Advice on weaponry

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
5,042
Reaction score
6,384
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
286726829_2109108879248493_3187451973096141744_n.jpg



.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Uwe

RGH0

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
191
Reaction score
159
Location
Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=433612
And.......... I don't think the issue in the USA is women alone on rural properties with a shot gun
 

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
5,468
Reaction score
5,905
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
@vreihen : I'm disappointed at the cliché - the picture is straight out-of the NRA marketing hand-book.

The risk of them psychopaths -ready to attack defenseless women and children in remote farms - is such a real and present danger in America - that it warrants every able citizen (adult and child) in the entire American nation to arm themselves!

It's true - it happens all the time in America. I've seen it in the movies!! :thumbs:

Don

PS: Forgive my ignorance, I know nothing about rifles (shot guns?) - but the weapon in the picture can't possibly be lethal enough to fight-off them dreaded psychopaths?

I'll certainly take advice - surely the Mrs and child need a rifle with at least three -barrels and a belt with a long string of bullets, perhaps also something with assault capabilities and maybe a weapon with anti-aircraft functions too? :eek:

PPS: And the most baffling aspect of the vulnerable Mrs and child in the picture is why actor and ex NRA president Charles Heston isn't there (I call him "the plank")?

heston-nra-with-rifle_f0muqp.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
38,929
Reaction score
27,505
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
surely the Mrs and child need a rifle with at least three -barrels and a belt with a long string of bullets,
A Dreiling is somewhat heavy and and difficult to handle, not to mention that they are very expensive.

IMO, she'd be better off with modern sporting carbine and a 30 round (standard capacity!) magazine. :p

-Uwe-
 

RGH0

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
191
Reaction score
159
Location
Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=433612
UWE - "IMO, she'd be better off with modern sporting carbine and a 30 round (standard capacity!) magazine. :p"

depends if she's after Wabbits or people
 

Ronaldo

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
103
Reaction score
115
Location
Brazil
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=357813
IMO, she'd be better off with modern sporting carbine and a 30 round (standard capacity!) magazine. :p

-Uwe-
Looks like a good choice. Anyway I would prefer a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot rounds, as it's able to hit the target with enough power and minimal (if any) aiming.

Anyway, we shouldn't forget that the fact that having or not a gun is much more relevant than what type of gun it is. In the hypothetical case of a criminal planning to attack a woman in a rural area, the attacker would probably give up (or choose another target) if he knows that the potential victim has a gun, no matter if it's a .22 revolver or a .762 rifle. Anti-gun propaganda usually repeats the misleading idea that a firearm is only effective if it kills an assailant, while, in the overwhelming majority of defense situations, firearms are effective in stopping a crime to occur even without being fired (or even without being seen, remember security staff of politicians and celebrities who carry concealed weapons). Thousands of police officers stop crimes every day withot firing a single round and nobody claims they are being ineffective because they didn't kill anyone.
 

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
38,929
Reaction score
27,505
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
@Ronaldo I agree that any gun is better than no gun, but much depends on the number of attackers and how determined (or drugged up) they are. If they do not back down knowing that their intended victim has a gun, then the gun needs to have sufficient firepower to stop the attack. The woman in the picture appears to have a break-action, breech-loading shotgun. It takes time to reload after firing just one shot (or at most two, if it's a double-barrel). Better than nothing? Sure, but less than optimal as a defensive weapon.

As for you comment regarding the shotgun: Have you fired a 12-gauge and checked the size of the pattern at various distances? The notion that one doesn't need to aim a shotgun is BS.
 

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
5,468
Reaction score
5,905
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
................... the overwhelming majority of defense situations, firearms are effective in stopping a crime to occur even without being fired (or even without being seen, remember security staff of politicians and celebrities who carry concealed weapons). Thousands of police officers stop crimes every day withot firing a single round and nobody claims they are being ineffective because they didn't kill anyone

huh? I don't understand your logic.

First, how in God's name does the deterrent effect of a vulnerable family on a remote farm owning a rifle (from the dreaded psychopath) work "even without [the gun] being seen"?

Under this bizarre logic, how does the dreaded psychopath know which vulnerable Mrs and child to target when he doesn't know who owns a gun - because it's unseen?

Second: If you now agree that the only way that alleged deterrent can work is to ensure that the dreaded psychopath actually sights the weapon - are you now proposing that the vulnerable Mrs on the remote farm MUST carry the weapon AT ALL TIMES regardless of whether she is inside/outside the house for effective protection?

Third: It stands to reason that the dreaded psychopath doesn't stop being a psychopath simply because gun ownership increases - I assume that you agree that these individuals will still seek to satisfy his deranged urges by attacking mothers and their children in remote American communities.

So, assuming that your hypothesis is correct (which is stretching a very long bow indeed) - doesn't it logically follow that the effectiveness of the deterrent reduces as the number of vulnerable farm wives who own guns increases? And extending this logical conclusion, doesn't it sunsequently follow that if ALL mothers on remote properties own weapons, the deterrent effect drops to zero (because the dreaded psychopaths still need to get their jollies)??

What nonsense!!

Aslo, the underlying logic that you attempt to make that because Police carry guns, therefore every member in the community should also carry guns - is unbelievable!! If every member in the community is as equally armed as Police - what is the point of arming the police the same? You need to escalate police weaponry, surely in this case? And then citizen weaponary needs to escale? Is this really your answer to solving the problem of gun violence in the community??

Don






[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
5,468
Reaction score
5,905
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
@Ronaldo I agree that any gun is better than no gun, but much depends on the number of attackers and how determined (or drugged up) they are. If they do not back down knowing that their intended victim has a gun, then the gun needs to have sufficient firepower to stop the attack. The woman in the picture appears to have a break-action, breech-loading shotgun. It takes time to reload after firing just one shot (or at most two, if it's a double-barrel). Better than nothing? Sure, but less than optimal as a defensive weapon.
@Uwe: I wouldn't have thought it possible - but for once, I agree with your position on guns!! Thank you for making my argument on gun control!!

EXACTLY - in the inevitable battle between the dreaded psychopath (I notice you have now added "drug addict") and the vulnerable farm housewife, the single most important factor that determines the winner is who can outgun the other!! This is EXACTLY the same situation as city folk using the same solution to protect themselves against their neighbors (i.e. the possible psychopath and/or drug addict living next door)

Do you think that if the vulnerable Mrs owns a "modern sporting carbine and a 30 round (standard capacity!) magazine", the dreaded psychopath (or drug addict) won't buy something better? And if this happens, isn't logical for the vulnerable Mrs to up-the-ante?

Bottom line - your solution that gun violence in the community can only be solved if every American citizen owns a weapon MUST have just one outcome; its an arms race as to who can out-gun their neighbor!!

A fantastic outcome for America's gun industry and NRA membership, but I ask again - why would any sane American want to live in such a community?

Don
 
Last edited:

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
5,468
Reaction score
5,905
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
No, as a general rule, one's neighbors are not the problem.
461_Ehu5ArlUwAAZa8m.jpg


I have the upmost respect for your countrymen - but even Americans can't know the bone-fides of their neighbors! The man next door might look like a reasonable bloke - but how does Uwe know if he is a dreaded psychopath waiting to pounce (or a closet drug addict)?

Under your rationale to guard against such a real and present danger (which after all, is a principal reason why you have armed yourself) - why would you take the risk? And if indeed you can be sure about the man immediately next-door, how can you be sure about the man two houses up the street? And even better, how can any American living in any of the high-rise buildings in your highly crowded communities trust ALL the other tenants?

Shirley even you must acknowledge that the phalanx of sleeper psychopaths and/or closet drug-addicts that live in America are someone's neighbor!

It's an entirely illogical position to on one hand claim that gun ownership is driven by the need to protect oneself against unseen and unknown psychopaths (and drug addicts) in the community - and then to say that you don't need to worry about your neighbors.

Just doesn't make sense!!

And in any event - your point is not relevant to my position that your solution to gun violence in the community (i.e. arm every American) just becomes an arms race between unseen psychopaths (and/or drug addicts) and law abiding Americans!!

Don
 
Last edited:

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
5,468
Reaction score
5,905
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
@Uwe: in a previous reply I made the point about perspective being an important part of living in a democracy. Thank you for the "gun control for dummies" explanation.

With a repeat acknowledgement that I have no experience with gun ownership - and with an admission that I'm abundantly aware of your advanced knowledge in this area - I hope that Americans don't define the quality of life in their communities by the success with which they able to put a smile on the face of criminals! :thumbs:

Again I ask - why would any sane American want to live in such a community?

Don
 

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
38,929
Reaction score
27,505
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
your solution to gun violence in the community (i.e. arm every American)
Once again your premise is incorrect. I do not desire to "arm every American". I only desire to arm those who wish to be armed (which is pretty much already the case) and not to forcibly remove the arms that they have legally acquired and have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to "keep and bear".

Keep: Means it's mine and you can't have it.
Bear: Means I have one on me and it's loaded.

-Uwe-
 

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
38,929
Reaction score
27,505
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
why would any sane American want to live in such a community?
So that when evil shows up, we can deal with it ourselves if we have to, rather than depending on someone a government agent with a gun, who may or may not show up in a timely manner, and may or may not be willing to put themselves in harm's way, like the damn cowards at Uvalde:

"Three minutes after the subject entered the west building, there was a sufficient number of armed officers wearing body armor to isolate, distract, and neutralize the subject." Three minutes — just 180 seconds later — and officers were ready to go take down the shooter, prevent him from shooting any other students, and deliver aid to those who may have already been wounded. But they didn't.
....
"One hour, 14 minutes, and 8 seconds — that's how long the children waited, and the teachers waited, in room 111 to be rescued,"


-Uwe-
 

RGH0

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
191
Reaction score
159
Location
Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=433612
There appears to be two arguments for the level of gun ownership / lack of gun regulation in the USA which get mixed up together

1. The gun control for dummies argument - unfortunately this fails I believe as demonstrated by the outcomes elsewhere in the comparable first world countries unless you believe the US population has many many more psychopath's than elsewhere.

2. The second amendment argument - that's a specific US problem that has been generated by the courts interpretation especially in recent years and which the US society need to determine how it wants to go forward with.

cheers
Rohan
 

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
5,468
Reaction score
5,905
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
Once again your premise is incorrect. I do not desire to "arm every American". I only desire to arm those who wish to be armed (which is pretty much already the case) and not to forcibly remove the arms that they have legally acquired and have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to "keep and bear".

Keep: Means it's mine and you can't have it.
Bear: Means I have one on me and it's loaded.

-Uwe-
hmm......... a very minor point indeed!

We have (or at lest I have) been debating the matter of gun violence in America and possible ways of addressing the problem. The discussion hasn't been about how to address the problem (assume for the moment that there is a problem) only for those "who wish to be armed" - although it could well be argued that it's this cohort that is the cause of the problem.

Putting aside the question of whether gun ownership in the community exacerbates America's gun violence - how can you separate a citizen in your community that "wants to be armed" from a citizen that currently doesn't own a weapon?

How is it possible to have a meaningful discussion about gun violence in America's community by treating these two cohorts separately? Doesn't make sense!!

Shirley, even you must admit that gun violence in America is a whole of COMMUNITY issue - Shirley, you can't seriously be arguing that in America, "community" means citizens that "want to be armed" separate to those that don't want to arm?

To be clear - my position is that it doesn't matter whether citizens "want to be armed", or not! If indeed you are correct that gun ownership is needed in America because the risk from psychopaths and/or drug addicts is a clear and present danger, then it's only a matter of time before your less insightful neighbors come to the same conclusion. @Ronaldo makes this point eloquently - psychopaths will seek the low-hanging fruits amongst Americans; those citizen that are not armed - causing your self-evident beliefs to become community truths - leading to overwhelmingly more gun ownership and with time, logic dictates, your solution will "arm every American"

Nice try - but me thinks the attempt at obfuscation is a "furphy" in the real debate

Don
 
Top