What Handgun are you quiz...

I'm a Glock 22 in 40 Cal (I know... lame )

http://www.frontsight.com/handgun-quiz.asp

(I did the web work for this site, and this quiz has some great questions anyway.)

i'm a glock 22 40 cal too

I'm a Heckler and Koch, Model P7 in 9mm

Heckler and Koch, Model P7 in 9mm!

But you know what? I don't give a rat's fart on guns so whatever...

Wow! I'm a Desert Eagle! .... no just kidding.

I'm a Glock 22 40cal.

That's not completely inaccurate, since it is an Austrian made gun... Now that I know what type of gun I am, what do I do next?

Hmmm... maybe I should look up what type of toenail-clipper I am *googlesoff*

Hahah,

I'm glad you enjoyed it

cianty wrote:

I don't give a rat's fart on guns so whatever...

Quote :

With guns, we are citizens.
Without them, we are subjects.

Haha, on the subject of guns.... and where I live:

Federalist Newsletter wrote:

In the continuing saga of District of Columbia v. Heller, 39 of Montana's
elected officials have signed a resolution declaring that a Supreme Court
ruling against the individual right of gun ownership would give their state
grounds for leaving the union. It seems that when Montana's settlers signed
a statehood contract in 1889, one of the conditions was that the federal
government agreed that individuals had the right to keep and bear arms. If the
Supreme Court rules that firearm ownership is merely a state or "collective"
right, Montana officials say that the statehood contract will have been
breeched. "The U.S. would do well to keep its contractual promises to the
states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did
upon execution of the statehood contract," Montana Secretary of State Brad
Johnson said in a letter to The Washington Times. The Times also notes that
the "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment doesn't hold
water in Montana because the state didn't have a militia in the 1880s. "It's
pretty disingenuous as an argument," Gary Marbut, president of the Montana
Shooting Sports Association, said. "At the time, they had no image of what
a National Guard was. But history and logic don't always prevail in these
matters." Indeed. Our advice to the Supreme Court is that before they upset
somebody with their ruling, they might want to consider which side has
the guns.

Mark Alexander

Thx for posting that Ash. I think it is interesting to read for Europeans, because it reflects a mindset about firearms that is not really existant in that form on our continent.

The thought that you become a real citizen "only if you possess a firearm", is quite alien (and franquly, rather unpleasant) to europeans. I guess it is because Europe has had terrible experiences with armed paramilitary groups (I am thinking of the SA in Germany in the 1930's or the Heimwehr in Austria a little earlier).

I guess that in the USA the possession of firearms is more vividly associated with events taking place in the independence war against the British (e.g. Battle of New Orleans in 1815-ish, where a few hundred of militiamen repelled thousands of invading british soldiers) and has therefore a rather positive connotation.

This being said, and although I understand the cultural differences, I think that the debate of Montana "leaving the union" because of the loss of a right to individual gun ownership is a little bit artificial
The US are a highly developed country with a solid police system, and Montana has one of the lowest crime rates in the US. I know what they say: "Forget Police. Cut out the middle man. Defend your home yourself". Well, it's not the 1800s anymore and the use of armed violence should be reserved to the state - of which it should ideally NOT have to make use. The danger I see with firearms being too easy to acquire is that it encourages to "self-justice". You know, people thinking they have the right to "defend" themselves against "anyone" they deem to "offend" them (see Columbine and Virginia school massacres).

I don't think that people really need guns, except if they are into hunting. But you do not hunt deer with a 5.56mm M16, do you?

Ashton wrote:

Quote :

With guns, we are citizens.
Without them, we are subjects.

That's so American. Well, thank god not all are like that.

For everything else I'll just agree with Tom and leave it at that since this will be going nowhere. Peace.

Hey guys, thanks for your thoughts. obviously, I am very "pro guns." But it definitely isn't completely "American"

If you don't mind, I'd really love to have this discussion with you guys (I'm very open, and definitely not an argumentative guy. )

Actually, Tom, I'm pretty sure the gun situation in America is similar to how it is for you... (except we have the crazy southern hillbillies spending a weekend shooting up one of their cars... )

In Washington DC, you aren't allowed to own any sort of weapon. Many states disallow any automatic weapons. The battle for gun rights in America, esp in the last 20-40 years has been hot and heavy, and we don't have the gun rights we used to have. We do have a lot of Pro-Gun Groups, but we're definitely a minority.

There really is only 1 real reason I am pro-guns: If someone breaks into my house with evil intentions... I don't have 5 minutes to wait for the police to get here. Not that I want to shoot anyone; that is the last thing I want to do this lifetime, but just by having/presenting a weapon and knowing how to use it can stop a home invasion. "bad guys" don't want to get shot any more than I don't want to shoot them.

I guess the moral I live by in this case is: Be prepared.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

What are the gun laws/rights like in your countries?

Again, thanks for your input, It's really cool to communicate with you guys.

Thank you, Ashton. It's good to read those lines of yours since they are great clarification. I can understand your 'protect myself at home' argument. The problem is that the human being is not designed to use his powers responsibly. The basic argument against allowing weapons and countering your pro-argument would obviously be this: if there are no weapons allowed then the people breaking into your house are a lot less likely to have any themselves. Take some karate/judo or similar courses on self-defence and then give the robber a good kick in the nuts. People from organized crime will always be armed as good as possible, no matter what the law says. The intention is to take arms away from kids, the youth and psychos so no 5-year-old boy will shoot his little sister with his father's gun. And school massacres. These things do happen and they would not (at least not as much) happen if is was more diffiult to obtain guns.

Maybe it's because of the news but actually I never see or read anything about people succesfully defending their lives against armed burglars or something. It's only about tragic deaths that could have been easily prevented. I doubt this is because the latter is considered to be more sensational, thus good for a news report. So the pros (self-defence) simply do not seem to outweigh the cons (amok, accidents, etc.). This is an easy calculation, I think.

In Germany you are not allowed to have a weapon in general but can get a gun licence. Don't ask me about the requirements, though.

I am a: Glock Model 22 in 40 cal

Guess there are only 2 guns which could be you..

here the rules are just completly stupid. if someone breaks into your house, you can't even show any sort of weapon, cause then you 'threathen' the bad guy. what i'm saying is if you notice someone in your house, you can't even stop him, cause else it's all your fault :S. except if he attacks you ofcourse, then it's self defence again and you'll become a hero or something. i think a gun works better then this ;D

Thanks Cianty for your thoughts. I totally understand where your coming from.

My first thought on the subject was "I wish guns never were invented" cause then there would be no way for bad guys to have them. unfortunately, they've been invented, and when you make a law saying "no guns" the only people to follow the rules is the law abiding citizens... the "bad guys" now know that they are the only ones with the guns.

I don't know if you heard about Australia's gun ban a little over a year ago, but since then, Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% and In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%

It's true though, you never see the "responsible gun owner" in the news, and I've heard some very amazing stories. I'd have to blame the news, or maybe people and their love of tragedy

Gun accidents do happen, and it's completely horrible. The only "argument" against gun accidents is how few they are in comparison with gun crimes, and "it's their/parents fault for not being safer about it". But you're very right. If the guns' weren't there, it wouldn't have happened.

On the school shootings, esp in America... it's been crazy the last couple years. Almost all schools in America are "Gun Free Zones" which means its illegal to have a gun on campus... no matter what. And they keep trying to reinforce the gun-free zones, and yet shootings just become more and more common. I wish I could find the reference, but I read in a (minor) news source about a school shooting that took place, where a kid had a phsyco break (like all of the other school shootings) and two teachers were "illegally" storing guns in their car. When the shooting started, the teachers grabed their guns and confronted the shooter (in like 30 seconds), and the kid dropped the gun and surrendered. Because guns got to the scene, lives were saved.

crap... sorry for writing so much... i didn't mean to preach...

thanks again for ur thoughts.

matt wrote:

if someone breaks into your house [...] you can't even stop him, cause else it's all your fault.

I think what you mean, Matt, is the rule of "adequate violence". Meaning that you are not allowed to use means of a higher level of violence than absolutely necessary.

So if a person breaks into your house, you are not allowed to kill him, unless there is immediate danger for your life or the life of someone else. That makes a lot of sense if you ask me. The rules basically says: "ask questions first, shoot later" and not vice versa.

We had some classes about that in the army (I used to know the lawbook paragraphs relevant to that even ) for our "guard" formation. If, as a soldier, you are guarding the entrance to a military building, and a guy attacks you with a baseball bat, you will NOT be allowed to fire, but only to "hit back" with your rifle. Even if he uses a knife. If however, the guy is 30m away and just about to stab a fellow soldier, then you CAN shoot, because there is no other way you could prevent the death of your comrade.

@ Cianty: I agree with the cons outweighing the pros.

@ Ash: I understand your argument, but I will have to take Cianty's side on this one. You (Ashton) are a reasonable person, and you would certainly take the ownership of a weapon seriously. But I think - as Cianty said - that the point is that not everybody might have the same good intentions as you, and/or might be as reasonable in the handling of a firearm. And that even includes the storage of handguns, so that they cannot be found and used by others (e.g. children). Therefore, it might not be a bad idea to have more draconian gun laws, even if it comes with a good chance of "upsetting" reasonable users like you. It might be for the "greater good" (If you see what I mean)

Admin Tom wrote:

So if a person breaks into your house, you are not allowed to kill him, unless there is immediate danger for your life or the life of someone else. That makes a lot of sense if you ask me. The rules basically says: "ask questions first, shoot later" and not vice versa.

That is absolutely true, and shouldn't be any other way. It is the same way in the states

Admin Tom wrote:

@ Cianty: I agree with the cons outweighing the pros.

Cool

Admin Tom wrote:

@ Ash: I understand your argument, but I will have to take Cianty's side on this one.... (If you see what I mean)

I totally understand where you're coming from. I really have never thought about it that way.

It's very unfortunate that so many "people" are just complete idiots. Not to speak in generalities... but every freaking time you turn on the TV, there's a perfect example of a complete idiot. I wonder if anyone has ever done a survey to see what percent of the population was a complete idiot.

Thanks guys for your inputs, I love to see other people's viewpoints. Growing up, just about 99% of my friends had very similar viewpoints... which made our school debates very interesting... (debateless?) lol anyway, if you have any questions for me, I'd love to answer then

l8r,

Well, with the 'Bild Zeitung' being the most popular "newspaper" in Germany I don't even need a survey to find out (Sorry, this makes sense only to Germans...).

cianty wrote:

'Bild Zeitung' being the most popular "newspaper" in Germany I don't even need a survey

Haha!

Don't worry that also makes sense to Austrians. You are speaeking to a guy who comes from the country of "Kronen Zeitung"!
A xenphobic scourge of mankind. I am NOT proud to be Austrian when I see what they print, and even worse, when I see how many people read it in Vienna. It's just sad.

On the topic of stupid people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3OSSuL4M7k

I'm sure you could do this to any society, but I thought it was freaking funny.

Name a country that starts with "U"

what the--?
irael is jewish ofcourse XD
i agree, some are really stupid XD

This would be a lot more funny if it wasn't so sad at the same time.

So Admin Tom's now paying with Queen Elizabeth's money, huh.

"Who won the VIet Nam war?"
- "We did.... were we even IN the Viet Nam war?"

... OMG! This was one of the most important events in contemporary American history!!!

@ Ashton: Yeah I heard a thing like that in the radio in Austria where they did the same thing. They asked people what "km/h" (kilometers per hour) stands for and they replied it stands for "speed"... OK, let's accept that shall we, but then the guy asked:

"So if you are driving at 100km/h how far can you go in one hour?"
Reply: "I guess around 250-300 kilometers."



So it is applicable to any country really.

@ Cianty: Queen Elisabeth money ... mrrrrrppfff

Admin Tom wrote:

"Who won the VIet Nam war?"
- "We did.... were we even IN the Viet Nam war?"

Seriously.. There's a country song out with a great line (paraphrasing):

"How quickly America forgot about the only war they lost"

It's so true though... it's like people can't stand being "losers" so they just forget about it. Which is a shame, because history should be learned from, not forgotten... at least everyone is unanimous on supporting the troops. Apparently we at least learned that.

Admin Tom wrote:

"So if you are driving at 100km/h how far can you go in one hour?"
Reply: "I guess around 250-300 kilometers."

Sadly it seams not every one learn that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XkgOdb8tdA&feature=related

Yeah, I've seen that video a long time ago. That women scares the hell out of me. Look at her eyes