I own many firearms. I just said however since I use them for everything there is no primary reason for owning them. And since others have posted what they have I will to.

S&W .38 Special
S&W .357
Winchester 12ga pump
Winchester 20ga pump
IMI .50 Desert Eagle (Brushed Nickle finish)
IMI 30-06 Lone Eagle
.444 Marlin lever action
30.30 Marlin Lever action
Marlin .22 Semi auto rifle
H&K .45 Compact
De-Miled AR-15
.454 Taurus
SKS .223 Rifle

I think thats it I had a few more Handguns But I gave them to my old my for his cabin up north so he could fuck around up there.

Your second amendment quote has commas in the wrong place or something. Anyway, that's an excellent point and I'd not thought of it that way before.

I own an HK USP-40 and have a CCW to go with it here in Nevada. Nevada requires a class and a proficiency exam for a CCW but the exam is really, really pathetic. It's 6 shots right handed and 6 left handed from 3, 5, and 10 yards. You just have to keep 80% of your shots inside the main ring on a #45 target. Essnetially a target the size of a human torso.

I have seen things at the ranges that make mne want to scream. Twice I have been giben the wrong caliber ammo with a rental gun. I have seen someone (From Englang) rent a DE .50 and rest their thumb straight up the back of the gun, with the end resting right behind the hammer when they fired their first shot. For anyone that can visualize what im talking about it's not a pretty thing. Cleanly snapped his thumb, coumpound, lots of blood, and a trip to the emergency room followed.

I have seen someone utterly destoy a firearm by loading 9mm+p rounds into a .40 and when they pulled the trigger the first ime nothing happened, as the bullet rested fareenough in the the pin couldnt hit it. He then shrugged and racked the slide again, chambered a second round as the first round slid into the barrel, because it was the wrong caliber. Well, before anyone could yell he immediately snapped off a shot, destoyed the gun and blew the slide off entirely. Miraculously he was unharmed.

Some people just dont have common sense or think anything through.

I'm not a particularly experienced shooter and don't own a gun, but I've researched a fair bit about shooting. There are some common problems that can cause you to miss pretty wildly: flinching in anticipation of the shot and jerking the trigger really hard can both do it. They're supposed to be common problems in new shooters. Of course, just being a careless boob could do it too.

I shoot, enjoy it a whole lot, and I love the taste of wild boar.

I own:
winchester model 98 12 gauge shotgun (1926)
Remmington 700 30-06 (2000)
Remmington 710 30-06 (2000) wife's gun
.22 bolt action rifle

and I am borrowing a .357 magnum Ruger revolver

I also shoot close groups from my pse II compund bow, and whack people with foam swords



-mike R

I own a Sig 220 handgun, chambered in .45 ammo.

I've fired .22 rifles and shotguns in the Boy Scouts -- I was disturbingly accurate with the .22 (I shot the clips off the targets at range). I've also tried a 9mm Sig, although it was a rental and I can't remember the specific model -- 226, maybe?

Control and Legislation
I feel some legislation is good and proper, but I don't think banning all weapons is the answer. Until the 2nd amendment is actually repealed or heavily altered, the citizen still has the basic right to own firearms. I don't know if someone from Japan could verify this, but is the number one murder weapon kitchen knives?

As long as people have emotions, there will be murders -- the weapon choice may change, but humans will find a way.

Oh yeah, that little town that requires handgun ownership? Obviously biased, but it references the basic idea.

As for the deeply embedded concept of Americans and guns, I believe it stems from our Wild West frontier days and an underlying idea of rugged individualist, no matter how dated that concept may be. As the sayings go, "God made Man; Sam Colt made them equal", "Gun control is hitting your target" and "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

We don't have any completely unabridged rights -- Free Speech? You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't slander someone, you can't threaten to kill the President, etc. While this may raise the hackles of the NRA, I similarly believe that some legislation is required for firearms, but I'm a Moderate in this regard; I don't follow the Liberal banner of "ban them all and let the Supreme Court sort it out."

Firearms tend to be the obvious target when you read about a school shooting, or a pair of nuts rob a bank in military grade body armor or someone goes postal at a day trading center. But I would submit that obvious and simple answers rarely fit complex problems.

It's like trying to treat a disease -- it's difficult to fix one part of the intricate and delicate system without upsetting other areas of the body.

Cultural Phenomenon
It is ingrained in our cultural identity -- although that tends not to manifest nearly so much in heavily urban areas, where firearms are not quite as intrinsic to a way of life.

Have you ever tried to explain the game of baseball to someone, especially someone from another country, only to stop in mid-explanation and marvel at how silly it is?

-Siege

I've fired basically all the guns my local shop will rent me: Sigs, Glocks, H&K, S&W, Colt, Kimber, Ruger, and others. .22, 9mm, .40, .45, .357, .44 Mag, and probably a few more. And I'd say you should go to a range and rent a variety of weapons before buying anything. My girlfriend loves Ruger; I'm a H&K and Kimber guy. My roomate was all about the SIG, and I even know some people who swear by Glocks.

My point is, it's a question of what feels right in your hand. If you've got small hands, you'll hate the H&K Mk.23 even though it's a damn fine gun; it just feels too big. Try a variety of things and see what you like; it's a personal decision.

For the first time, start with a .22. They're a lot cheaper to shoot, no real recoil, and not scary. If you can get a range guy or an experienced buddy to give you a quick briefing or lesson or something, so much the better, but I didn't find it that hard to pick up solo. But do try it; shooting is a fair bit of fun.

Personally I don't really want to own a gun. I live in the city; I'll never be shooting except at a range, and I'll just rent there. It gives me the chance to try a lot of stuff without dropping a thousand bucks (hey, I like the nice ones). Unless you've got acres to shoot on your own in, or want to go pistol-hunting or something, I wouldn't think it's worth it other than the Home Defense thing - and that's a whole different rant.

I refuse to state the weapons that I might or might not own to avoid incriminating myself.

I lived in a bad part of a city about the time SR came out. Some of the ideas people had astounded me. One that was relayed to me by a house mate was that if I were to be murdered, no one would notice. Yes, this ws one of the more ridiculous ideas, but since I was new to the area and no one new me, it was assumed I had no family or friends. The police wouldn't care (this I think was truer than anyone would like to admit), it would just mean some more paperwork. (I say this because I quit calling them to report burglaries after the third, because they were only taking a statement for insurance purposes, no insurance - SOL.)

Any way, what was funny is I have a huge family. That day I found it prudent to go armed to the nearest pay phone. Funny thing was, no one gave me a second look even carrying a rifle. I called my brothers and told them the situation and to come visit me and to carry.

I contrived an excuse that required their assistance in crawling under the house. So in front of the house mate's eyes (my neighborhood link) they disarmed while we talked about guns, friends and relatives. The house mate's eyes got bigger and bigger with every gun that was set upon the washer and dryer (that acted like a big drum, amplifying any knock or rattle.) They surprised even me by having 5 guns between the two of them.

No threats were made, no shots were fired and I had no more problems with the neighbors.

I don't have any guns, but I've fired a Desert Eagle .44, a Beretta 92, and an HK MP5, which was really cool.

The original object of a milita is to guard against tyranny. Seems counter productive for is to be "regulated" by any governmental entity. Regardless there are numerous state militias (especially in my state) that are only loosely affliated to the state and then by geography only.

nevertheless, the consitution clearly states it must be well regulated.

I've read some of those legal arguments, and none of them have actually broached this subject head on. Seperate phrases get used to shore up arguments, but none of them have tackled it fully. I'd be interested to know what would happen if someone over there decided to sue the state for failing in its constitutional duty to regulate said militia...

If you consider only the US to be of any importance when discussing weapons, cars or laws related to them, you can completely ignore me.

On cars:
In my country, if you have a criminal record, and especially if you have committed even a misdemeanor related to traffic (with a moped, for example), you're going to have a really hard time getting a driver's license. The police runs basic background checks on everyone who wants one.

In order to be allowed to drive a vehicle, you have to study the regulations for dozens of hours and pass an exam on a computer about everything you might need to know about driving cars in Finland. Only then are you allowed to practice driving in a real car. After a number of hours driven under tutoring, you have to pass a driving exam -- this I suppose is the same in almost all Western countries. This exam includes driving in traffic, on an ice track, in the dark, etc. Then you get a temporary license.

After 2 years, I think it was, you have to pass further exams, in the usual settings, but with more stringent requirements. If you pass this, you get your final drivers license. This is just for normal passenger cars, driving a truck requires further written exams and driving exams. Putting all that together, getting a driver's license for all kinds of vehicles (motorcycles, cars of all sizes, trucks, tractors, etc, excluding only buses which require extensive experience with trucks and similar vehicles to qualify for) costs in the order of 1,500-2,000€.

There is a huge number of regulations on building and selling cars. The safety of the car for the driver as well as everybody else is the main factor here -- you can't build and sell cars with bad breaks even if the car can be proven to be almost impossible to damage and to protect the passengers extremely well. Other misc stuff that is clearly regulated with cars around here: The width of car tyres, volume levels, enviromental issues like emissions, lights not to disturb other drivers, the location of bumpers to minimize damage to other cars, etc etc.

I'm not sure if it's a law in Finland, but I think at least in Germany all cars are required to be speed-capped to 250km/h in the factory. I think in Japan there are regulations that limit street cars to 276hp.

Getting a gun here is far simpler than getting a car, and the permit is certainly a lot cheaper to get than a driver's license. We have no limitations on things like grips, flash hiders, stocks, barrel length, etc. Banning fully automatic weapons can be considered to be the equivalent of capping vehicle speed, capping magazine sizes to be similar to car engine power. Concealed carry is not allowed under any circumstances anywhere -- and with our crime rates it could not possibly be justified, either, with an average of 1.5 people (criminally) killed by strangers over the past 10 years.

At least for me, then, the argument that cars are less regulated doesn't work out. Neither does the argument that cars are significantly more lethal: 388 people died here in traffic accidents in 2001 , while 350-360 were killed with firearms, including suicides in both.

Someone could be really original and start arguing about the lack of regulation on bladed weapons, now.

And I still don't think this has anything to do with Shadowrun, and can think of only 2 reasons why this hasn't been shut down yet: Admins haven't noticed this yet, or they don't want to anger people by shutting it down until it gets really ugly.

It seems to me that arguing about the second amendment is a little premature.
The fact is, the United States of America is a heavily armed society with a complex set of largely ineffective laws regarding firearms and weapons in general. There aren't at present any major attempts to change those laws, and there haven't been very many changes in our lifetimes that are worth noting.

When it comes to constitutional scholarship, a whole lot more needs to be understood than just the words on paper. Law is messy and complex, it doesn't summarize well (read the tax code sometime). The fact is, I'm not aware of any case in which a law or regulation was struck down because it violated a citizen's second amendment rights. There are thousands of cases dealing with 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendment rights. There are even a few on the 3rd amendment (no quartering of soldiers in private homes except in wartime).

Even if the amendment does guarantee a "right" to own a firearm as a private citizen, there is no reason to believe that this right is absolute and incontrovertible. Your First Amendment rights are not absolute in any sense (you can't make bomb threats, harass people, blair advertisements over your loudspeakers in a residential neighborhood at all hours of the night, give away the nation's nuclear secrets or show your genitalia in primetime while bellowing obscenities). Virtually every "right" in the bill of rights is subject to exceptions. They have to be, because they are drawn in broad strokes that lead to absurd results when taken too far.

Whatever the "right," if any, that a citizen of the United States has to own a gun, it is certainly subject to reasonable limitations designed to promote the public safety, secure the government against revolt and any other lawful and necessary purpose.

And I say that this "holistic" approach to gun rights makes a lot more sense than a more literal approach. For example, the Second Amendment guarantees your right to own a gun, but where does it say you have a right to purchase one? Or import it? The thing says "Keep and bear" not "Buy and Sell." How many NRA members would advocate that we should be able to buy defective guns? If the Second Amendment really means you're free to buy whatever kind of gun you want, doesn't that mean that BATF safety regulations on manufacturers and importers are invalid? Is that such a good idea?

I don't mean to harass anyone about this. Constitutional Law really isn't a sport for amateurs, despite what we all like to think. It involves weighing truly momentous and complicated issues and it's hard as hell to get right (look at Brown v. Board of Education, the Scopes Monkey Trial, etc). I just hope that we can get beyond "It says it" and "No it doesn't" because what it says doesn't answer the whole question (at least, not when that question is "How and to what extent can the government of the United States and the governments of the several states regulate private ownership of firearms?")

I'm poor, so while I would like to own more guns, all I have is an antique (ie, crappy and old...my dad's an antique dealer, it was a gift) single barrel break action shotgun, and a little BB gun sitting in the basement of an abandoned church in the middle of South Dakota. Weird, huh? But I typically borrow other people's guns...I'm really a rather good shot, especially with pistols.

Also, while I do believe citizens should have the right to use and own guns, I think that licenses and permits should be difficult to get...you should have to pass a rigorous test, so on, so forth. This mainly springs from the fact that it's very easy to get a concealed carry permit in my state...basically, as long as you don't have a record (a criminal one), you can get a gun and carry it into a school...as long as you don't attend it, with no trouble at all.

This point of view probably comes for the fact that I am a mechanical engineer by profession but what do you do about the fact that anybody with a garage or basement shop that has a decent engine lath and a milling machine could generate functional firearms in short order. Sure it may not be a fully automatic MP-5 but give me a couple hours and I could have a functional firearm that probably won’t be pretty or real accurate but it would go bang, it would not blow up in my face and would most definitely be lethal at moderate to short ranges. Give me a few days and only slightly more advance equipment and I will produce gun approaching the accuracy of many production models. The only really difficult part of making a firearm would be cutting the rifling in the barrel and if I am using it at close range then smooth bore is just fine. The firearm is in its fundamental form such a wonderfully simple mechanism its hard imagine an effective set of laws to control access to all firearms. A modern mountain bike has more parts then the average firearm.

There are lots of good political and social discussion to be had on this subject but when it comes down to it if someone really wants a gun they will get one. Its not that hard to do. Right know in the US its easier to buy one at the store, or even if you no longer are allowed to purchase one legally (you’re a felon or mentally ill etc.) there are avenues to buy one illegally. If the law enforcement chokes off these source then I think you will see a much larger surge in basement and garage weapon shops. It just seems that if your really going to control access to weapons your also going to have to somehow control all the metal shops also.

Just some random thoughts on the subject.
mcb

A bit like drugs in that respect, or any intoxicating substances human beings willingly imbibe/use/abuse. Don't go for the Supply, go for Demand, and all that? After all, drugs don't have to hurt anybody, and no matter how illegal you make them people can still get them. So if you outlaw drugs you have to outlaw all kinds of chemistry gear and the farming of several plants with possible non-drug uses. And you still can't stop the Supply completely.

Or high explosives: if you outlaw those, you have to make it illegal/very difficult for civilians to purchase large amounts of several chemicals which have a variety of uses that have nothing to do with explosives. And still people can make their own explosives out of household chemicals.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I think that the 'well regulated militia' part of it must be a strong part of the justification and conditions for people to have guns, otherwise why mention it? You then have to define militia and define how you regulate it. I'm surprised this isn't specifically defined as part of the Amendment. Seems short sighted. Its just opening the whole thing up to contention and personally I don't want my rights contentious!

I honestly do see your point of view though. I think that the particular amendment can be argued in both fashions equally well. I don't think this is a bad reflection of your forefather's linguistic skills so much as a bad reflection on what happens when you let vested interests (i.e. lawyers) draft your constitution!

I agree with Kagetenshi though - the term militia is considerably older than the constitution, and more than that - older than firearms! I think you'll find tyranny has very little to do with the traditional meaning of the word. In THIS case though, it most certainly should be taken to include defence against tyranny because as I understand my history (which is not very much) that ethos is the whole basis of the US constitution and ideaology - freedom, and the absence of tyranny and oppression. But given that you can define militia in several different ways, the term should definately have been clarified in the original draft if it was to be the basis of law.

Just to reiterate my stance - I have no real opinion on whether or not guns should be controlled or banned as I have no experience of living somewhere where they are common. But I can see why you have so many lawsuits over there!

In 1987 US was the 35th country in the list of highest per capita number of lawyers in a country, apparently. Has it really climbed 33 positions in the past 17 years?

Are you kidding? The US has become the land of the lawsuit -- look at that kid and McDonald's for pity's sake.

Although curiousity compels me to ask -- who claims #1 on that roll of infamy?

It strikes me as rather fitting that one a forum where people will dicker, haggle and battle over a line or two, down to the last comma regarding a rules interpretation that we dissect the 2nd amendment and the US constitution in such delightful fashion.

I would like to point out, however, that it would be impossible to create a document to cover bases, to answer all conditions satisfactorily because the forefathers did not have the foresight to predict the future and the attitudes of the citizenry of that future.

-Siege