the police on the street (bobbies) don't carry guns.

Most Europien countries do the same and the instance of gun death are much less.

You have a problem in America, try looking at tha cause of that problem and not just the symptoms.


---

Lz0

 

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by Lz0
The public don't have hand guns in Australia and it is almost impossible to get a license to own a rifle.

Reports of violent crime involving gun death are very rare in Australia.

If a nutter goes into a bank with a gun and five of the public in that bank are carrying hand guns three people are going to die.

If you think it is a population issue you are wrong.

In the UK the police on the street (bobbies) don't carry guns.

Most Europien countries do the same and the instance of gun death are much less.

You have a problem in America, try looking at tha cause of that problem and not just the symptoms.


---

Lz0

If american people are anti- gun control of criminals then what about the publics guns.

Every anti gun bill has failed thanks to the NRA. Once they hear 'gun control' automaically they think people are trying to steal there gun and POOF. They spend millions of $$ killing the bill.

I would love to have a country that didn't need thse type of guns.

 

[ddtlm]

MrMacman:

A 'cop in the pocket' is not needed. I use what is called 'self defense' and no I don't reach for a gun, I use what is at the end of my arms, some people here use it to weild a weapon. My hands are weapons, you can to learn how to use your hands better than a massive gun.

What? The first criminal bigger than you, carrying a weapon of any sort, or traveling with a ffiend, is gona do just whatever he wants with your possessions and your life.

Yes many guns kill people if they are well placed, but if someone comes charging at you with a knife, you take out your gun and blow them away with one shot, I think that no one needs this kind of gun.

Again, I didn't see anyone claiming that this particular gun should be used for denense. Far too large, heavy, and too easy to take away due to the long barrel.

On to your last point. That this gun will not be used in self defense. So far I have heard 2 uses: Killing snakes (why not a knife?) and again self defense.

Knife a rattlesnake? And again, who here has claimed that they want to use this gun for self-defense?

On a side note: Since these bullets can stop s car can they rip through a vest as easily as they can rip a man to shreds? Thanks.

Sure I bet it could. But once again, there are probably better weapons if the idea is taking out armored people.

Lz0:

If a nutter goes into a bank with a gun and five of the public in that bank are carrying hand guns three people are going to die.

You are quickly loosing what credability you have.

In the UK the police on the street (bobbies) don't carry guns.

Most Europien countries do the same and the instance of gun death are much less.

I think that there is a distinct possiblity that Americian culture is not the same as those that are found in Europe or in Australia. What works other places is certainly not gaurenteed to work in the USofA. For one thing I think that we here have a far larger undercurrent of racism and the social divisions and the crime that it creates.

 

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by ddtlm
MrMacman:


What? The first criminal bigger than you, carrying a weapon of any sort, or traveling with a ffiend, is gona do just whatever he wants with your possessions and your life.


Again, I didn't see anyone claiming that this particular gun should be used for denense. Far too large, heavy, and too easy to take away due to the long barrel.


Knife a rattlesnake? And again, who here has claimed that they want to use this gun for self-defense?


Sure I bet it could. But once again, there are probably better weapons if the idea is taking out armored people.

I'm not sure what situations you have been in but if your being mugged, robbed, raped or anything. The person is gonna be right next to you holding the gun up to you. Why rob a person from far away that doesn't make sense...

I can only see police use this weapon to take out people as you do, but then again rifles are more accurate and could probably take out your target faster.

I am taking general. For any hand gun. Small and weak to big, and powerful. why use a handgun? I mean unless your doing something petty like mug a person your not gonna need this. And for robbing a bank I would use a handgun, not really.


No America is not Europe on Guns and gun control (remember people that means Liberals are gonna steal your guns). But why couldn't we be?

Give me a reason for buying one. Please I asked before I want a good damn reason. I really want to know.

 

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by MrMacman

A 'cop in the pocket' is not needed. I use what is called 'self defense' and no I don't reach for a gun, I use what is at the end of my arms, some people here use it to weild a weapon. My hands are weapons, you can to learn how to use your hands better than a massive gun.

And what about an old lady in a wheelchair? Is she supposed to be a martial arts master as well? Or even have self defense training? She can't even really run away. So, a mugger comes up to her, she can open her purse, and scare the guy away, or shoot him if necessary. Not everyone is as able-bodied as you.

Yeah I'm ranting. I mean there are many things wrong with a SYSTEM that CHECKS if you are a felon and STOPS YOU FROM GETTING a GUN. Very pro- gun people only see the words in Capital and ignore that the system would effect them if they haven't been robbing places or are a felon.[/b]

Despite your perceptions, most of us gun nuts are extremely law-abiding citizens. Besides which, the background checks are not what are objected to; registration is what is objected to. The very idea that the government has a database they could use for confiscation scares the sh*t out of me.

Yes many guns kill people if they are well placed, but if someone comes charging at you with a knife, you take out your gun and blow them away with one shot, I think that no one needs this kind of gun.

Fine, we'll let anyone not so proficient in self-defense be slaughtered, just to keep guns away from people.

On to your last point. That this gun will not be used in self defense. So far I have heard 2 uses: Killing snakes (why not a knife?) and again self defense.

You can't kill a snake with a knife if you're not the crocodile hunter, or a trained knife thrower.. you need a sharp rake at lease, and a gun is easier to carry than a rake. Here's another reason: built into the historical documents of this country, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the people have a duty to overthrow an oppressive government, and to do that, we have the guarantee in the 2nd amendment that prevents the government from disallowing arms. For that reason, every law-abiding citizen, with proper training, testing, and background checks, should be able to own anything in the US arsenal, except Biological and Chemical weapons, which cannot be stored 100% safely. An armed society makes for a polite society.

I mean sure if you need to kill something... wait that is a rifle. Ok, I give up give me uses where I am not in a jungle or in need of self defense that I would need a gun this big?

See above.

 

[ddtlm]

MrMacman:

I'm not sure what situations you have been in but if your being mugged, robbed, raped or anything. The person is gonna be right next to you holding the gun up to you. Why rob a person from far away that doesn't make sense...

Yeah, which is why I've relentlessly said a smallish gun is better for defense.

I can only see police use this weapon to take out people as you do, but then again rifles are more accurate and could probably take out your target faster.

I can't tell if you are talking about the big handgun still... but anyway, I've said many times that I don't think it's a good defensive weapon, and I'm not into using handguns for offensive things.

Give me a reason for buying one. Please I asked before I want a good damn reason. I really want to know.

Defend yourself with your fists all you like.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Re: Re: Go to Hell

Originally posted by Lz0


Less guns in society means less people will be killed by them.

---

Lz0

Wow. What brilliant logic. Care to talk about the Swiss ?

Blaming an inanimate object for the actions of a person is idiotic.

A few years ago I was in the UK when an MP was attacked (and I think one of his aide's killed) by a guy w/a sword. And a friend of mine was robbed at knife point. Wow. Even w/o guns violence still happens...

You have a problem in America, try looking at tha cause of that problem and not just the symptoms.

Funny you mention that 'cause I feel the same way. I'm much more concerned w/WHY someone commited a crime not WHAT they commited a crime with.


Lethal

 

[MacAztec]

Guns

Guns are sweet. My dad is a collector.

I have shot many of his guns, although I dont know all of the names.

I remember...

His grandpas .22 (SWEET AND ACCURATE)

His M16 (Auto, Semi-Auto, or Single)

Some REALLY NICE handgun, he just said that it cost him over 1k dollars and cops love it, but they cant afford it

A German Mauser (yes, with the original wooden case, spiraled barrel and all)

*Fun* Since my dad is a farmer, he has an M-80 gun. It shoots M-80s about 50 feet, then they explode. Really fun

I ALMOST got to shoot a gun that I KNOW was illegal. He said that he had been offered about 5k for it, but doesnt want to sell it. It has a banana clip, then a handle in the back, and its automatic.

It looks like...well...the S.W.A.T. team uses em and they are always in movies.

Guns are sweet. They are fun to shoot. We have lots of em in a safe. I (being only 14) have a few super BB/Pellet guns, and one .22 calibre rifel.

 

[MacAztec]

Mauser...

Looks kinda like this, but the wood is a little lighter, and it has the wooden case...that also makes the weapon a rifel.

 

[MacAztec]

UPDATE

Ok, I asked my dad.

The nice machine he says (he thinks) is the

HK MP-85

And the mauser is...

A German BroomHandle Mauser or somethin.

 

[GrandShenlong]

"Some people say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, I think the gun helps a bit." - Eddie Izzard

I think that the argument that crime still happens in Europe in spite of the fact that guns are outlawed is seeing the world in black and white. Europe's crime rates don't even COMPARE with that of America's. Do we seriously think that it's purely caused by "increased racial tensions" or "social conditions"? if we didn't have guns, I'd think that violent crime would go down SIGNIFICANTLY. If a criminal only has a long knife to mug you with, it'll be a mental deterrent for them, and will put you (the average citizen who DOESN'T tote a concealed weapon 24/7) on a more equal footing.

Self-defense: Some say that "I want a gun for self-defense". Ask yourselves: Are there more crimes committed by guns, or are there more average citizens toting guns in the midst of their daily affairs? I think that the former far outnumbers the latter. Also, guns have been legal, and loosely controlled, in America since its inception. Are most ordinary citizens toting Glocks right now for self-defense? I don't think so. Are little old ladies in wheelchairs carrying .22's to ward off muggers? No. They've had plenty of time to provide defenses for themselves. Why aren't they armed to the teeth. or armed at all? The fact is, that most ordinary citizens who might actually need such explosive protection at some point in their lives don't have it. Thus, just looking at it from a "How far have we gotten so far" point of view, I'd say that the point of "I need guns for self-defense" has very little merit.

 

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by Lz0
The public don't have hand guns in Australia and it is almost impossible to get a license to own a rifle.Lz0

-Really?!?

Wow, that's not what I saw in "Crocodile Dundee".



Sorry. I had to. It was there.

Oh, right. It's not guns, it's knives in Australia!



SORRY! Well, not really. I'm just having a bit of phun.

Don't shoot me. Aaaaaaaaa! I kill me!

 

[e-coli]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Really, I suppose my wife is suppose to put a shotgun in her purse to protect her and my daughter right?

That makes no sense.

of all the people i have ever known in my entire life not a single one of them has ever encountered a situation when they needed a gun. And for the very minute number of people (that being 1 or 2) that have been once robbed on the street at gunpoint, a gun would have done them way more harm than good, because they probably would have been shot trying to use it.

handguns are a vicious cycle. no reason in the world to have one, unless you're a person who lives in fear. Just MHO.

i don't own a gun, neither does my wife, and i feel quite safe. and we live in the city with the highest murder rate in the country.

 

[noht*]

Re: Re: Re: Go to Hell

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Wow. What brilliant logic. Care to talk about the Swiss

yes.

the comparision just doesn't work. true, many swiss male have a rifle at home, but not because they want to, but because they have to. you are not allowed to buy ammunition for your personal service weapon anywhere but at the shooting range, and only as much as you are going to shoot. there are very few handguns, and it *is* prohibited to carry a gun (unless you are going to a firing range), especially a loaded one. in addition, every gun sale is registered (of course you only get one if you have a clean record). suppresors are illegal, too.

another thought: many people seem to use the 'a gun doesn't kill people'-argument. i guess weapons of mass destruction (such as those in iraq) don't kill people either, then; so why the big fuss about saddam's anthrax?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by GrandShenlong
"Some people say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, I think the gun helps a bit." - Eddie Izzard

I think that the argument that crime still happens in Europe in spite of the fact that guns are outlawed is seeing the world in black and white. Europe's crime rates don't even COMPARE with that of America's. Do we seriously think that it's purely caused by "increased racial tensions" or "social conditions"? if we didn't have guns, I'd think that violent crime would go down SIGNIFICANTLY. If a criminal only has a long knife to mug you with, it'll be a mental deterrent for them, and will put you (the average citizen who DOESN'T tote a concealed weapon 24/7) on a more equal footing.

Self-defense: Some say that "I want a gun for self-defense". Ask yourselves: Are there more crimes committed by guns, or are there more average citizens toting guns in the midst of their daily affairs? I think that the former far outnumbers the latter. Also, guns have been legal, and loosely controlled, in America since its inception. Are most ordinary citizens toting Glocks right now for self-defense? I don't think so. Are little old ladies in wheelchairs carrying .22's to ward off muggers? No. They've had plenty of time to provide defenses for themselves. Why aren't they armed to the teeth. or armed at all? The fact is, that most ordinary citizens who might actually need such explosive protection at some point in their lives don't have it. Thus, just looking at it from a "How far have we gotten so far" point of view, I'd say that the point of "I need guns for self-defense" has very little merit.

Social and economical factors have a HUGE part to play in crime rates. Did you read my "swiss" link in my last post? People don't just see a gun and go "wow, I feel like commiting a violent crime now." They want to commit a crime and then they look for something to help them achieve that goal. The genocide in Rwanda (aprox. 800,000 killed in 100 days) was carried out mostly by people w/machete's and and farming tools! A population so poor they barely had ANY firearms yet they managed to slaughter 800,000 people anyway.

In short:
Swiss: Lots of guns + few social/econ issues= gun violence so low it's not even a stastic.

Rwanda: few guns + major social/ecnon issues = mass genocide.

Extreme examples? Yes, but I think it shows my point.

Making guns illegal (or significantly harder to obtain) isn't going to do sh*t for reducing the number of guns used by criminals because over 90% of firearms used in commiting a crime have been aquired illegally. And last time I checked the US isn't exactly doing a great job on keeping drugs and people from sneaking into this country so an increased amount of gun smuggling shouldn't be too hard to pull off.

How will making it harder (or impossible) for me, a law abiding citizen, to purchase a handgun make it harder for Bob the Armed Robber to buy his handgun on the black market?

And just because I haven't ranted enough yet...
According to the International Crime Victims Survey conducted by the Dutch Ministry of Justice, England, Australia and Wales consistently won the dubious honors of having the highest burglary rates and the highest rates for crimes of violence such as robbery, assault and sexual assault in the 17 top industrialized nations.

Yes it is from the NRA so yes it is biased in opinion, but they source their stats in that article so even though the piece is slanted I don't think the stats are. For example, The London Evening Standard reported on Dec. 19, 2001, "Gun crime in London is rocketing, with increases of almost 90 percent in some firearms offenses, Scotland Yard reported today. New figures show London murders with guns increased by 87 percent in the first eight months of the year com-pared with the same period last year.", or The Daily Telegraph of Jan. 3, 2002, reported, "Police fear a new crime explosion as school-age muggers graduate to guns … the number of people robbed of personal property at gunpoint rose by 53 percent … . Ballistics experts warn that firearms are now cheap and easily available."


Lethal

 

[LethalWolfe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Go to Hell

Originally posted by noht*

yes.

the comparision just doesn't work. true, many swiss male have a rifle at home, but not because they want to, but because they have to. you are not allowed to buy ammunition for your personal service weapon anywhere but at the shooting range, and only as much as you are going to shoot. there are very few handguns, and it *is* prohibited to carry a gun (unless you are going to a firing range), especially a loaded one. in addition, every gun sale is registered (of course you only get one if you have a clean record). suppresors are illegal, too.

another thought: many people seem to use the 'a gun doesn't kill people'-argument. i guess weapons of mass destruction (such as those in iraq) don't kill people either, then; so why the big fuss about saddam's anthrax?

No offense but did you read the article? The arthur talks about the Swiss culture, hisotry and how firearms are a part of that. Anyway, the major anti-gun argruement is "guns cause crime" which they don't. If they did then Switzerland would be a hot bed of crime. Social and economic factors (and the occasional nut ball) cause crime, not inanimate objects.

I can walk into a room full of antrhax and die. I can walk into a room full of guns and not die unless someone points a gun at me and pulls the triger.


Lethal

 

[macfan]

of all the people i have ever known in my entire life not a single one of them has ever encountered a situation when they needed a gun.

This is among the more foolish statements on this thread and harkens back to the famous quote following Nixon's landslide victory in 1972: "I can't believe Nixon won, no one I know voted for him." Arguing that because one doesn't know someone who has encountered such a situation is a classic example of how people fail to analyze issues rationally.

I'm not sure what situations you have been in but if your being mugged, robbed, raped or anything. The person is gonna be right next to you holding the gun up to you. Why rob a person from far away that doesn't make sense...

Estimates vary, but a DoJ study came up with the figure of 1.5 million per year when guns were used for defensive purposes. Some argue that it is much higher, and some that it is much lower. However, to argue that the person won't try to rob you from far away or that somehow guns are ineffecive in defending against crime is simply ridiculous.

another thought: many people seem to use the 'a gun doesn't kill people'-argument. i guess weapons of mass destruction (such as those in iraq) don't kill people either, then; so why the big fuss about saddam's anthrax?

The key element there is Saddam's anthrax. Biological agents such as the small pox stocks at the CDC do not represent the kind of threat that they would in the hands of Saddam. The threat of the Tony Blair, George Bush, Vladimir Putin, Jacques Chirac having their respective fingers on the nuclear button is much less of a threat to the world than Saddam or Osama bin Laden having access to such weapons.

In the same way, a gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen does not represnet a significant threat. If one could remove all guns from society without totally destroying constitutional rights (not second amendment, but the unreasonable search and seizure rights, etc.), I'd be likely to go along. However, banning guns short of instituting a massive, intrusive compliance program simply means that the law abiding citizens will not have them. Criminals will continue to have them, because they, by definition, do not care too much for laws.

 

[e-coli]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Making guns illegal (or significantly harder to obtain) isn't going to do sh*t for reducing the number of guns used by criminals because over 90% of firearms used in commiting a crime have been aquired illegally.

Yes, that's because the gun manufacturers flood the market (and by that I mean the black market) with handguns, because it increases the need for yet even more handguns. But if you make the manufacture of handguns illegal, or at least cap it, then it stops this flow of guns to the streets.

 

[noht*]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Go to Hell

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
No offense but did you read the article? The arthur talks about the Swiss culture, hisotry and how firearms are a part of that.
(...)

no offense taken. well, i didn't read all of it. the point is that it all depends on your point of view. for the average swiss, firearms are not more a part of their culture than for the average american (i would even say less). there are however, as everywhere, people that have more than average interest in guns (some might say gun-nuts), and they are the ones that get the attention of journalists who want to make a story about gun-control. what i am saying is that if you don't count the weapons which are 'forced' upon the people by the government (the said personal service rifles; more than a million of them...) and maybe some collectors who have hundreds of guns, then the amount of firearms in switzerland is small.
see, i don't think that gun control will stop crime. but i do think that the harder it is for a criminal to get a gun, the smaller is the chance that he will use one.

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

I can walk into a room full of antrhax and die. I can walk into a room full of guns and not die unless someone points a gun at me and pulls the triger.

agreed. but what if the room is full of thermonuclear bombs, such as the ones north korea is currently developping?

 

[digitalgiant]

Re: S&W announces .50 caliber Magnum, largest ever

Originally posted by peter2002
Smith & Wesson announces its largest handgun ever, called .50 caliber Magnum. It has an 8.5 inch barrel, weighs 4.5 pounds, a pound heavier than Dirty Harry's .44 Magnum, and 3X times more power. Cost, only $989.

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2003-02/6611301.pdf

http://ir.thomsonfn.com/InvestorRel...=MzgwU1ZJPVAkWQEQUALSTOEQUALSTO&storyid=81238
____________________________________________________

This S&W .50 Magnum will be real popular gun with thugs and street gangs because it will be a real cop killer weapon because with so much power, it could easily penetrate any bullet resistant vest.

Pete

The .50 Mag has been out for some time now,,,this is nothing new. Gangs dont just go to the store a buy a gun. So you are talking out of your ass. You listen to way to much gangster rap. I work with a gang unit in Memphis Tenn,, and 95% of the guns we pick up are small .22 .25 and other pieces of crap. I wqont even read this whole post because I know that it will be nothin g more than a bunch of gun bashing by a bunch of left wing weenies. Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. And with that I will leave you to your Sims game.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by e-coli


Yes, that's because the gun manufacturers flood the market (and by that I mean the black market) with handguns, because it increases the need for yet even more handguns. But if you make the manufacture of handguns illegal, or at least cap it, then it stops this flow of guns to the streets.

It will stop the flow of US made guns. It will not stop the flow of weapons being smuggled into the US. AFAIK there are no US companies making crack or heroin<sp?> but that doesn't mean it's hard to find.


noht* I agree that having few guns will reslut in fewer gun related crimes, but that doesn't mean there will be few crimes overall. If you get robbed do you really care if the guy had a knife or a gun? No, you care that you got robbed. Gun related stats go down, but other stats go up and the overall crime rate stays the same. Going by year 2000 stats England, Whales, and Australia have the highest burglary and violent crime rates of major industrialized nations (from my link 1 or 2 posts ago).

The problem is criminals and until we address the problem nothing we "ban" will substantianly curb crime for an extended period of time. It will just force criminals to use other tactics. I once interviewed a guard at a small prison that said they meter the amount of toliet paper used because inmates had figured out a way to braid toliet paper so strong it could be used to choke somoene to death.


And if I walked into a room w/nukes in them I would only be safe because of the sheilding in the war heads containing the radiation. If I walked into a room w/exposed nuclear material I would probably be exposed to lethal amounts of radiation. So, again, if I walked into a room full of guns locked in safes I would be okay. If I walked into a room full of guns laying out in the open I would still be okay unless someone picked up a gun, aimed it at me and pulled the trigger.


Lethal

 

[MrMacMan]

Shoot me. I'm for Gun Control.

And I bet many of you would.

Forget your granny in a wheelchair senerio, please if the granny was getting robbed many of he guns would break her arm. Gimme a break.
'GIVE ME YOUR MONEY!' 'oookk' :BLAM: 'AHHH MY ARM!' Hm... give $50 to the robber or buy a gun a possibly hurt myself...?
I'm sorry no.

Despite your perceptions, most of us gun nuts are extremely law-abiding citizens. Besides which, the background checks are not what are objected to; registration is what is objected to. The very idea that the government has a database they could use for confiscation scares the sh*t out of me.

The governement has databases if you like it or not. The have them on terriosm, buying trends, the economy, and your life style in general. I am openly against this but again. AGAIN I point out the fact that any of these laws/bills/databases Wouldn't be used to TAKE GUNS AWAY FROM PEOPLE. but rather Stop Violent criminals from getting guns.

I don't see many areas with need of a gun. Self Defense, sure but how is the robber getting the gun?
If gun control was there my uncle would still be alive. He was a convicted felon and he got the gun from a local seller. He was killed the day he got the gun. Should my uncle of had a gun, I don't know he had a nice, open, and passive stance on life.

I don't think he could have had the burden of killing a person like that.

I don't need to be flamed like before guys either. My uncle is dead because of firearms.

 

[digitalgiant]

Originally posted by MrMacman

A 'cop in the pocket' is not needed. I use what is called 'self defense' and no I don't reach for a gun, I use what is at the end of my arms, some people here use it to weild a weapon. My hands are weapons, you can to learn how to use your hands better than a massive gun.

So while you are choping and kicking,,that felon gave you two to the chest.

Yes many guns kill people if they are well placed, but if someone comes charging at you with a knife, you take out your gun and blow them away with one shot, I think that no one needs this kind of gun.

On to your last point. That this gun will not be used in self defense. So far I have heard 2 uses: Killing snakes (why not a knife?) and again self defense.

Have you ever tried to kill a rattle snake with a knife? Didnt think so. And I have killed a few rattle snakes in my day (I lived in New Mexico for a number of years) I would love to see you try. Laugh my ass off when I am driving you to the hospital. I dont like to rant,, but you left wingers really piss me off. For that matter any one that wants to take away my rights pisses me off.

 

[macfan]

MrMacman,

Facts are facts. Guns are used on a regular basis to deter crime.

I don't need to be flamed like before guys either. My uncle is dead because of firearms.

This is not a flame. While I sympathize with your loss, your uncle is not dead because of firearms. He is dead because someone killed him. If someone is beaten to death with a Louisville Slugger, we wouldn't say he was killed because of baseball.

In any event, we can point to examples of people who are alive today because of firearms if you want to put it in those terms.

Again, unless you can come up with a way to get all the guns off the street, don't tell me that taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens is going to make anyone safer because it isn't.

Keep guns away from criminals? Sure. Ban the sale of guns to everyone? Doesn't help much if at all, and may do much harm.

digitalgiant,
I wasn't talking about using this gun to kill a snake, just a handgun in general. A .50 caliber to kill a snake?! Good grief! I can't see this gun as being used for much else than a collector.