The Firearm Topic

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

-repo drivers (especially in rural areas)

-attorneys

-judges

-witnesses

-someone visiting the rough parts of town

-someone stranded

-someone out alone late at night

-someone carrying something of value

-someone with an attractive girlfriend in a hostile area

-someone who's made dangerous enemies

And one wonders how these various types of people survive elsewhere in the world? Forgive my cynicism, but isn't the primary reason why these people need (or perceive a need) to possess and carry firearms because the country is saturated with them? I mean, as I alluded to in my first comment, it isn't like these scenarios and situations don't exist everywhere else in the world. And we don't feel the need to tool ourselves up to the armpits to deal with them.

These people survive in other parts of the world by not having to put up with armed criminals. The regulatory structure around guns in other parts of the world aren't what keep their society from being saturated with them. It's them not having the #1 arms industry based in their country. This is why guns will be here regardless.

 

 

I also never said these people are destined to die. They just experience a heightened threat of attack, and therefore justification. Even if the legitimate threats to the people listed were dismissed as paranoia, the law should still protect their decision to arm themselves given that many of them will do it regardless for their own safety. In the end, the few people who find themselves properly equipped in the mentioned scenarios are better protected. There's no denying that.

 

 

@Melchoir, I thought the same thing about repo men until I heard about the prevalence of guns being drawn on them. Happened to a tow truck driver in my college town.

[Clem Fandango]

So whether we're talking about repo men dealing with angry customers or people walking through bad neighbourhoods, if someone pulls a gun on you what good is having one yourself? I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks they're going to get into a firefight and come out on top is living in a fantasy world.

 

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

So whether we're talking about repo men dealing with angry customers or people walking through bad neighbourhoods, if someone pulls a gun on you what good is having one yourself? I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks they're going to get into a firefight and come out on top is living in a fantasy world.

There is much more to winning a gun vs. gun conflict than your narrowly defined "Wild West" scenarios that you've likely drawn from media dramatizations. In fact, guns don't even have to be drawn in some cases. Shooting is just one of the many skills necessary for recognizing and neutralizing armed threats.

 

 

 

Anyone who thinks no one will attack them because they are special and don't deserve it is living in fantasy world.

[Clem Fandango]

 

There is much more to winning a gun vs. gun conflict than your narrowly defined "Wild West" scenarios that you've likely drawn from media dramatizations.  In fact, guns don't even have to be drawn in some cases.  Shooting is just one of the many skills necessary for recognizing and neutralizing armed threats.

Well then, please illustrate for me how having a gun helps if someone shoves a gun in your face. You contended that arming yourself is a good way to deal with armed criminals, does that not explicitly suggest that having a gun "levels the playing field?" Not really sure what your "it's not like in the movies" dialogue was actually addressing either- the fact of the matter is, if someone were to point a gun at me there's a few things that would go through my mind, not including "if only I had a gun too..."

 

 

Anyone who thinks no one will attack them because they are special and don't deserve it is living in fantasy world.

Quite ironic to suggest that you are the one who is being pragmatic. The crux of my argument was never "nobody attacks good special people" (?) rather, it was that having a gun is rarely ever helpful, at least not while you're walking down the street.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

There is much more to winning a gun vs. gun conflict than your narrowly defined "Wild West" scenarios that you've likely drawn from media dramatizations.  In fact, guns don't even have to be drawn in some cases.  Shooting is just one of the many skills necessary for recognizing and neutralizing armed threats.

Well then, please illustrate for me how having a gun helps if someone shoves a gun in your face. You contended that arming yourself is a good way to deal with armed criminals, does that not explicitly suggest that having a gun "levels the playing field?" Not really sure what your "it's not like in the movies" dialogue was actually addressing either- the fact of the matter is, if someone were to point a gun at me there's a few things that would go through my mind, not including "if only I had a gun too..."

You are sitting before a computer with access to numerous personal stories of self defense involving a firearm. Utilize it.

 

The possibilities are endless. For one, a gun doesn't just end up in your face at point blank range. Gun or no gun, you shouldn't be allowing a random stranger to linger in your personal space if you are in any of the circumstances I mentioned earlier. I never said a gun makes you immune to death. However, it does significantly expand your options. Having a gun puts you in a position to where you're not helpless. Deescalation and getting out of the line of fire (preferably starting your escape in a lateral motion) should be the priority whether you are armed or not. Most criminals aren't very skilled with their guns. As a properly trained and experienced concealed carrier, you should be able to out gun your attacker once you've established cover or a safe distance. This is where you should be able shoot your way to safety. Your GTA instincts should serve you well there .

 

If you are out gunned or so aloof (despite being in a hostile scenario that warrants a concealed weapon) that you don't see them, then you are at the mercy of the attacker and your instincts. Just know that having a gun doesn't always mean you have to pull it. It just gives you exponentially more options.

[EgyptianStar]

 

 

 

Speaks for itself.

[sivispacem]

 

Speaks for itself.

You are lil weasel's annoying brother AICMFP.

 

Also, it doesn't speak for itself, as I've highlighted numerous times. I do find it entertaining that you bring a cartoon image that does nothing other than stereotype (and badly, at that) to a reasonable discussion in which you've actually failed to respond to any of the points made in contention of your earlier statements.

 

 

These people survive in other parts of the world by not having to put up with armed criminals.  The regulatory structure around guns in other parts of the world aren't what keep their society from being saturated with them.  It's them not having the #1 arms industry based in their country.  This is why guns will be here regardless.

You say that as if armed criminals don't exist anywhere else. It's always a strange dichotomy when debating things like this- on one hand, you've got people like yourself who are completely rational, sensible and intelligent in their discussion;who make decent and totally reasonable points, and who focus on the doubtlessly higher instances of violent, firearm-related crime in the US, as well as the greater propensity towards the use of firearms in non-violent crime. And then we have the other side, who use pretty little cartoons to articulate points that don't really make any logical sense. I do agree with much of the sentiment, and I don't personally have any objection to permitting people who are highly trained in the use of firearm carry them in a concealed or open manner if properly licensed to do so. My objections have primarily been to the idea that concealed carry, or a higher proliferation of firearms making a place safer, which is a completely unjustified, unwarranted hypothesis which rather flies in the face of experience elsewhere when it comes to firearms- that is, that nations that have effectively outlawed firearms are the safest in the world, and those with reasonable and sensible restrictions- including restrictions that enable people to carry concealed weapons- are preferable in terms of safety to a near-enough free-for-all like the US.

Edited February 3, 2013 by sivispacem

[Saggy]

I think there's a lack of real statistical information around that makes any side of the argument kind of speculative on whether or not increased amount of concealed carry actually leads to more accidents. There's just a certain amount of unknown factors... I mean, this year there were a couple hundred or so people who shot themselves while reloading their pistol outside of a gunshow. Now you could say, "Well, that shows right there, that the more idiots that have guns, the more often that will happen." But is that really something that can be shown? What's the rate of people in other countries accidentally shooting themselves after attending a gun show? I mean, I don't even know if there's a real way to compare that, if you guys have gun shows, etc. I don't think there's a way to directly show that wouldn't happen with tighter restrictions or that more training or something would do anything. I mean, there was a case here recently where a police officer's toddler got ahold of his weapon and shot himself in the head. There's not much to suggest these incidents wouldn't happen if people were "trained".

 

I think it's obvious that there have been a number of incidents where people have accidentally shot someone or themselves or something, but I have my doubts that it's in any way representative of a majority of people who decide to carry a firearm. I do think that there should be a little training or some kind of class you have to pass though. I mean, even hunters have to go through hunter's education courses, as it is a concealed carry permit is just on a shall-issue basis. You should have to prove basic firearm proficiency and safety.

 

I don't really agree that more people being armed would stop anything. That's a social consciousness issue... How are we supposed to know as people what areas people might already be armed? We don't, so already criminals are actively taking the risk of being shot by concealed carriers that are already out there. So you can't really tell me that it would somehow deter more crime when it's clearly not doing that already.

 

Personally I don't believe much in the notion of concealed carry for the average Joe that doesn't have a good reason for it. I think if a person is responsible and wants to take on that duty of carrying a firearm they should be able to, even if they don't have a "good reason" to though, and passed that I think there are many many reasons why a person would want to carry a firearm that aren't being considered.

 

The comparison keeps getting made, "Well, this is how it's done in other countries," well perhaps Americans want to be able to carry a gun and shoot someone trying to beat their brains out with a tire iron because they cut them off in traffic? I don't understand where the notion that, "Oh there are better ways to handle that," comes from just because people in other countries manage to get by without the same right. Do you really want to just pepper spray him and hope it works, or try and fight him off, or maybe have to hope you can run and get away from him while the police show up? I'd rather be able to defend myself with something that's reliably effective, and short of tazer guns that cost hundreds of dollars there's actually not a lot of available that stops people as well as a firearm, and a lot of the time they don't even do a great job of it.

 

That's the real problem with American gun owners and the type that want to think about it as a "self-defense" tool. That they do come up with fantasies like, "Oh if someone tries to mug me, I'll pull this." If someone points a gun at you and is trying to mug you, you've already lost, game over. Past that, you're not justified to shoot someone for mugging you in the first place. Maybe in some states the idea of, "Well how was I to know he wasn't going to shoot me and rape my daughter after I gave him my wallet?" might fly but not in most of them. People get caught up in this idea that having a gun makes them untouchable and if anything happens they can just point and click and the bad guy will disappear in a shower of sparks.

 

I think half the reason people get along so well in other countries without being able to carry a firearm, is that for 99% of the situations there are much better ways to defend yourself and avoid trouble than lethal force of any kind. However it's that 1% that people here frequently run in to, and in a country of 300 million people you'd be surprised how many women need deadly force to defend themselves against an ex-husband or lover who's trying to kill them, employers who fear reprisal from angry employees, etc. Many of the same things that work in other countries work here--restraining orders and stuff like that. However there's still enough incidents where it hasn't helped someone that people will use to justify having a firearm available.

 

On a personal level I decided a long time ago that I don't want to carry a firearm, because I think it is a very large responsibility, and more of a burden than a right or a privilege. I think most people who actually have a good reason to carry one wish they didn't, and only do so to give them just that little extra advantage because they know they might get in to some kind of trouble. My mother for example was a social worker at one point, she had to make the decision to remove kids from a home or deny benefits, you can bet your ass that those people have had some situations where they needed to defend themselves. She decided to get a pistol for it once, got a permit and everything, but after a while stopped wanting to carry it for personal reasons, not thinking she'd need it, etc.

 

I just think there's this notion that most of the people getting permits and carrying concealed pistols are somehow wanna-be, trigger-happy cowboys. I think most of them are in fact responsible, who will probably never have to use it and don't want to, and know how to be safe with it and can shoot it. The over-zealous "patriots" and people carrying it around because it's their "god given right" are the ones carrying them for no good reason, and I doubt a lot even happens with them. It's the irresponsible idiots that wind up getting into accidents with them, and as much as I know it may seem like I'm putting too much faith in humanity, I believe those people are the minority in terms of people who can legally carry concealed firearms. The main reason being is that, most people who have the intelligence to not acquire a criminal record, also have the intelligence to responsibly carry a firearm; the ones that do not posses that intelligence, usually cannot get a concealed weapon's permit. It's the unfortunate few idiots who just happen to be law-abiding idiots that wind up shooting themselves at gun shows or letting their kids get ahold of the guns or something like that.

 

 

[sivispacem]

I think there's a lack of real statistical information around that makes any side of the argument kind of speculative on whether or not increased amount of concealed carry actually leads to more accidents. There's just a certain amount of unknown factors... I mean, this year there were a couple hundred or so people who shot themselves while reloading their pistol outside of a gunshow. Now you could say, "Well, that shows right there, that the more idiots that have guns, the more often that will happen." But is that really something that can be shown? What's the rate of people in other countries accidentally shooting themselves after attending a gun show? I mean, I don't even know if there's a real way to compare that, if you guys have gun shows, etc. I don't think there's a way to directly show that wouldn't happen with tighter restrictions or that more training or something would do anything. I mean, there was a case here recently where a police officer's toddler got ahold of his weapon and shot himself in the head. There's not much to suggest these incidents wouldn't happen if people were "trained".

 

I think it's obvious that there have been a number of incidents where people have accidentally shot someone or themselves or something, but I have my doubts that it's in any way representative of a majority of people who decide to carry a firearm. I do think that there should be a little training or some kind of class you have to pass though. I mean, even hunters have to go through hunter's education courses, as it is a concealed carry permit is just on a shall-issue basis. You should have to prove basic firearm proficiency and safety.

 

I don't really agree that more people being armed would stop anything. That's a social consciousness issue... How are we supposed to know as people what areas people might already be armed? We don't, so already criminals are actively taking the risk of being shot by concealed carriers that are already out there. So you can't really tell me that it would somehow deter more crime when it's clearly not doing that already.

 

Personally I don't believe much in the notion of concealed carry for the average Joe that doesn't have a good reason for it. I think if a person is responsible and wants to take on that duty of carrying a firearm they should be able to, even if they don't have a "good reason" to though, and passed that I think there are many many reasons why a person would want to carry a firearm that aren't being considered.

 

The comparison keeps getting made, "Well, this is how it's done in other countries," well perhaps Americans want to be able to carry a gun and shoot someone trying to beat their brains out with a tire iron because they cut them off in traffic? I don't understand where the notion that, "Oh there are better ways to handle that," comes from just because people in other countries manage to get by without the same right. Do you really want to just pepper spray him and hope it works, or try and fight him off, or maybe have to hope you can run and get away from him while the police show up? I'd rather be able to defend myself with something that's reliably effective, and short of tazer guns that cost hundreds of dollars there's actually not a lot of available that stops people as well as a firearm, and a lot of the time they don't even do a great job of it.

 

That's the real problem with American gun owners and the type that want to think about it as a "self-defense" tool. That they do come up with fantasies like, "Oh if someone tries to mug me, I'll pull this." If someone points a gun at you and is trying to mug you, you've already lost, game over. Past that, you're not justified to shoot someone for mugging you in the first place. Maybe in some states the idea of, "Well how was I to know he wasn't going to shoot me and rape my daughter after I gave him my wallet?" might fly but not in most of them. People get caught up in this idea that having a gun makes them untouchable and if anything happens they can just point and click and the bad guy will disappear in a shower of sparks.

 

I think half the reason people get along so well in other countries without being able to carry a firearm, is that for 99% of the situations there are much better ways to defend yourself and avoid trouble than lethal force of any kind. However it's that 1% that people here frequently run in to, and in a country of 300 million people you'd be surprised how many women need deadly force to defend themselves against an ex-husband or lover who's trying to kill them, employers who fear reprisal from angry employees, etc. Many of the same things that work in other countries work here--restraining orders and stuff like that. However there's still enough incidents where it hasn't helped someone that people will use to justify having a firearm available.

 

On a personal level I decided a long time ago that I don't want to carry a firearm, because I think it is a very large responsibility, and more of a burden than a right or a privilege. I think most people who actually have a good reason to carry one wish they didn't, and only do so to give them just that little extra advantage because they know they might get in to some kind of trouble. My mother for example was a social worker at one point, she had to make the decision to remove kids from a home or deny benefits, you can bet your ass that those people have had some situations where they needed to defend themselves. She decided to get a pistol for it once, got a permit and everything, but after a while stopped wanting to carry it for personal reasons, not thinking she'd need it, etc.

 

I just think there's this notion that most of the people getting permits and carrying concealed pistols are somehow wanna-be, trigger-happy cowboys. I think most of them are in fact responsible, who will probably never have to use it and don't want to, and know how to be safe with it and can shoot it. The over-zealous "patriots" and people carrying it around because it's their "god given right" are the ones carrying them for no good reason, and I doubt a lot even happens with them. It's the irresponsible idiots that wind up getting into accidents with them, and as much as I know it may seem like I'm putting too much faith in humanity, I believe those people are the minority in terms of people who can legally carry concealed firearms. The main reason being is that, most people who have the intelligence to not acquire a criminal record, also have the intelligence to responsibly carry a firearm; the ones that do not posses that intelligence, usually cannot get a concealed weapon's permit. It's the unfortunate few idiots who just happen to be law-abiding idiots that wind up shooting themselves at gun shows or letting their kids get ahold of the guns or something like that.

I doff my cap to you, sir, for this post.

[Schemer]

 

Comment Removed. Wrong topic.

[Kaj.]

Aw sh*t, I got excited that this topic was gonna get active again.

 

I'm gonna be buying an SKS on Saturday with some of my birthday cash. I'll be sure to post pics.

[Ex Hellraiser]

For Spring Break, I'll be going to Maryland to visit by brother at Pax River. Hopefully, he'll take me to the range for my birthday.

 

I've never fired a gun btw, never had the money or opportunity, and only in the last couple years have I taken an interest in firearms. Looking forward to it.

[Chunkyman]

 

For Spring Break, I'll be going to Maryland to visit by brother at Pax River. Hopefully, he'll take me to the range for my birthday.

 

I've never fired a gun btw, never had the money or opportunity, and only in the last couple years have I taken an interest in firearms. Looking forward to it.

Be sure to start with low power rounds so you don't develop a flinch.

 

I started with .22 rifles, but in my infinite wisdom my first handgun experience was with a .44 magnum Ruger Super Blackhawk (my first handgun). I don't flinch much, but occasionally I will and end up missing.

 

In other news, my Grandad gave me 2 more of his rifles. I got a Stevens 54a (.22 lr) and a rather unique Stevens 325 (it's unique because it's a bolt-action 30-30 and has a detachable magazine). The scope mount on the 30-30 is only attached with one screw (other one missing), and I don't have a replacement. Hopefully I can find some other screw that will fit, allowing the scope to be securely attached.

 

I brought out of storage my glorious Weatherby Vanguard in .243 Winchester, and my first rifle I ever owned which is a dinky Marlin .22 bolt action.

 

Will post pics ASAP, but might take a while.

[Bellic 4 life]

So, I was thinking about taking the leap and becoming a gun owner. My question for you guys, is what do you suggest as a beginner's rifle?

 

I was thinking a Mosin-Nagant, as they are relativey cheap at the Cabela's in my Hartford ($100).

[Chunkyman]

So, I was thinking about taking the leap and becoming a gun owner. My question for you guys, is what do you suggest as a beginner's rifle?

 

I was thinking a Mosin-Nagant, as they are relativey cheap at the Cabela's in my Hartford ($100).

I would suggest a used Ruger 10/22. It's affordable, super fun to shoot, and uses cheap .22 ammo. It's also easy to customize and they're very dependable, high quality guns.

[Saggy]

So, I was thinking about taking the leap and becoming a gun owner. My question for you guys, is what do you suggest as a beginner's rifle?

 

I was thinking a Mosin-Nagant, as they are relativey cheap at the Cabela's in my Hartford ($100).

I would suggest a used Ruger 10/22. It's affordable, super fun to shoot, and uses cheap .22 ammo. It's also easy to customize and they're very dependable, high quality guns.

Yeah, 10/22s are great for customizing but I don't like them as much as a Marlin 60. The stock doesn't feel quite as nice and the trigger pull is a lot heavier.

[The Scottish Guy]

Well regarding the right to bear automatic assault rifles, this f*cking idiot sure isn't helping his cause.

 

Skip to 00:30

 

 

 

[GTASAddict]

I would never want to own a firearm because they're noisy, prone to backfiring & jamming.

[Kaj.]

I would never want to own a firearm because they're noisy, prone to backfiring & jamming.

Get the f*ck out of here with your sh*t information and ill educated opinions.

[GTASAddict]

Come to think of it, a silencer can resolve the noise dilemma, but what's your solution for the backfiring & jamming, huh mister firearm expert?

[Chunkyman]

Well regarding the right to bear automatic assault rifles, this f*cking idiot sure isn't helping his cause.

 

Skip to 00:30

 

 

 

Those guys pretend to be mental and make parodies of other Youtube gun channels (in this case FPSrussia). Also, I'm pretty sure they were firing blanks when the one guy was shooting randomly in the air, I really doubt they would record a felony and post it on youtube.

[Zizo008]

Hey guys, i rarely/never saw someone shooting or heard someone shooting a gun in real life. And i'd like to know, how loud are guns? What's the range the sound can reach? Also, is recoil really hard to the point where you hit your head? Does it depend on the gun?

I'd really would like to know some basic info, never know when to need it.

[Ryda King]

Come to think of it, a silencer can resolve the noise dilemma, but what's your solution for the backfiring & jamming, huh mister firearm expert?

Real silencers aren't what they sound like in movies and games. They still make a lot of noise.

 

As for jamming and backfiring, just don't buy a crap gun and keep it clean.

[The Scottish Guy]

 

Well regarding the right to bear automatic assault rifles, this f*cking idiot sure isn't helping his cause.

 

Skip to 00:30

 

 

 

Those guys pretend to be mental and make parodies of other Youtube gun channels (in this case FPSrussia). Also, I'm pretty sure they were firing blanks when the one guy was shooting randomly in the air, I really doubt they would record a felony and post it on youtube.

I know they're mostly parodies, but what that f*ckhead did @0:30 was extremely dangerous. They were NOT blanks, as you can clearly see the rounds (with bullet) in the magazine when he points it at the camera before loading it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I've seen many of this guys videos, and I find him pretty comedic. But he isn't doing himself any favours by posting material like this.

[Chunkyman]

 

Hey guys, i rarely/never saw someone shooting or heard someone shooting a gun in real life. And i'd like to know, how loud are guns? What's the range the sound can reach? Also, is recoil really hard to the point where you hit your head? Does it depend on the gun?

I'd really would like to know some basic info, never know when to need it.

A gun can be REALLY loud. Movies are not even slightly close. I don't use hearing protection when I hunt and I will spend a day or two hearing EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. A .22 isn't bad, but most other cartridges (especially ones for big game hunting rifles) will cause permanent hearing damage if you don't use hearing protection.

 

If you hold a gun firmly, it's extremely unlikely to hit you in the head. The only handgun that's likely on would be a .454 Casull, .50 AE, or a 500 Smith & Wesson Magnum.

 

 

@The_Scottish_Guy

 

Holy crap, they are firing live rounds. Jesus, that's dangerous and retarded. I laughed at the video, but still.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Chunkyman

[Kaj.]

Come to think of it, a silencer can resolve the noise dilemma, but what's your solution for the backfiring & jamming, huh mister firearm expert?

Backfiring? That only happens with internal combustion engines. Not firearms. And if a firearm is properly maintained the risk of FTE (Fail to eject), FTF (Fail to feed), or double feeds is negligible. And a suppressor does remove some of the risk of hearing damage from the equation, but responsible firearms owners typically use hearing protection. Hunters sometimes don't because they need to hear clearly depending on the game they're hunting but many still do.

 

You obviously don't have much experience with firearms, so if you have serious questions by all means ask. You just seemed like a guy trying to take the piss with that first statement. We're all for educating people on firearms, but don't take too kindly to people who dismiss the idea of firearms because they don't really know what they're talking about.

[GTASAddict]

With my posts, I was not trying to provoke at all, so I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm not a "guns control" troll. I have always wanted a gun, but since they're not toys, I want to address safety concerns with them. I mean, nobody would want any of the hazards I mentioned to happen to them, right?

Edited March 17, 2013 by GTASAddict

[lil weasel]

Suppression’ devices: There was a 200$US tax on each and every transfer, plus fingerprint cards, and a Letter from the Police Chief to attest that the person buying the device was of suitable character. All this was transmitted to the IRS for approval, and upon receipt of the stamp the device could be delivered.

One use of them is to kill vermin (Fox, Rats, Bats, et cetera) in places where the Noise might affect livestock, Chicken houses, and Dairy Barns.

Except for Semi-Automatic Pistols of .45 Cal. and less velocity there is a Loud Bang even when Noise Suppressors are used. Breaking the Sound barrier is the problem.

9mm ammunition needs to be loaded to Sub-Sonic specifications (S&W used to make it). Revolvers can’t be suppressed (except for the Nagant M1895). The noise made by a properly suppressed weapon will be merely the mechanical parts moving if it is fired in a suitable location. From my experience with a .45 and a .22 pistol in a concrete walled & floored area the weapon still went BANG. In a carpeted room with overstuffed chairs/sofa it made the click/click/clack sound of just the metal parts moving.

 

Backfiring and Exploding are a very rare occurrence now that the Demascus twist barrels have been out of the market. Powder charges that are so low as to plug the barrel with the projectile or small gauge shotgun shell forced into a barrel and then loading a proper changed cartridge are a matter of personal safe handling as are double charging a cartridge case, and have little to do with the modern weapon construction.

 

 

 

[Kaj.]

 

With my posts, I was not trying to provoke at all, so I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm not a "guns are evil; guns kill people" troll. I have always wanted a gun, but since they're not toys, I want to address safety concerns with them. I mean, nobody would want any of the hazards I mentioned to happen to them, right?

Again, the safety concerns you addressed aren't really valid. The noise is easily overcome with hearing protection, a costly suppressor is hardly neaded. The jamming is avoided by buying a reliable firearm and maintaining it properly. And backfiring is not within the realm of firearms. There are misfires which are sorted by simple problem solving, and there can be kabooms due to poor maintenance or firing out of battery but again those are not as prevalent as you may think. The main concern would be with negligent discharges and those are almost always due to user error.

[GTASAddict]

I have another question: Can inhaling gunpowder cause erectile dysfunction because saltpeter is an ingredient in gunpowder?