What gun would you love to own?

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I was being a bit of a goof, and I had to pass the 20 character limit.

I'm a bit ignorant about types of handguns, so I didn't have any specific make or model in mind.

 

I see. No worries, I'm not an expert either.

[yisetab28 89]

You have clearly never seen the wonder that is... The FG 42! Pure Nazi Germany awesomeness, now for paratroopers,

 

 

 

Also, Mosin-Nagant rifle, over 100 years old now.

 

[Sintanan 151]

There are two guns I want, just to give them a shot to see what it would feel like..
 
The first is the .950 JDJ large caliber hunting rifle.  I've seen videos of these things in action, and I can't think of a better way to spend $40 with each pull of the trigger.  That, and taking an empty cartridge and putting it inside a skull as a conversation piece on my coffee table would be simply marvelous.

 
 
The second is a SIG-Sauer 14mm hunting pistol.  This glorious 4-pound beast (unloaded) holds six rounds and is a semi-auto.  Basically a 50-cal rifle as a pistol, I'm curious at just how powerful of an arm-breaking kick this thing would really throw.  I'm pretty sure this beauty could never realistically function, but I'm willing to wait until 2077 and find out.

[DeadAccount 4,604]

Hmmmm for a handgun I'd like a Mauser pistol

[TopQuark 409]

Sorry for the late reply and none of the following is meant to be a personal indictment just a questioning of your position.

 

I completely understand that. I'm not one to take an internet debate personally. In fact, it's nice to have a serious, organized, and respectfull debate based on making and analizing valid points on the internet versus the childish name-calling that seems to be the norm.

 

 

I only ask because sometimes people have swords that are blunted. They look like real weapons but are in fact a poor man's club because a baseball bat is a better weapon than a sword with no edge.

 

At about four hundred dollars, I would call such a sword a rich man's club

 

 

In a few seconds? Never. In total? 18 people. Jack the Ripper. (His theorized number of victims beyond the confirmed five.)

 

Then 15 people with a hatchet. Elifasi Msomi.

 

Finally 70 people with a common household hammer. Kampatimar Shankariya.

 

I turn to a basic truism. "Guns don't kill people. People, kill people." Keep in mind this is coming from a guy who doesn't and never wants to own a gun.

 

I realize that my statement was a bit reductio ad absurdum, but I was trying to hilight the fact that an automatic gun would, especially in a crowded area, be able to cause far more casualties than a melee weapon. That truism can easily be modified to "People kill people. Especially with guns". It's not the gun's fault that it can kill people, nor is it the manufacturerer's or the distributor's. It's the murderer's fault. However, it would be foolish to ignore the fact that it was a gun that was used to kill someone.

 

 

I don't disagree with you but I think you're missing the point. I don't train with a sword because I want to compete in some competition, I train for two reasons. One for self-mastery and two, so that if push comes to shove and I have my weapon close at hand, I can use it to effect against an adversary. Plus I did sport fencing for three years and despised it. To call that neutered and soulless sport in anyway akin to swordsmanship is an insult to that legacy.

 

That is you're opinion, but it dosn't mean everyone shares it. There are people who devote their lives to the sport who would disagree with you, but that's beside the point. You did it for three years and didn't like it; fair enough. Next, while swordsmanship is a completely valid option, some form of martial art would be far more effective in suiting the reasons you stated. I assume that they would be a lot more body-focused (as in they dont revolve around using a non-body part) and dont require you to be always carrying around a relatively cumbersome object to be able to properly defend yourself. I'm not saying your fixation on swords is misguided; just the fact thet 'you like them' is reason enough.

 

 

 

An assault rifle I can see, but a handgun?! You mean a man or woman should not be able to carry a very practical and concealable weapon on them should they come under attack?

 

In short, that is exactly what I mean. Yes, the right to carry a gun would be convenient for self-defence in the short run, but it's also bound to cause some problems. If a potentially metally unstable person protected by this right, then the system obviously has a problem. I'm sure there a ways around this problem, but it's probably more hassle then it's worth. It is my firm belief that saftey and law enforcement should be in the hands of the government, and not the citizens.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I completely understand that. I'm not one to take an internet debate personally. In fact, it's nice to have a serious, organized, and respectfull debate based on making and analizing valid points on the internet versus the childish name-calling that seems to be the norm.

 

Agreed. 

 

 

At about four hundred dollars, I would call such a sword a rich man's club

 

Therefore, I would call it a waste of money. What's the point in having a sword to hang on your wall if you're never going to use it? It's like buying a flat screen TV that's only the screen and not the actual mechanisms that make it work.

 

 

 

However, it would be foolish to ignore the fact that it was a gun that was used to kill someone.

 

Only for purposes of profiling the crime. Guns can mean that the murder was a crime of passion, that the murderer had the weapon on him or nearby and was pushed too far. Or it can mean it wasn't personal at all, that the murder was simply a job, the lack of contact showing an emotional distance. The latter is the case with many L.D.S.K.s who often see their victims as a means to an end rather than the payoff itself.

 

Beyond that, murder is murder and if the murderer didn't have a gun they would have found another method to kill and in similar numbers. See bombers, arsonists, and anthrax exposures.

 

 

 

That is you're opinion, but it dosn't mean everyone shares it. There are people who devote their lives to the sport who would disagree with you, but that's beside the point. You did it for three years and didn't like it; fair enough.

 

For confirmation, my distaste is purely personal and only because fencing did not satisfy my need. I certainly would not call any gold medalist fencer a hack or poser.

 

 

 

Next, while swordsmanship is a completely valid option, some form of martial art would be far more effective in suiting the reasons you stated. I assume that they would be a lot more body-focused (as in they dont revolve around using a non-body part) and dont require you to be always carrying around a relatively cumbersome object to be able to properly defend yourself. I'm not saying your fixation on swords is misguided; just the fact thet 'you like them' is reason enough.

 

As someone who has studied a number of styles over his years, I can tell you that even the most dedicated weapon systems have plenty of unarmed techniques. Any swordsman worth his steel should be just as good without his weapon as with it.

 

My current style is O-Mei Wushu, which incorporates many weapons. In fact, Kung Fu has many weapon styles that would translate into practical objects easily. (Pool cue = staff, garden hose = chain whip, fighting knives = kitchen knives etc.)

 

One who knows only weapon systems is only killing time until he's disarmed and one who only knows body techniques might forestall a confrontation they could have ended more quickly.

 

 

 

In short, that is exactly what I mean. Yes, the right to carry a gun would be convenient for self-defence in the short run, but it's also bound to cause some problems. If a potentially metally unstable person protected by this right, then the system obviously has a problem. I'm sure there a ways around this problem, but it's probably more hassle then it's worth.

@, 

 

 

Yes, yes there are many, many ways around this problem. For one thing you need to pass a test to even have a license to carry. Someone mentally unstable would not pass it. Secondly when you buy a weapon, they run a background check on you to see if you have a criminal record or any history of mental problems, and you can't even carry some weapons out of the store with you. So your theoretical madman has plenty of obstacles running against them to acquire his means to murder.

 

And I'm sure much more than I would invite my prehistoric friend to back me up on.

 

 

 

It is my firm belief that saftey and law enforcement should be in the hands of the government, and not the citizens.

 

 

And there is where we reach a philosophic impasse. You will not convince me that I'm not in the right to strike back against an aggressor the moment I come under attack.

 

I don't trust the government to deliver my mail, why should I trust it to guard my person?

Edited March 31, 2015 by Steel Accord

[yisetab28 89]

There are two guns I want, just to give them a shot to see what it would feel like..

 

The first is the .950 JDJ large caliber hunting rifle.  I've seen videos of these things in action, and I can't think of a better way to spend $40 with each pull of the trigger.  That, and taking an empty cartridge and putting it inside a skull as a conversation piece on my coffee table would be simply marvelous.

 

 

The second is a SIG-Sauer 14mm hunting pistol.  This glorious 4-pound beast (unloaded) holds six rounds and is a semi-auto.  Basically a 50-cal rifle as a pistol, I'm curious at just how powerful of an arm-breaking kick this thing would really throw.  I'm pretty sure this beauty could never realistically function, but I'm willing to wait until 2077 and find out.

That's cute.

 

Little David, the weapon with the biggest caliber ever made. 910mm of freedom. 'Nuff said.

[Torn 17]

i am so saying the dubstep gun

[Sintanan 151]

That's cute.

 

Little David, the weapon with the biggest caliber ever made. 910mm of freedom. 'Nuff said.

 

I highly doubt I'll ever get a chance to fire off Little David or anything like it.  The .950 and 14mm are within the realm of possibility.

(Although the thought of getting the chance to fire off something like Little David...)

[TopQuark 409]

Therefore, I would call it a waste of money. What's the point in having a sword to hang on your wall if you're never going to use it? It's like buying a flat screen TV that's only the screen and not the actual mechanisms that make it work.

 

I dont necessarily agree. One might buy a painting, and they'd never expect it to do something new. A sword can be as much a work of art as a painting or sculpure, such as a display or movie sword. Also, one might have an antique sword too frail or too valuble to be more than a display piece.

 

 

 

Beyond that, murder is murder and if the murderer didn't have a gun they would have found another method to kill and in similar numbers. See bombers, arsonists, and anthrax exposures.

 

I agree, but I still think taking the guns out of the picture would be more beneficial. Reduceing the the avalability of guns would seriously discourage a prospective murderer. High explosives and anthrax are much harder to get your hands on than guns currently are, and are not as precise methods of murder as going out and shooting someone yourself is. An individal of weak moral fiber would not be so tempted to consider killing if he didn't have a neighbor who he knows keeps a gun in his car that he never locks.

 

 

As someone who has studied a number of styles over his years, I can tell you that even the most dedicated weapon systems have plenty of unarmed techniques. Any swordsman worth his steel should be just as good without his weapon as with it.

 

My current style is O-Mei Wushu, which incorporates many weapons. In fact, Kung Fu has many weapon styles that would translate into practical objects easily. (Pool cue = staff, garden hose = chain whip, fighting knives = kitchen knives etc.)

 

One who knows only weapon systems is only killing time until he's disarmed and one who only knows body techniques might forestall a confrontation they could have ended more quickly.

 

I had not considered this. It would be quite amusing to see a Kung Fu master bring someone to his knees with a pink skipping rope.

 

 

Yes, yes there are many, many ways around this problem. For one thing you need to pass a test to even have a license to carry. Someone mentally unstable would not pass it. Secondly when you buy a weapon, they run a background check on you to see if you have a criminal record or any history of mental problems, and you can't even carry some weapons out of the store with you. So your theoretical madman has plenty of obstacles running against them to acquire his means to murder.

 

Yes, these are all good methods to prevent a completely uncontrolled system of fire arm distribution, but are (obviously) not sure fire methods. None of them prevent theft or "borrowing" from a friend or family member. They are all small problems for someone with a bloodlust to get around. Wouldn't it be better to replace it with one big obstical (the non-availability of guns), have the prospective murderer attempt to aquire something more illegal, thus increasing his chance of being found out?

 

 

And there is where we reach a philosophic impasse. You will not convince me that I'm not in the right to strike back against an aggressor the moment I come under attack.

 

I don't trust the government to deliver my mail, why should I trust it to guard my person?

 

I never said that I have a problem with defending yourself. I realize that it's unrealistic to have a police officer always within ear-shot. I belive that if someone is being attacked, than it should be completely within your rights to retaliate (to bash them over the head with a frying pan, for all I care), and be legally protected if you send the assailant to the hospital. It's just that guns are not the most effective self-defence device. You are confronted with mugger, for example. You pull your gun out and he freezes; one of two things will happen. One, he turns and runs. Either you fire (possibley killing him), or you dont, letting him get away (no guarantee that the police will catch him). Two, he comes at you regardless. Again either you fire or you dont, submiting to his superior melee weapon. With something like a stun-gun, you can safely immobilize an attacker. Can it be misused like a gun? Yes, but not to the same degree.

 

Perhaps i should have clerified. It should not only be the governments responsibility on the law enforcement side of things, but also to provide an envorinment in which murder is as minimalized as possible (a strong economy, resources for the mentaly unstable, etc.). Whether or not a government provides or is able to provide such an environment is another issue.

Edited April 1, 2015 by TopQuark

[CT-1138 3,183]

@,  Yes, yes there are many, many ways around this problem. For one thing you need to pass a test to even have a license to carry. Someone mentally unstable would not pass it. Secondly when you buy a weapon, they run a background check on you to see if you have a criminal record or any history of mental problems, and you can't even carry some weapons out of the store with you. So your theoretical madman has plenty of obstacles running against them to acquire his means to murder.

 

And I'm sure much more than I would invite my prehistoric friend to back me up on.

Here in Illinois, getting your FOID (Firearm Owner Identification) card is almost harder than getting your drivers license! 

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I dont necessarily agree. One might buy a painting, and they'd never expect it to do something new. A sword can be as much a work of art as a painting or sculpure, such as a display or movie sword. Also, one might have an antique sword too frail or too valuble to be more than a display piece.

 

Touche, but I always feel form should follow function. Have something do the job first, then you can make it look pretty.

 

 

I agree, but I still think taking the guns out of the picture would be more beneficial. Reduceing the the avalability of guns would seriously discourage a prospective murderer. High explosives and anthrax are much harder to get your hands on than guns currently are, and are not as precise methods of murder as going out and shooting someone yourself is. An individal of weak moral fiber would not be so tempted to consider killing if he didn't have a neighbor who he knows keeps a gun in his car that he never locks.

 

The gun has been invented and proliferated. The genie is out of the bottle. There are any number of ways for the criminally intent to acquire weapons illegally. Better the safety conscious are empowered to defend themselves legally than have the unscrupulous be the only ones with firepower.

 

 

I had not considered this. It would be quite amusing to see a Kung Fu master bring someone to his knees with a pink skipping rope.

 

Watch any number of Jack Chan movies. He does this for a living.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrRFzwPE0d4

 

The empty hand isn't always best, if it was, why did we invent the spear? In the hands of a master, anything can be a deadly weapon.

 

 

Yes, these are all good methods to prevent a completely uncontrolled system of fire arm distribution, but are (obviously) not sure fire methods. None of them prevent theft or "borrowing" from a friend or family member. They are all small problems for someone with a bloodlust to get around. Wouldn't it be better to replace it with one big obstical (the non-availability of guns), have the prospective murderer attempt to aquire something more illegal, thus increasing his chance of being found out?

 

So, a legal system of acquisition can't prevent illegal acquisition? Is that your argument? (Just confirming.)

 

 

I never said that I have a problem with defending yourself. I realize that it's unrealistic to have a police officer always within ear-shot. I belive that if someone is being attacked, than it should be completely within your rights to retaliate (to bash them over the head with a frying pan, for all I care), and be legally protected if you send the assailant to the hospital. It's just that guns are not the most effective self-defence device. You are confronted with mugger, for example. You pull your gun out and he freezes; one of two things will happen. One, he turns and runs. Either you fire (possibley killing him), or you dont, letting him get away (no guarantee that the police will catch him). Two, he comes at you regardless. Again either you fire or you dont, submiting to his superior melee weapon. With something like a stun-gun, you can safely immobilize an attacker. Can it be misused like a gun? Yes, but not to the same degree.

 

Or the person shoots the attacker in the knee, as anyone skilled enough in their weapon could do so. If they aren't then they shouldn't have been given a license to carry in the first place.

 

To this I propose to you, what if all guns become illegal to own in any capacity, and then someone breaks into someone's home armed with a handgun?

 

Just as much as I could use a sword to cut at a man's arm or side. It would bleed and it would hurt, but it wouldn't be fatal. Whereas an unskilled swordsman might chop at his attacker's head.

 

Knowledge of a weapon makes it less dangerous, not more. It's all a matter of faith. Do you believe that the average individual, when truly free to carry a weapon would be responsible with it? I do have such faith in my fellow man. Those who abuse such freedom are the aberrations not the standard.

 

Perhaps i should have clerified. It should not only be the governments responsibility on the law enforcement side of things, but also to provide an envorinment in which murder is as minimalized as possible (a strong economy, resources for the mentaly unstable, etc.). Whether or not a government provides or is able to provide such an environment is another issue.

 

It's not. Never has been and never will be. Creating a safe society falls to the individuals that live in it. If people want a world, or even just one city that has no or little violent crime, it's their responsibility to make it that way not city hall's.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Steel Accord

[Dust and Memories 557]

You have clearly never seen the wonder that is... The FG 42! Pure Nazi Germany awesomeness, now for paratroopers,

 

 

 

Also, Mosin-Nagant rifle, over 100 years old now.

 

The FG-42 is a collector's piece because of the massive recoil. The soldiers who used it called it the "Glorious Failure".

 

I would be partial to a Mosin Nagant with a 8x scope, but I prefer the SVT-40 over the Nagant.

[TopQuark 409]

The gun has been invented and proliferated. The genie is out of the bottle. There are any number of ways for the criminally intent to acquire weapons illegally. Better the safety conscious are empowered to defend themselves legally than have the unscrupulous be the only ones with firepower.

 

-

 

So, a legal system of acquisition can't prevent illegal acquisition? That's the jist of your argument here.

 

-

 

Or the person shoots the attacker in the knee, as anyone skilled enough in their weapon could do so. If they aren't then they shouldn't have been given a license to carry in the first place.

 

Just as much as I could use a sword to cut at a man's arm or side. It would bleed and it would hurt, but it wouldn't be fatal. Whereas an unskilled swordsman might chop at his attacker's head.

 

Knowledge of a weapon makes it less dangerous, not more. It's all a matter of faith. Do you believe that the average individual, when truly free to carry a weapon would be responsible with it? I do have such faith in my fellow man. Those who abuse such freedom are the aberrations not the standard.

 

 

First of all, smoking was once as commonplace as alchohol. Now, it's been suppressed, mostly because of public innitiative. It's still a problem, but not nearly as wide-spread. Just because it's out there dosn't mean nothing can be done. I believe I have made my point on non-lethal self defence.

 

-

 

Second of all, the majority of illegal guns are extracted from the pool of legal ones. Also, which would you be angrier at after hearing, your friend/loved one has been maimed/killed by an illegally aquired gun or a gun purchased down the street from your house?

 

-

 

Perhaps, but you cant expect everyone who carrys a gun to be able to properly aim it, or trust them enough not to try to aim for the head. Like a child, a society should only be given trust when it's earned it. Does it look like ours has earned it?

 

-

 

 

It's not. Never has been and never will be. Creating a safe society falls to the individuals that live in it. If people want a world, or even just one city that has no or little violent crime, it's their responsibility to make it that way not city hall's.

 

The community and it's goverment need to live symbiotically. Both are made up of individuals. It's the individual within the community's responsibillity it is to bring problems within the community to the government. It's the individual within the government's responsiblity to design a solution to this problem and use the government to enact the solution upon the community. Individuals cannot make laws and legislation, and government/community cease to exist without individuals. Whether or not a society works like this is, again, another issue.

[Dust and Memories 557]

The government is not controlled by idealists; the government is controlled by corporations, whom have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Nowhere will a corporation bother with gun violence and such; after all, it's just making more people buy stuff from them, everything from funerals to more guns.

[TopQuark 409]

The government is not controlled by idealists; the government is controlled by corporations, whom have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Nowhere will a corporation bother with gun violence and such; after all, it's just making more people buy stuff from them, everything from funerals to more guns.

 

These problem are not inherent in the concept of goverment itself, thats just the way things have evolved since the start of the industrial age. It does not reflect how govenment has to be.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

First of all, smoking was once as commonplace as alchohol. Now, it's been suppressed, mostly because of public innitiative. It's still a problem, but not nearly as wide-spread. Just because it's out there dosn't mean nothing can be done. I believe I have made my point on non-lethal self defence.

 

That problem was solved but people still smoke. Should I pull cigarettes out of people's mouths because it's bad for their health? Should cops?

 

I don't mean nothing can be done, I mean nothing can be done with a legal sanction. Nor should my right to buy a weapon be restricted for my own purposes even if I have no interest in taking advantage of that freedom as I hope I've made clear. I'm not paranoid that my possessions will be taken from me because I don't own any of those particular kinds of possessions. Just because I don't smoke doesn't mean I want other people to not be able to.

 

 

 

Second of all, the majority of illegal guns are extracted from the pool of legal ones. Also, which would you be angrier at after hearing, your friend/loved one has been maimed/killed by an illegally aquired gun or a gun purchased down the street from your house?

 

When my cousin was murdered and her body set aflame in a dumpster, the means by which she was killed really didn't seem to enter my mind, I was a little busy reeling from the emotional shock.

 

 

 

Perhaps, but you cant expect everyone who carrys a gun to be able to properly aim it, or trust them enough not to try to aim for the head. Like a child, a society should only be given trust when it's earned it. Does it look like ours has earned it?

 

Yes I can trust them. I trust my experience and every gun owner I've talked to have been upstanding and responsible people and none of them guilty with so much as shop lifting.

 

To answer your other question, I don't see "society" I see individuals. Everyone should be treated as a case by case basis. So as long as you pass the test and earn a license to carry, yes, I believe that person has earned my trust to carry their weapon. I also don't think we should treat any group of people as children.

 

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

~C.S. Lewis

 

 

 

The community and it's goverment need to live symbiotically. Both are made up of individuals. It's the individual within the community's responsibillity it is to bring problems within the community to the government. It's the individual within the government's responsiblity to design a solution to this problem and use the government to enact the solution upon the community. Individuals cannot make laws and legislation, and government/community cease to exist without individuals. Whether or not a society works like this is, again, another issue.

 

For fear of derailing this topic any further into that other issue, I will simply say I don't think the second half of that equation is necessary. Good men don't need rules and most individuals are good people. People can solve their problems without getting the machine of the bureaucracy involved, they have friends and neighbors they can turn to and appeal to address those very issues. All they need is a forum as simple as a backyard or a school gym. 

Edited April 1, 2015 by Steel Accord

[Dust and Memories 557]

These problem are not inherent in the concept of goverment itself, thats just the way things have evolved since the start of the industrial age. It does not reflect how govenment has to be.

But it has become integral to the very notion of government. In fact, whoever controls the biggest company is pretty much the most likely yo gain control of the government through lobbying.

  

That problem was solved but people still smoke. Should I pull cigarettes out of people's mouths because it's bad for their health? Should cops?

 

I don't mean nothing can be done, I mean nothing can be done with a legal sanction. Nor should my right to buy a weapon be restricted for my own purposes even if I have no interest in taking advantage of that freedom as I hope I've made clear. I'm not paranoid that my possessions will be taken from me because I don't own any of those particular kinds of possessions. Just because I don't smoke doesn't mean I want other people to not be able to.

 

 

 

 

 

When my cousin was murdered and her body set aflame in a dumpster, the means by which she was killed really didn't seem to enter my mind, I was a little busy reeling from the emotional shock.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I can trust them. I trust my experience and every gun owner I've talked to have been upstanding and responsible people and none of them guilty with so much as shop lifting.

 

To answer your other question, I don't see "society" I see individuals. Everyone should be treated as a case by case basis. So as long as you pass the test and earn a license to carry, yes, I believe that person has earned my trust to carry their weapon. I also don't think we should treat any group of people as children.

 

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

~C.S. Lewis

Actually, the corporations have a interest in making sure nothing gets done. If something does get done, then it's likely to impede the megacorporation's interests somehow, as exampled with gun control legislation (fought against mostly by the NRA, but several gun companies also lobbied against it).

 

 

 

 

 

For fear of derailing this topic any further into that other issue, I will simply say I don't think the second half of that equation is necessary. Good men don't need rules and most individuals are good people. People can solve their problems without getting the machine of the bureaucracy involved, they have friends and neighbors they can turn to and appeal to address those very issues. All they need is a forum as simple as a backyard or a school gym.

 

[Stone Cold Applejack 381]

Oh if could own any gun in the world it would be the almighty M2 Flamethrower. I'd build shit all day just to burn it to the ground.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Oh if could own any gun in the world it would be the almighty M2 Flamethrower. I'd build shit all day just to burn it to the ground.

 

Good to know someone else knows what flamethrowers were actually designed to do. 

[Stone Cold Applejack 381]

 

I'd also take a PPSH-41. That gun spits out bullets so damn fast. It's absolute monster of a weapon.

[coco-ta-mi 59]

A really epic looking water gun

[Sky Cutter 294]

I would like to own the guns that go in your arm and make them big! 

 

but as for the shooty kind?

If we are limited to real ones then I would like a Panzerjager Jagdpanther SdKfz 173 Self-Propelled Gun

 

if we are allowed fictional ones though then probably something from star wars.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

 

I would like a Panzerjager Jagdpanther SdKfz 173 Self-Propelled Gun

 

A lot of german weapons on this list. Are they really that good? 

[Suitaloo 743]

Well, I guess my Raifu is the Taurus Judge. It's a revolver that shoots bloody shotgun shells, how awesome is that?