Black rifle thread

[DaveB]

I dunnknow. She hasn’t told me if she has. She’s 30. I’m on a need to know basis. She’s got me blocked on FB

My wife is only 4'11" and back when we first started going out about 37 years ago I let her shoot 4 of my guns to see her reaction.
A Marlin 30/30 lever action, followed by a Mossberg 500 AL shotgun, then a High Standard Supermatic Citation Bull Barrel 22 and finally an S&W Model 19 .357 magnum.
My Omark 7.62 rifle was too big and heavy for her to hold.
She loved them but hasn't shot any since.

 

[LC0013]

No sorry.
The fact you feel the need to have that many guns shows you have considerably less freedom than many of us enjoy.

Sorry but, I believe your country maximizes public safety (so they wish you to believe) while USA maximizes individual freedom. You may feel safe without a handgun, however, with a handgun I feel safe as well. Difference is I have much more freedom to purchase firearms than you do and, generally, feel safe every where. Except shit holes like Memphis and Chicago. Need an AR then.

 

[Big Harry]

I’m a keen firearms owner and have been for 45 years. Generally I prefer classic & historic as opposed to more modern FAs. Ultimately it shouldn’t matter how many you own or what type you wish to own on the basis of one’s respect of your country’s laws and your own fit & proper status. I also own a number of vehicles, as the majority of the membership of this forum probably do as well. Regardless of how many vehicles you own or the number of firearms you have, you can only use one at a time. The vast majority of responsible people will never intentionally harm anyone by driving a vehicle or owning & shooting a firearm. But statistically, we have a greater chance of being harmed with a motor vehicle than we ever will with a firearm. We’ve been for years instilled with irrational fears of what might happen as opposed to what, in reality does happen, with constant negative messaging & images of events that the vast majority will never experience. The one thing we should all fear is media misinformation & fear mongering of those with negative agendas.
Go forward and enjoy your interests & hobbies, especially those new Grenadier’s
Cheers
Harry

 

[Zimm]

No sorry.
The fact you feel the need to have that many guns shows you have considerably less freedom than many of us enjoy.

If I lived in the US I would also have several guns probably not more than one AR, if even one.
2 or 3 handguns definitely.

I don't even lock my house here and often leave the vehicles unlocked as well.
Obviously there are places in the larger cities where you wouldn't do that, but nowhere that you should feel the need to own a gun.
Most people in Australia would never have seen a gun let alone own one.

That’s a complete non sequitur. Some people choosing to own more than one gun because they can, does not logically translate as any reflection of freedom other than they are apparently permitted to own more than one gun. You do own some guns, as you’ve said, and there are people here on this forum in the US (most, likely) that don’t own a single gun and don’t lock their doors. Can we now conclude we have more freedom than you?

You’re just taking some random data point and applying it as proof for some pre conceived notion. As if there has to some underlying cause other than one one feels like it, and that cause was naturally youre better than me.

The town I live in is consistently rated as the very best town to live in, in a state with 13m people, and we repeatedly tell people to keep their doors locked. A certain % of any given population has sexual criminals no matter how wealthy or poor. Random people come thru town and good thieves tend be outsiders no one will recognize. They don’t shit where they eat. You not locking doors doesn’t mean you’re freer, or safer, all it means is if someone comes thru town looking to commit a crime of convenience, you just made yourself the convenient one. Have at it.

 

[Clark Kent]

Interesting thread.
Another Australian perspective.

As a farm kid I grew up around firearms. They were another working tool, the same as tractors and shovels. Gun safety was taught to kids alongside road safety. Nothing to be afraid of given proper respect and use.
Later as a soldier I spent many nights sleeping with my L1A1 SLR under my stretcher. Back then I could "shoot the i out of shit" according to one weapons instructor I trained with. I represented Australia in an international military shooting comp in 1993. Good but not good enough.

I also did a lot of rifle shooting outside the military. Mostly (4-legged) vermin hunting at night using handheld spotlights from a vehicle or a motorcycle on the move. A good way to maintain my shooting skills and proficiency.
Target shooting was ok for load development and zeroing but boring otherwise. Pistols didn't interest me.

The only time I was genuinely scared by the presence of a firearm was standing at the concierge desk getting Broadway tickets as a guest at the Waldorf Astoria in NYC when this went down in 2008. I had been standing in that same store only a few minutes earlier and was just a moment away from being involved because I was bored in the line and my wife had just sent me back to look at something for her. I've done a lot of shooting, but the sound of gunfire in an environment where it had no right to be was a shock. It took a few seconds to process what I had heard before dragging my wife out of the ticket queue into protective cover. I was quite shaken up for a few days. In NYC it was probably just another Saturday.

Guns, yes.
Guns that are too easy to obtain by the wrong people or are inadequately secured, no.

 

[GN4HIR]

I see you have misplaced your 10mm one as well....

That is funny, just as I scrolled past the picture I thought the exact same thing.

 

[GN4HIR]

As a kid in rural Texas, I grew up around guns. Hunting, and target shooting (plinking), were the norm. It was common to have a rifle rack in the back window of your pick-up, in the parking lot at the high-school. That seemed to fade away in the late 80s mostly because of vehicles getting broken into.

I got involved in action pistol and 3 gun competitions. I had at least a dozen ARs, long range, short range, heavy, light, 5.56, 7.62, 5.7, 300. Red Dot - Scope. SBR (short barrel) and suppressed.

I joked about being ready for the Zombie Apocalypse but in the last 4 years a lot of it has come across the southern border. Houston is not the town it used to be. When I was younger, I talked about the right to own a pistol and the freedom to defend myself and my family. Now, owning a handgun is almost an obligation as you can't rely on people being 'good' or the police being able to respond.

 

[Big Harry]

As a kid in rural Texas, I grew up around guns. Hunting, and target shooting (plinking), were the norm. It was common to have a rifle rack in the back window of your pick-up, in the parking lot at the high-school. That seemed to fade away in the late 80s mostly because of vehicles getting broken into.

I got involved in action pistol and 3 gun competitions. I had at least a dozen ARs, long range, short range, heavy, light, 5.56, 7.62, 5.7, 300. Red Dot - Scope. SBR (short barrel) and suppressed.

I joked about being ready for the Zombie Apocalypse but in the last 4 years a lot of it has come across the southern border. Houston is not the town it used to be. When I was younger, I talked about the right to own a pistol and the freedom to defend myself and my family. Now, owning a handgun is almost an obligation as you can't rely on people being 'good' or the police being able to respond.

Sad but true!
Although it sounds as though (recent stats) serious and violent crime is on the decline in the USA since the boarder tzar has been rounding up illegal's & deporting them. If so, long May that last!

 

[Jiman01]

No sorry.
The fact you feel the need to have that many guns shows you have considerably less freedom than many of us enjoy.

If I lived in the US I would also have several guns probably not more than one AR, if even one.
2 or 3 handguns definitely.

I don't even lock my house here and often leave the vehicles unlocked as well.
Obviously there are places in the larger cities where you wouldn't do that, but nowhere that you should feel the need to own a gun.
Most people in Australia would never have seen a gun let alone own one.

Freedom, in this case, is the ability to own às many or as few firearms as one desires. It is not based on “need”. You are restricted in your country (by your government) to buy and own firearms unless, you can articulate a “need” to own one. That is not freedom or a right, but a privilege allowed only by the sole discretion of your government.

For the record, I’m not saying our system is perfect, because it clearly isn’t. What I will argue is that no government should be allowed to take away an individuals right to self-defense/protection (ie if you're not a criminal, have psychiatric issues, etc…). Regardless of this ban or that, there will always be evil people in this world doing evil things, and they don’t care about the law(s).

Bans/restrictions are only effective if everyone obeys and since that will never happen, it puts the law abiding at more risk from the criminals that won’t ever care.

 

[Jiman01]

TLDR: Politicians make decisions for the masses based on incredibly stupid ideas.

Back in the ‘90s when the California 10-round magazine ban was being crafted, I was on a hostage rescue team. One day, several of us were asked to give some Congressional Senate Members a “Dog & Pony” show at a military base in Ft Meade, MD. Generally that meant some kind of shooting demonstration of our skills/capabilities.

It’s been a minute, so I may be wrong about the Senators, but IIRC they were Sen Feinstein and Sen Boxer plus all their staff/aides.

It started with introductions and a pistol demo. We let those that wanted to fire our MP-5s, and Browning Hi power pistols. That transitioned into the real reason they wanted us out there. They wanted a demonstration of how much slower it would be to fire a certain number of rounds with 10-round mags vs standard size, 15-round mags in our pistols.

Obviously we didn’t have 10rd mags so we just loaded them to 10. We picked 30 rounds to fire because it was a round number that fit both the 10rd and 15rd capacities evenly. Additionally, since this bill’s premise was that a reduced magazine capacity would slow an attacker, back in the 90’s, 30rds seemed like a reasonable compromise for demonstration purposes.

Those of you who are familiar with semi-auto pistols have already made the leap and realize the difference between 2 15rd mags and 3 10rd mags is one extra magazine reload. As you might guess, the difference in time was small…less than 1.5sec.

But that’s not the best part. As we spoke more with the Senators it became clear we were not communicating. There was some misunderstanding because they seemed to think as time went on, the Bill would have greater impact because eventually there would only be 10rd magazines available. After a lot of probing questions we finally figured out that the Senators thought/assumed that after a magazine was used/emptied, it could not be used again. None of Senators or staff knew that all you had to do to use that 15rd magazines again was to add more ammo

For me that was an eye opener into the ignorance of many leaders of our country. I don’t expect them to have expertise and SME level knowledge in every Bill they write, but come on….

And the worst part is, even after seeing and knowing the ineffectiveness of the reducing the magazine capacity, they passed it anyway These are the same people who pass into law the ability, or lack thereof, the individual freedoms to protect ourselves and our family.

 

[DaveB]

Freedom, in this case, is the ability to own às many or as few firearms as one desires. It is not based on “need”. You are restricted in your country (by your government) to buy and own firearms unless, you can articulate a “need” to own one. That is not freedom or a right, but a privilege allowed only by the sole discretion of your government.

For the record, I’m not saying our system is perfect, because it clearly isn’t. What I will argue is that no government should be allowed to take away an individuals right to self-defense/protection (ie if you're not a criminal, have psychiatric issues, etc…). Regardless of this ban or that, there will always be evil people in this world doing evil things, and they don’t care about the law(s).

Bans/restrictions are only effective if everyone obeys and since that will never happen, it puts the law abiding at more risk from the criminals that won’t ever care.

US is completely different to Australia because we are an island and don’t share land borders with anyone.
It is extremely difficult to get guns into the country so where you have a real problem that crazy people can easily get guns, we do not.
So we just don’t need a gun for self defence.
We also look more at the rights of the group/population more than the individual rights.
So while a small percentage of the population may want guns, it is better for the population as a whole to restrict them.

It also reflects with the attitude of police.
As they know there is a 99% likelihood that a person will not have a gun, they act less defensively or aggressively and are happier.
The interactions with them are friendly, joking and pleasant for both parties.

As I discovered a couple of weeks ago when commenting on Kansas City, with a population of only 500,000 people it has more murders than the entire country of Australia, with a population of 26 million.
Australia is also physically the same size as mainland USA but with less than 10% of the population it is less crowded and densely populated. So less pressure and stress.

USA and Australia are very different and so we have different needs for protection or self defence.

 

[Jeremy996]

@DaveB makes a good point, local laws for local circumstances - providing the lawmakers are not using a particular premise as a smokescreen to make it look like they are doing "something", like the 10 round mag tale from @Jiman01.

The UK is a small island with a lot of people on it; if everyone had a gun the deliberate and accidental death toll would be astronomical. We also have a tiny standing army and a small police force, who generally police by conscent, so we are not too worried by the rise of a governmental tyrant.

Back in the Victorian era, many well to do men would own a pistol and/or a swordstick to deal with 'footpads', the muggers of the time. The right to bare arms was set out in the 1689 Bill of Rights, providing you were not a Catholic. The first Firearms Act was in 1870 and required registration of arms on the street - you could have as many as you liked in the home! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7056245.stm