How many guns are too many?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by rikk7111
let's try Newtons law with guns?...........Some one shoots at you........You don't shoot back.........YOU DIE.......Wow that was simple.


Exactly!
Wich is why if you have a gun, you cant defend yourself with it, you need to fire first (wich is not defending)

If you dont have a gun, on the other hand, your opponent only needs to threaten using it.

So we have 4 possible situations:
a and b dont have guns: Conflict needs to be resolved
a has b hasnt. A wins
a hasnt b has. B wins
a has b has. A must attack B, B must attack A.

Since you have no influence on one side of the equation, (wether your opponent has one or hasnt) your best choice is not having a gun, since that is the only way to avoid the 4th outcome in wich you are either dead or a killer.

So on to the next nonsense: Guns keep tyrants in check.
If said tyrant considered violence an option to enforce his laws he would ... simply park an aircraft carrier 500 miles off coast from your little insurgency. You sniper rifle will help you jack squat.

so jup: one is too many.




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Do we have enough hills for you guys to run to? seems like thats where

you are all going ? What about bunkering down and fortiflying and staying

put?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Well, when you mount a Browning on you'r balcony and start planting claymores on the lawn thats when you know its too many



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky


Originally posted by rikk7111
let's try Newtons law with guns?...........Some one shoots at you........You don't shoot back.........YOU DIE.......Wow that was simple.


Exactly!
Wich is why if you have a gun, you cant defend yourself with it, you need to fire first (wich is not defending)

If you dont have a gun, on the other hand, your opponent only needs to threaten using it.

So we have 4 possible situations:
a and b dont have guns: Conflict needs to be resolved
a has b hasnt. A wins
a hasnt b has. B wins
a has b has. A must attack B, B must attack A.

Since you have no influence on one side of the equation, (wether your opponent has one or hasnt) your best choice is not having a gun, since that is the only way to avoid the 4th outcome in wich you are either dead or a killer.

So on to the next nonsense: Guns keep tyrants in check.
If said tyrant considered violence an option to enforce his laws he would ... simply park an aircraft carrier 500 miles off coast from your little insurgency. You sniper rifle will help you jack squat.

so jup: one is too many.



I'd rather be a killer than dead. Easy choice.

Not a one liner.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloman Kane
Do we have enough hills for you guys to run to? seems like thats where

you are all going ? What about bunkering down and fortiflying and staying

put?


I'll be alive and well in the hills, and you'll have died defending stones and paper


Wich argument do you see as faulty?
The guns as defense against other people with guns argument?
or the
Guns as defense against the government?

both? why?

Not to mention the simple fact that while it may be legal to own guns, using it is still a crime to kill people with it. Why spend money on something you will never use? (unless of course the predicted apocalypse comes, or the S hits TF, as you folks like to call it)

But apocalypses have been predicted for quite a while, and so far have never happened. I'll think its save to bet the next prediction wont come true either, instead of spending money on the off chance it will.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 


In many US jurisdictions, the law certainly doesn't see it that way. You have an automatic defense in court in my state, for instance, if you shoot a home intruder. The home intruder is automatically considered to be the aggressor, regardless of weapon possession.

As for a rebellion, I suspect that much of the military would refuse to fight it. Not that it matters. In the event of a large-scale revolt, it would be almost impossible to maintain supplies to the ones that did.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Depends on your point of view. With unlimited funds, I would have as many as I wanted! But we don't so you need to determine what's necessary and what's not.

After you have a home defense weapon (9mm is probably sufficient, or some sort of shotgun depending on your skill level) you probably should invest in other stuff than guns since the chance of you needing anything more in your arsenal is unlikely. Concentrate on training to use that single weapon system, quickly effectively, and most important accuractely and appropriately. Having too many guns could be counter productive and also may be a sign you are getting obsessive.

Honeslty, ideally, if I wanted the best collection for the supposed SHTF scenario I would have the following arsenal:

- 3 pistols (one for me, and one for my spouse, one auxillary)
- 2 shotguns (one for close quarters, and one better for breaching operations. Maybe even have bird shot rounds to deal with unarmed intruders)
- 2 hunting rifles (one more along the lines of will work with out fail no matter the heck what, and another more accurate more deadly variety)
- 2 assault rifles (I would stick with AR-15s since I am very familiar with the weapon system. These stay LOCKED up, they are only for the SHTF scenario you all speak of. (and maybe a practice shoot and occasional functions checks)
- 1 machine gun (Yeah, I would, heck yeah, if I could get it legally, I would grab my self an M240B for when you absolutely have to eliminate scores of people. Honestly, the AR-15 is better suited for most situations, even where you are outnumbered. Aimed shots are proven to be superior to sprayed gun fire. This would just be fun, honestly)
- Materials and equipment to produce ammunition. If stuff was that bad, you will need to reuse round casing and such, and maybe cast your own rounds, so instead of stocking up on ridiculous (and suspicious amounts of ammo), just have the supplies to make it...in that case I might suggest the AK-47 for the assault rife since it can tolerate crappy ammo much better than the M16.

Again, let me stress that you are better of getting a single weapon and learning to use it effectively than buying a ton of them. Like I gurantee you, I would be 1000x more lethal with a couple 30 round mags and a M16, than a room filled with random armaments. Suggest you invest extra money wisely--not wasting it on weapons you will never need.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   


I'd rather be a killer than dead. Easy choice.

Not a one liner.

didnt read that right, or i may have been to brief.

See, if one person owns a gun he doesnt have to use it. He can threaten and its enough. Using it will make him a killer, and he cant get anything from you by killing you. If this person is robbing you, he wants your stuff, not your life. He cant do anything with your life.
If both have guns, that option doesnt exist anymore, and the conflict needs to escalate.

So alive
Or killer

not dead or killer

[edit on 2-3-2009 by debunky]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunkyWhy spend money on something you will never use?


So which roads can I drive my car on at 120mph? I mean, why make the car that way if I can never use it that way?

I guess the fact that quality firearms over a relatively short period of time gain in value better than most paper investments couldnt possibly be a reason to own them.

Maybe I should stop participating in 3-gun competitions as well?

If I'm not running around killing people why own a gun, right?

Ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRealDonPedros
 


I feel sorry for your family, I really do. When/if SHTF your family will be looking to you for security an protection an they're not going to get it. You seem to have this delusion that when/ if something does happen that because you choose not to defend yourself that nobody will harm you? What will you do if for example, you have food and your neighbor doesn't and your neighbor or neighbors kick in your door looking for food. Are you going to give it to him? Will you let your family starve or worse because you chose not to protect them?
Again, I feel sorry for your family, but you? Never mind.

And yes, I do have a few weapons and yes, I will defend my family.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Chance321
 


Defend them from what ?

Unless there's a zombie outbrake you dont need more then one weapon to defend against a robber.

Care to suggest a scenario where you do need more then one weapons to defend your family?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRealDonPedros
 


you wont get to the hills without a gun smart guy. you will have your wife and daughter snatched from your scared hands without a fight. hopefully im around to protect them for you.

if you have to many guns, simply recruit some friends train them on the weapon and let them join the team. i myself will be setup like this: primary=M4, secondary=.308, sidearm=XD.45, then my survival bag is loaded with meds and water. then an ammo bag with thousands of rounds in my truck. then my team will have similar setups but some will specialize in long distance and some will have SBR for close quarter.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by darknovae
 


Sorry, didn't notice in my post where I said I'd be using them all. Wait, let me check again . . . . . . . . nope didn't say I'd be using all of them.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Chance321
 


Why would you buy something you would not use ?
Its like buying a car and leaving it in the garrage forever.

If your collecting guns that's another story.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
The people of East Timur would have loved some sufficient means of defense...they had these wishes before they were rounded up and murdered in droves.

Even those that ran for the hills.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
So we have the apocalypse.
Food is scarce, people are starving in the streets
Here i drive with my gunless car, hillswards, my wife, my daughter and 10 bags full of food.
I get robbed
And they take the additional eaters, to forceproduce even more eaters with them... yeah sure!

Guns and cars: bad analogy! You can drive a car slower than max speed, and in many situations want to, even without speed limits, but you cant fire a gun "just a little" shooting at targets in a car analogy would be going to the race track. But what would driving to work be in the gun world?

Also we werent discussing owning a gun for sport. I can get that some people might like that. Its for defense. For defense you fire it at a person. And if said person owns a gun you need to fire first (in wich case it isnt defense) or he hasnt a gun (in wich case it isnt defense)



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRealDonPedros
 


Cool! Care to elaborate on which "hills" you will be heading for? I will be looking for an easy target to raid so that I can muster more supplies for my family! I just hope I get to you first - at least I won't kill you, I'll just take your stuff. Thanks.



[edit on 2-3-2009 by kozmo]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRealDonPedros
 


Look at the UK we dont have guns look how f****d up our country is for example criminals have guns we dont, then there is all the political bullcrap that isnt sugarcoated and the crappy EU if we had guns there would be no EU in the UK.

seriously another reason why i want to move to the US to get away from our government you think the US government is bad look at the UK its even worse supports the minority sells its own troops out etc



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by darknovae
 


In the event of riots, disaster where there is a lot of looting you may need to defend your property gonna be hard without a gun and they have a gun
think what could happen to your family as a result.

Someone serioulsy doesnt like you for some reason or another.

In the uk there is a lot of gun crime emreging now and when there are gangs maybe you might need a few guns so you dont have to reload and one for short and long range see if they are trying to run away are you gonna let them run away to come back another day when your at work and your wife and kids are in.

Terorists and in a new thing near the border states to fight the cartels which are apparently operating in the US now.

What if your first and only gun jams you need a back up gun but odnt have one.

Corrupt cops may look the other way etc.

Aliens if they do exist which you have to admit we dont really know although i dont believe in them but it always helps to have a gun to shoot something out of the sky or even just someone entering the country illegally although its agianst the law.

NWO and FEMA which i dont really believe in the nwo but you have to wonder what the FMEA camps are for.

The EU in the case of the UK which doesnt have legalized guns
.

Got fired may want to kill your boss or take out the company headquaters.

Got dumped boyfriend/girlfriend cheated on you may want revenge.

Got a grudge on someone agian may want to cause some harm.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by Juksey]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by darknovae
 


In response to your "any situations where you would need more than one gun":

If you are defending your family from just one lone looter who has a gun and the gun you are using gets jammed or stop firing properly; it isn't uncommon.

If you run out of a specific caliber of ammo, more than one gun in more than one caliber would be helpful.

If you are 'up against' more than one agressor, then you and someone else don't have to take turns firing the family firearm.

I am sure there are plenty more.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join