.44 or .50??

[flibulzbuth]

I got two surprises reading this board (well, one more than the other):

1- There's a lot of military or ex-military playing PnP RPGs. Hey, care to explain? At my high school RPGs were mostly considered nerdy games. I can hardly figure a platoon of M16-wielding green berets rolling D20s at a training camp deep in Nicaragua's jungle. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Maybe i should join the army after all?
2- Notice that most (or all) the posts against guns come from europeans, and that most (or all) the pro-guns posts come from americans.

Thats the rpoblem with drugs, guns and any other contraband item, tough laws make it hard for honest decent citizens to obtain the items, but the criminals get them quite easily on the black market. It would only take 30 or 40 minutes to go out and get a gun on the street...but I wouldnt try it due to the nature of the people you would have to deal with.

My 2 cents on this:
True, though laws makes it impossible to buy my daily dose of crack at the corner shop, but one phone call to my pusher and it's delivered home in 30 minutes or he's dead. (j/k)
But drugs black market is very different than guns: drugs are imported, guns are stolen. Stolen from where? from richer people who can afford to legally buy one. I don't have the exact reference nor numbers with me, but a gun owner is much, much more likely to have his gun stolen than to eventually use it for defense.
Also, people trying to defend themselves whith guns during an armed robbery are much more likely to get killed than anybody else (including people staying still and the robber).

[Wurm]

Originally posted by flibulzbuth: I got two surprises reading this board (well, one more than the other): 1- There's a lot of military or ex-military playing PnP RPGs. Hey, care to explain? At my high school RPGs were mostly considered nerdy games. I can hardly figure a platoon of M16-wielding green berets rolling D20s at a training camp deep in Nicaragua's jungle. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well I played D&D before I went Airborne so why should I have stopped just because I went in the Army? No its not something you bring up at Basic But after you get to your duty station you usually always can/could find some peeps to play with.

[Billy Yank]

Well I played D&D before I went Airborne so why should I have stopped just because I went in the Army? No its not something you bring up at Basic [[Eek!]] But after you get to your duty station you usually always can/could find some peeps to play with. [[Big Grin]]

When I was in the Army, my friends and I played Twilight 2000. We obviously all had a weird sense of humor.

If the DE .50 is the gun I'm thinking of (5 shot, .50 cal revolver, featured in the movie Alien Nation?), then I'd say go with a smaller caliber/bigger magazine. Volume of fire is better than bigger punch.

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by flibulzbuth: I got two surprises reading this board (well, one more than the other): 1- There's a lot of military or ex-military playing PnP RPGs. Hey, care to explain? At my high school RPGs were mostly considered nerdy games. I can hardly figure a platoon of M16-wielding green berets rolling D20s at a training camp deep in Nicaragua's jungle. [img]smile.gif[/img] Maybe i should join the army after all? 2- Notice that most (or all) the posts against guns come from europeans, and that most (or all) the pro-guns posts come from americans. quote: Thats the rpoblem with drugs, guns and any other contraband item, tough laws make it hard for honest decent citizens to obtain the items, but the criminals get them quite easily on the black market. It would only take 30 or 40 minutes to go out and get a gun on the street...but I wouldnt try it due to the nature of the people you would have to deal with.

My 2 cents on this:
True, though laws makes it impossible to buy my daily dose of crack at the corner shop, but one phone call to my pusher and it's delivered home in 30 minutes or he's dead. (j/k)
But drugs black market is very different than guns: drugs are imported, guns are stolen. Stolen from where? from richer people who can afford to legally buy one. I don't have the exact reference nor numbers with me, but a gun owner is much, much more likely to have his gun stolen than to eventually use it for defense.
Also, people trying to defend themselves whith guns during an armed robbery are much more likely to get killed than anybody else (including people staying still and the robber).[/QUOTE]Actually, I don't find it very surprising at all that a lot of people that play D and D or RPGs were/are in the military. The Military (at least the USA military) are made of people from all walks of life. Especially the reserve and National Guard. When I fought in Desert Storm, almost half my company was made up of college students. The older people in my unit ranged from construction workers and janitors to bankers, doctors and small business owners. When you go to a military base in the US, you'll find groups that do just about anthing that's legal and they are usually more highly organized than their civilain counterparts. That includes D and D players.

It also makes sense that Americans would be more accepting of guns than Europeans. During our two centuries plus of history, guns have played a significant roll. A frontiersmans wouldn't have gone into the west with out a trusty plains rifle and maybe a brace of pistols. Every pioneer family that pulled up stakes and headed west did so with a shotgun of one sort or another. It a fable that the Colt Peacemaker Tamed the West. It was really a shotgun in the hands of all the farmers that tamed the west. You don't have to be a expert with a shotgun. You just have to be close.

For Europeans, guns were both expensive and hard to get. Let's face it, the Monarcharies of the 14th-19th centuries probably weren't very enthusiastic about an armed populous (especially after the French Revolution) that might decide to get rid of them after they raised taxes one to many times to pay for another war somewhere. Switerland is a different matter though. I think that if you are in the Reserve or Amry there, they issue you a assualt rifle and ammunition to keep at home, incase the country is ever attacked. They also hold a lot of target matches and encourage their citizens to compete in them.

It's true that there is a ready supply of stolen firearms for criminals to purchase. Not sure what can be done about that. I guess we could just make it illegal to own firearms in the US, but we would still have a ready supply of stolen firearms for them to use. You don't honestly expect a criminal to turn his in do you? Actually I recommend you read a statement from earlier in the topic from Epona, concerning the hospital near her home. Gun Ownership in Britain has been seriously curtailed for some years now and voilent crime commited with a firearm has risen steadily since. I might add that police surviellance of the general population has increased 100 fold as well. I read somewhere the other day that London has something like 4,000,000 cameras that the police control now. Who are they watching, I wonder. But that is for another topic.

As for the risk to home owners when they try to defend themselves, that just doesn't match logic IMHO. But here is a link that might shed some more light on the topic. www.nraila.org/media/misc/fables.htm#18
Look at Fable 1 and also look at the foot notes. Yes I know it's from the NRA, but they backup their assurations with footnotes that can be checked out. I suggest that if you want to be fair to the topic you check them out.

[Sir Taliesin]

What surprises me about this topic, is the fact that is 4 pages long now and good opinions on both sides have been exprised with no flames. Seems we are getting back to the way we were last summer! That's a real good thing! CUDDOS to all!

[flibulzbuth]

Thanks for the input Taliesin.
I don't know what the national guard is... Is that the funny bald guys we see at JFK's tombstone? Seriously, what is it's role?

About the NRA document: i haven't read it yet, but it's in my favorite and i will check. I must admit that i have strong doubts about the NRA's chosen ressources. It's like asking a cigarette company if tobacco is dangerous for the health. They'll give you tons and tons of scientific researches that say there is no direct link between cigarette and lung cancer.

I don't agree with the Wild West theory though. We were mostly in the same situation in Canada, but now weapons are strongly regulated and very few argue about their "historical rights and way of life" (in fact, the very few are backed financially by the NRA who wants to widen the canadian firearm market).
Also, North America has evolved since. We now live in densely populated areas with sufficient police protection. In this situation, the only way to reduce firearm deaths and armed robbery is to reduce and control the overall flow of weapons. In the whole world, developed and third-world countries alike, the ratio of violent death is directly related to the number of firearms in a population.
For that last statement, you can verify it in the "Human development report 2001" www.undp.org.

I agree that the situation of Switzerland is peculiar. They MUST have access to weapons, males MUST train at the shooting range and every town/village has an ammunition depot (if what i've been told is true). BUT, Switzerland:
a. is a very rich country where the minimal wage is about 12 US$ (has something to do with point b.)
b. has a well-educated population (has something to do with point a.)
c. do not try to control drugs by repression but by treatment (a lot more effective, reduces the risks of crackheads killing people for their pocket change).

[Elif Godson]

Originally posted by Ziroc: quote: Originally posted by MILAMBER: I'm looking at picking up a new handgun. I'm torn between a Desert Eagle .44 and a Desert Eagle .50. The .50 costs more to buy and the rounds cost more...but damn is it cool. The .44 is more sensible and costs less. I know I should go with the .44, but the lure of owning a 315 grain .50 caliber weapon... It's almost more then I can resist.

I'd go with an MP5 or an AK-47 Assault Rifle (Kalashnikov)
Non automatic of course... [img]smile.gif[/img]

GREAT for home defense! Just take a pic of you holding one, and paste it on every window of your home, and NO ONE will dare enter your home!

All kidding aside, I would go with a 9mm. less kickback, which means better aim.[/QUOTE]LoL who need's to aim when your shooting with a .50 cal. you can shoot through a house with that
Although a 9 is fine get a 45 it holds the same and packs more of a wallup or you can do traditional 357 mag which isfun. or what I have a standarf 38 spec. not much power but it will stop ya if you break into my house

[ 04-28-2002, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Elif Godson ]

[flibulzbuth]

i've just read fable 1: a house with a gun makes the home less safe.

The logic is flawless, as expected. I don't know about the Kellerman study but it is biased, or at least incomplete. On the other side:

• Even then, the NRA has still to prove that "a house with a gun doesn't makes the home less safe". The statement from "award-winning" Gary Cleck is not enough to prove it. The 2.5 million times a firearm is used for protection in a house does not account for the number of kills/wounded during these crimes (criminal and victims alike).
  Most of all, it does not account for the number of armed victims deaths vs unarmed (and still) victims deaths during similar events.
  
• the kellerman study is not the only one on the subject. Refuting one paper is not enough to refute a documented fact.
  

You're right about the tone in this post. I was a bit disappointed by the last few political threads. I guess it's because it is not supposed to be a debate on guns, so people restrain themselves (including me). [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by flibulzbuth: Thanks for the input Taliesin. I don't know what the national guard is... Is that the funny bald guys we see at JFK's tombstone? Seriously, what is it's role? About the NRA document: i haven't read it yet, but it's in my favorite and i will check. I must admit that i have strong doubts about the NRA's chosen ressources. It's like asking a cigarette company if tobacco is dangerous for the health. They'll give you tons and tons of scientific researches that say there is no direct link between cigarette and lung cancer. I don't agree with the Wild West theory though. We were mostly in the same situation in Canada, but now weapons are strongly regulated and very few argue about their "historical rights and way of life" (in fact, the very few are backed financially by the NRA who wants to widen the canadian firearm market). Also, North America has evolved since. We now live in densely populated areas with sufficient police protection. In this situation, the only way to reduce firearm deaths and armed robbery is to reduce and control the overall flow of weapons. In the whole world, developed and third-world countries alike, the ratio of violent death is directly related to the number of firearms in a population. For that last statement, you can verify it in the "Human development report 2001" www.undp.org. I agree that the situation of Switzerland is peculiar. They MUST have access to weapons, males MUST train at the shooting range and every town/village has an ammunition depot (if what i've been told is true). BUT, Switzerland: a. is a very rich country where the minimal wage is about 12 US$ (has something to do with point b.) b. has a well-educated population (has something to do with point a.) c. do not try to control drugs by repression but by treatment (a lot more effective, reduces the risks of crackheads killing people for their pocket change).

The National Guard is like the Reserve, except they are under the direct control of each state's Governor. The Reserve is under the control of the Federal Government. That's why you always see the Governor of a state callup the National Guard during a time of crisis, like severe weather, forest fires or roiting in the streets.

You should have doubts about the NRA's resources, just as you should have doubts about the Human development report 2001. It's always been my experience that anything that one reads on the internet or anywhere else for that matter, should be taken with a grain of salt.
Seems like everyone has their on little hidden agendas these days.

I will check Human development report 2001. It'l provide we some good reading tomorrow during lunch.

There is one big difference between the US and Canada, that I see at least. We rebelled against the rule of England and Canada didn't. During the Revolutionary war we sent an expedition to Canada to encourage the Canadians to join us (Seems like it was against Montreal). The Canadians didn't seem to be to inclined to our advances and sent the American army packing. They seemed to like the British way of doing things.

After the war was over we placed the Right to bare arms in our Constitution ( the 2nd Amendment). It's not there to perserve hunting rights you know. It was placed there so that if ever a tyrannical government was installed in some way, then the people would have the means to over throw that government. Of course I don't think the framers of the Constitution ever envisioned tanks, plances and the such. I also don't think that population of our country could over throw a government now, as long as the military was propping it up.

I also disagree that the Police can protect the population. They may be able to in Canada, but not down here. You can sometimes wait as long as 45 minutes to an hour for an officer to show up here in Knoxville. In fact the fire department is usually the first to arrive at any incident. In rural counties the local Sherriff's Department may have only 10 or so deputies. which means at most only two are covering the WHOLE county at any given time.

Switerland also pays incredibly high taxes as well. It all comes down to what people want their governments to do. I tend to think that the Government serves me, not the other way around. BTW, I agree on the treatment thing for drug abuse and I am starting to come around to the idea of a living wage for those who work. I'm also a Republican.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Alexander: I guess I'll never understand the strange human fascination with instruments of death. Just my 2 cents, not trying to start an argument here.

Explain the human fascination with any item, tool or toy. The way you wrote it it sounded you were just begging someone to come and start an argument.[/QUOTE]No, as a matter of fact, I wasn't, but it seems you just couldn't hold yourself back. How did I know I'd get a response just from you?

I just find it odd that people like to talk about and play with instruments of death - be they guns, knives, what-have-you. It just feels slightly out-of-place for me to have casual conversation about a weapon that can kill dozens of people in seconds.

[b]

Guns by the way ARE not soley instruments of death. Actually I haven't killed anyone or anything in over a year with my guns...unless you count paper targets and soda cans as killing.[/QB]

A gun is a weapon. A weapon is made to kill, injure or maim. Paper targets and soda cans might be fine for target practice, but that's not the main purpose of a gun - otherwise I would have to ask why you don't just shoot your paper targets with something less dangerous.

However, I did not want to argue here, sorry to disappoint you.