Brand Spankin' New Glock 19

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
People driving cars makes you unsafer too, and by a lot more than concealed carries.




[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely irrelevent. A car has a purpose, to get you to your destination faster. It also has some cons seeing as you could get into an accident and cause some harm to some individual. People live with the chance of this happening because the car serves it's purpose so often and at a much greater rate than it causes some harm. This isn't the case with a concealed weapon. A person could and probably will go their entire life without the gun ever serving it's purpose which is to save their life.

[Peter666]

The "safety" on the revolver is just as safe as the one on the Glock. Whenever people put their finger on the trigger they better be firing or it better stay out!

That being said, a revolver in 9mm or .45 that uses moonclips is a great defense gun. Even better to carry than the .38, .357, or .44 Special and Magnum due to speed of reloading.

Unfortunately, the stupid gun laws in Canada won't let me buy a 4 inch barrel .45 revolver. However, I am able to buy a Glock 26 and 27 with slightly extended barrel! Woohoo. Much easier to carry in the pocket [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

it continues to really disappoint me that people refuse to change their views when all the facts demand they do.

i am convinced if i agued with one who believes 2+3=7.8, i could never win. i'd tell him , "look it up in math books. " he'd say, "Well those books are obviously biased."

i'd say, "well add 2 apples and 3 apples, how many do you get?" he'd reply, "7.8 uless your using skewed apples"

what else can i do than make available the avalanche of all different types of statistics that profoundly demonstrate that the safest, most peaceful modern society is an armed society?

[Peter666]

I don't know where you live, but that is undoubtebly wrong for most places on this planet. The world is safer when there are competent people carrying guns who know how to use them. The criminal element won't obey the laws anyways, so it is -EV not to allow the law abiding and competent to carry them.

[tonypaladino]

why the [censored] did this get moved to politcs. That is BS

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
it continues to really disappoint me that people refuse to change their views when all the facts demand they do.

i am convinced if i agued with one who believes 2+3=7.8, i could never win. i'd tell him , "look it up in math books. " he'd say, "Well those books are obviously biased."

i'd say, "well add 2 apples and 3 apples, how many do you get?" he'd reply, "7.8 uless your using skewed apples"

what else can i do than make available the avalanche of all different types of statistics that profoundly demonstrate that the safest, most peaceful modern society is an armed society?



[/ QUOTE ]

This is the stupidest thing I have read yet. Basically what you are saying is that all the statistics in your pro gun articles are relevent, but all the statistics in anti gun articles are irrelevent. People aren't going to change their views when all the facts you present are cited from pro gun information. I cited something from an anti gun article and you passed it off as being biased yet I'm supposed to take what you presented from pro gun article as the unbiased truth.

edit: I'd also like to know what these facts are? The United States is the most armed society in the world and we also have the most gun related deaths. I fail to see how this makes us the safest.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know where you live, but that is undoubtebly wrong for most places on this planet. The world is safer when there are competent people carrying guns who know how to use them. The criminal element won't obey the laws anyways, so it is -EV not to allow the law abiding and competent to carry them.



[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain to me how I am safer because you can carry a gun.

[nef]

[ QUOTE ]
Its not the people with the permits and the training that you need to worry about. Even if we're gonna take it to the extremes, and start talking about crazy milita people with AR-15s and 150 guns each,

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this qualifies someone as a crazy militiaman. In fact I'd be much more worried about a man with one throwaway piece than a collector with tens of thousands of dollars invested in firearms. I have an AR-15 and about a dozen other guns in my safe. I use them for target shooting and IPSC competition.

Go here and you will see the light:
http://www.ar15.com/

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this qualifies someone as a crazy militiaman. In fact I'd be much more worried about a man with one throwaway piece than a collector with tens of thousands of dollars invested in firearms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I carried an M16-A2 around for my fair share of time [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] I agree with you completely. That was just to pander to the anti-gun contingent and say it before they did!

I haven't had a chance to invest in an AR-15 yet, but believe you me, I eventually shall. No offense was intended by that comment, merely for a "haha" factor [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Oh, and Tony?

Spot on.

[ QUOTE ]
That is BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Basically what you are saying is that all the statistics in your pro gun articles are relevent, but all the statistics in anti gun articles are irrelevent."
no, i'm saying that if we're gonna bring facts to the table, and one of us is gonna pull the "biased" card, then he'd better have a good reason fopr playing the cards, like providing evidence for the claim, AS I DID regarding the 42 time more likely stat.

wow, a lot to discuss here.

and i'm a member of www.ar15.com.

CONSEQUENCES OF GUN
CONFISCATION

Fact: In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5-million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

Fact: In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20-millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.

Fact: In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13-million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were rounded up and killed.

Fact: In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20-million dissidents were rounded up and killed.

Fact: In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people were rounded up and killed.

Fact: In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.

Fact: In 1970, Uganda got gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded up and killed.

Fact: Over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century.

SERIOUS QUESTIONS
If guns are effective enough to be a criminal's preferred tool, why are they not good enough to use for protection?

Why do politicians insist their bodyguards be armed, but not you and I?

If you and your children were face to face with a male attacker twice your size, what would you do - If you weren't armed? If you were armed?

If guns are "too dangerous" to be in our society, how come our leaders want to be the only ones who have them? Do you trust our leaders implicitly to protect you at all times?
If we ever completely ban guns, do you think there will be no more armed criminals in America?

With so many gun laws already on the books, how come "gun crimes" still exist?