Once you ban all guns, then you'll say: "Look at knives, how they make it much easier to slice into someone compared to a bear hand! It makes killing so much easier compared!" Amir, automobiles injure and/or kill more people by accident, thanguns do on purpose. The exhaust kills this Earth, and our lungs, too! That's pretty bad, isn't it? So, do we ban automobiles now? Not really, think of it this way... How many people could a mass murderer who went beserk in a shopping mall kill successfully with a dagger in his hand? Just picture that thought in your mind. A man running after people with a knife, grabbing them, stabbing them about 4-5 times and going after another person. Do you see how ludicrous that idea is? Now compare that to how many people he could kill and wound with an automatic weapon in his hands. Even if guns were banned and everyone reverted to knives and swords to kill one another, they could never match up to the scale of bloodshed that gun-related deaths cause every year in the US. Knives and hand-to-hand weaponry is no where near as deadly as firearms. Since the inception of guns humans have killed more humans than have ever been killed before. That's not Anti-Gun Activism speaking it's common sense. I sincerely doubt anyone would see a need to ban ordinary knives and such as dangerous weapons. Cars are a different matter all together. You can't compare a mode of transportation as a killing device, to a tool that is designed to cause the injury and/or subsequent death of another living thing by firing a projectile into them. The overwhelming majority of automobile collisions are unintentional or caused by negligent factors, which doesn't equate to intentional harm. That's a completely bs comparison there. 1) Self-defense killing is totally righteous, and a good thing. Yeah sure, Adolf Hitler also would have told you that in 1943 when Germany was cleansing Europe of Jews. It was in "self-defense". Self-Defence is only righteous if it is IN PROPORTION to the threat directed against someone. If an intoxicated man punches you in the face for a bit of a laugh, and you slit his throat, is that righteous? The reason self-defense rarely holds up in the Courts as a legitimate argument is because everyone abuses it and takes it too far. People overreact when defending themselves from an attacker, naturally, and so it easy to overstep the boundaries of the threat and go beyond what was necessary to defend yourself. I'm not saying I don't support self-defense as a legitimate justification for killing a person; but honestly in courts today, especially US Courts, the self-defense argument is a complete flip-flop. It can work towards justice or completely against it. I mean can you honestly remember how many stories you've heard of people killing another person in "self-defense" for the most trivial grievance and getting away with it? Because I can't. 2) Suicides will still happen without guns! Japan being a good example. Who the hell is talking about suicides? Suicide-related deaths are a minute fraction of the fatalities caused by guns. The overwhelming majority is homicides. 3) Accidents happen with all things, so do we ban all those tools that cause injury by accident? Didn't think so. No we don't. Should we be concerned when one particular "tool" or weapon is responsible for the deaths of millions of people around the world per year? YES. You have a knack for bringing up stuff that's got nothing to do with anything. You think people would seriously consider total bans on things like baseball bats, steak knives and plastic bags, just because they can on the off-occasion be used as weapons to kill people? My friend... there is good reason guns are under such scrutiny, and opposition, it's because they kill people in disproportionately large numbers to every other dangerous/semi-dangerous weapon out there. We need to focus on the bigger picture okay? There's little point in banning knives to reduce murder rates because they account for a fraction of the murder weapons used. However, banning guns could significantly reduce the amount of gun-related fatalities a year in the US, because guns are the number one murder weapon used in the homicides. You understand what I'm saying? Don't fish for crabs if you can hunt for Zebras. If memory is correct, the crime is (or was) worse in the UK and Australia, according to a 2000 study by the Dutch. Well the Dutch certainly fked that one up... I live in Australia buddy... the highest number of gun-related deaths that has ever been recorded in Australia's history was in 1987 when there were 711 fatalities from what I remember. Last year we had around 120-140 deaths from firearms for the entire nation. Pretty minute if you compare it that to around 10,000 deaths or more a year in the US since the year 2000. Where I live, Perth, there hasn't been a gun-related murder or injury within the last 3 years. Only 5.4% of Australians own guns anyway. After we enacted tough anti-gun laws in the early 1990's, there's been around a 47% decrease in gun-related fatalities. Go figure that one out... The main issue, is the mental health of a society, and its justice system (whether or not they come down hard on criminals, or not)... not guns themselves. The main issue with that argument is that if you have a nation with an unstable population and an unjust Court System, it pays to have less guns around. Think that one out for a second. You can look at the root causes, social ailments and political jaw-boning all you like, the fact is; with more guns around, you create a haven for those types of people who want to do harm to others. Think about which is easier to solve, society's ills or banning guns? I say: it's also easier for good citizens to stop those crimes with guns, also! Why do you think police have guns! Police have guns as a means to keep order in society. Just because Police do the right thing with a loaded weapon in their hands does not mean every Joe and Jane will too. Vigilantes essentially defeat the purpose of an organized police force. Police have guns also as a means to divide the power between authority and citizenry. If Citizens have ready access to guns than authority suddenly wields less of the influence and power over people; and thus people will not respect that authority. They'll challenge it and thus the minority of people who want to cause harm to others see this an opportunity to carry out their desires. They won't fear the consequences, because they have guns just like the authorities do. Is Switzerlands' crime rate soaring, since they all own firearms? Nope. They actually have one of the lowest crime rates in THE WORLD! Switzerland is essentially one big military state. As every natural citizen is a member of the armed forces they have to abide by the organized chain of command and military disciplines the army enforces. Yes, they do all own firearms, but only because they are given to them by the Swiss Army! They do not own them, they cannot use them and in law they do not belong to the citizens. Switzerland is a bad example in justifying that guns can make a nation secure, as 90% of firearms in Switzerland are registered to the Swiss Army and are not for civilian use. Since man has been killing man since the beginning of the human race, it doesn't appear guns started it. I never said banning Guns is the cure for violence. It's in our nature to kill one another, and without guns we would find another means of accomplishing that, as we have done throughout history. Of all the wars ever fought, of the means of killing we have conjured, guns have killed more people than any other single weapon or tool throughout the ages. What I say is this: Without guns, humans could not kill each other on the scale they currently do. And lastly, thanks for your thoughts you guys bring up interesting topics and arguments...
@amir89 Australia doesn't have the extreme poverty and racial problems that the US has now. Your island insulates you more so to infiltration from undesirables. We don't have that luxury and our politicians seem in no hurry to correct the mess. Look at the countries that are mainly one race and you'll see a lot less murders. Britain is catching up to the US in their race problems now. If the US is such a bad place why is everyone trying to get here?
A determined murderer can easily sneak around a mall, finding people in bathrooms, or in the back of big clothing stores, coming up behind them, easily shoving the knife in their throats, and moving on, nice and quietly. With guns, they're much louder. If you think this isn't likely, when all guns are banned, then you need to really think about that a bit, then get back to me. You're also assuming one crazy man with an assault rifle coming in and shooting up the place, while no one else is armed in return. That is the major problem today! Why? Because guns are available? No. It's because no one likes to carry their guns concealed in these areas, or simply want to obey "the rules" that ban gun carriage in these areas. Big mistake! A sign which says "No guns allowed" is not going to stop a determined criminal from walking in with their gun(s). It will, however, stop the law-abiding citizens from doing so, and thus the power is unbalanced. You need to understand this clear fact, my friend. My hope, is that all law-abiding citizens would be armed, and thus these incidents would be stopped ASAP, if they ever started. Again, you're thinking in the terms of malls, where they actually ban citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense! Which is moronic of the mall owners to do, because only the criminals will have the guns then! So, of course mas acres like this happen there! Same with schools! They ban the carry of firearms from citizens in schools, as well! What a "coincidence"... that's where the massacres also happen! Think, my friend... think. I already acknowledged that firearms make it easier to kill. That goes without saying. But, they also make it easier for one to defend themselves, as well. It goes both ways, my friend. Think about this: The progressive way of thinking, when you use firearms compared to knives, is not a good idea. If there were no guns, you'd be saying: "Look at how easy it is for someone to stab one person, and move on to the next, nice and quietly! Without a knife, they have only their hands, which would make it much harder to kill multiple people! Ban knives" Now, do you get the point? It's progressive thinking, by trying to use comparisons. It'll never stop, until everything in banned, and the governments will have easy access to controlling the people, and/or criminals buying, stealing, and making these weapons on the black market, and causing even worse havoc to society. You also refuse to acknowledge history: Tyrannical governments loved to ban firearms from private citizens' hands... for a reason! Why? Because they're much easier to control! They can't fight back! You think you're safe because you live in a "democracy" today, and supposedly nothing like that could happen now. Well, that's not smart thinking, because you should learn from history, not put yourself in a position to most likely repeat it. Just because it's not happening today, doesn't mean it'll not happen tomorrow. I used the car example, because we're talking about the deaths of people, right? Well, cars kill more people by accident, than guns do on purpose. There's something wrong with that, when something kills more people on accident, than another thing that doesn't kill nearly as much on purpose. Maybe it's just the anti-gun lobby that wants to hype up that which doesn't actually deserve to be hyped up. They have an agenda in the end: Disarmed people = easy to control people. They're mainly of the big-government loving, socialist (cousin of communism) movement. The U.S. wouldn't be here right now, if citizens didn't have firearms in their hands, back in the late 1700s. That's a fact. So, I wonder if they listened to the anti-gun lobby back then, and what would they be saying today? We'd not be a free country today. Truly amazing, that the anti-gun people totally ignore history, because it flies in the face of their agenda to disarm the public. You said 11,000 people die from firearms a year in the U.S.? Do you know how many people live in the U.S.? 305,000,000! That's astoundingly LOW statistics, even though yes, I hate statistics, because even one death should be mourned. But, we have to resort to this heartless comparison, because the anti-gun people do so, all the time. And remember, only a small part of law-abiding citizens actually own firearms in the U.S. If many more did, and many more dumb gun bans were taken out of areas, so citizens could carry to protect themselves, there'd be a lot less citizens dying, and a lot more murderers dying after they attempt to go on a rampage in public. They've even interviewed criminals in jail, and they said they do not break into houses where they know the people are most likely armed. Only a moron would do so. lol! I said crime statistics in Australia and UK, not gun crime statistics. Re-read that part, my friend. Remember, the imbalance of power right now in the U.S., because some States have their own laws, as compared to other States and districts. It's much easier to bring a gun into a "no carry zone" in the U.S., because there're no border police at each States' line, or districts' line to make sure they do not come in. Thus, you have criminals smuggling in guns, where citizens do not carry guns (schools, malls, places like Washington DC, etc. etc.) In countries like Australia and the UK, they can scan through imported materials for guns, and have less in them. Again, using the U.S. as an example is not too smart, since each State is like a country without border security. Switzerland still holds water as an example of how the presence of many guns does NOT = the present of many crimes. That's the point! They all have guns, no matter how many rules they're placed under, it's not a guarantee for them to not commit crimes! Yet, they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world! How is that? Because their society is healthy, and they all have respect for each other, either because of the knowledge of everyone being armed (good possibility), or other reasons. But guns aren't the problem, now are they? Again, a place in Georgia (in the U.S.) made it law for every household to own firearms! Their crime only went DOWN when this law was passed. Now, where's your "They're trained military!" excuse? These are perfect examples of the ol' saying: Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people! I repeat: The 2nd Amendment (that speaks of the right to bear arms (guns)) of the Bill of Rights, found in the U.S. Constitution, was given to the people, to protect us against tyrannical domestic government. So, no matter how much crime rises supposedly because of guns, this Amendment shall not be infringed! It's a despotic government that only attempts to do so, and should be overthrown ASAP. Anyway, if you love living in a society where the government can easily control you one day... then to each his own, I guess. Go read the quote by Hitler, which I posted in my first post to you. Think on that for the rest of your life. Look at history, my friend. Learn from it!
If all the guns in America were suddenly zapped away then you can bet your sweet bippy the psychos will turn to home made bombs. They're simple to make, easy to transport/hide and in the right area you'll get several dozen bodies every time. More bodies with less effort than a gun. To all who think banning guns will somehow help I ask one simple simple question. When in the history of mankind has banning an object or substance accomplished the intended goal and made things markedly better by doing so?
@Neph Prohibition worked really well and marijuana is working fine too. LMAO You're showing your age with the "bet your sweet bippy" quote! Maybe the best TV show ever.
Lol, you really want to see how I show my age? I still carry one of these daily, I remember when every car dealership and bank in the country gave these Quikoins away!
Just to add a little more of what I was saying to another person the other day: Criminals are of the 'bully mentality', where they love to take advantage of their greater power, and prey upon the weak. If the criminal is armed, he'll seek to rob and/or kill those who're unarmed. It's that plain, and that simple. So, the anti-gun lobby speak half-truths when they say: "Guns in society make that society prone to more crime!" Total BS. I say: If everyone had a gun in society, there'd be a lot less crime! Again: The balance of power, is the scale of peace! It's only when there is partial gun ownership, that crime might go higher, since many of the law-abiding citizens don't carry firearms on them, nor even have any in their home. But, the criminals make sure to have them, however! This gives power into their hands, and again, they take advantage of that, just like a bully who takes advantage of his/her bigger/stronger physical size on a school playground. Imagine if all people weren't born with arms and legs, yet we had other ways of living without them, but it'd be better to have them! And only few actually bought (or stole) them. When criminals get ahold of them, they'd obviously abuse their power, then proceed to rob and/or kill those without arms and legs, with ease. The clueless people would say: "Ban legs and arms! They cause more crime!" The smart people would say: "Why not just inspire all of the law-abiding citizens to purchase arms and legs of their own, to counteract the criminals who've done so, already?! Do no ban legs and arms! Yes, they can be used for evil by criminals... but they can also be used to counter such evil, by good law-abiding citizens, as well! Make it so all people have easy access to buying them for themselves!" By the way, "criminal" in this analogy, also includes despotic, tyrannical government, as well. Many people have become complacent today, and keep living in denial, telling themselves "Ah, that's history, it'll never happen! We're too "civilized" today, and live in democracies!" Man o' man, that is one of the worst kinds of thinking I've ever seen. It's like they're in dreamland! Is it because they're so stressed out, that their brains go into denial, thinking governments will never become dictatorships again? History often repeats itself! Those that're smart, learn from it, and change their ways of thinking accordingly. Those not so smart, sit back and take comfort in the present, but do not plan for the future, because they ignore the possibilities of what happened in the past. Here's a quote of wisdom, for the unlearned among you: "A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 Do not change your mind when it's too late. It's like someone running in to a den of lions, knowing of the possible danger, but he says in his mind "They don't look violent at the moment, so maybe they want to play!" The lions come at him, and attack. He changes his mind... but it's too late to take it back, since that is history now, and he didn't think his actions through well enough. Then he dies. Do not learn lessons in the midst of regret; seek ways to prevent learning those lessons the hard way, by preparation, in learning from history. History, after all, is our greatest teacher.
You are wrong that a knife can't be used for mass-murder, perhaps killing more people than a gun. On 8 Jun 2001, a man barged into a Japanese school (where guns are effectively prohibited nationally) and murdered 8 children. IIRC, a teacher later died as well, and many more were badly wounded. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1376982.stm So much for the theory that guns are deadlier than knives. I've pointed out that, according to international crime comparisons like the International Crime Victimization Survey, Australia leads the industrialized world - along with Britain - in violent and total crime. I'm not going to bother to find the link again, just go back a few pages-full of messages. At any rate, our homicide rate, over the last two decades, has been generally declining, while yours and Britain's has risen, particular the sharp rise that coincidentally occurred after your countries banned firearms in 1996 and 1997. I'm being a bit facetious with that: It's hardly a coincidence. U.S. technology is far too advanced anyway to attempt to control guns; there are tens if not a hundred million illegal guns circulating on our black market, and the tools to manufacture them are simple and cheap and aplenty here in the U.S. And the technology is coming your way soon; a great many of the illegal guns turning up in Britain are illegal manufactures, and since it's much easier to manufacture a full-automatic weapon (i.e. submachine gun) than a half-decent pistol, let alone rifle, it's not surprising that they're becoming commonplace either. If you really want to rid the world of the "scourge of guns", try inventing a time machine -- that's far more likely to happen than trying to control guns and manufacturing technology.
I have a question. I have heard the the SKS is a good inexpensive rifle. I'll probably be using it for deer in Florida(deer here is small). Do you think it will be good enough? How much should one cost? I have a mini-30 so I have plenty of ammo for it.
Do you mean the Keys Deer? I think anything over a .22 rimfire would be overkill. I sneezed at one once and it's tail fell off, poor little bugger. I would stick with the mini 30, provided it is accurate at 200 yards or so.
Well we only have one rifle between my dad and me. I just got paid so I wanted to buy a cheap reliable rifle that uses the same ammo. The SKS comes into that category. I'm gonna head to the gun store tomorrow, that's why I'm asking how much should I expect to pay. EDIT: Also I think Key deer are endangered. Are we even allowed to hunt those?
In my opinion, don't settle for "cheap" when it comes to a firearm, I bought a Remington 700 bolt action 22-250 30 years ago which still can group 5 shots inside my little fingernail at 100 yards with hand loaded shells. Just my 2ยข worth. If you are lucky, the gunshop will have a selection of used rifles and may let you take it out to a range to see what sort of grouping it'll do with a few shells before you buy it.
I know about that, but it seems the only reason they are cheap is because it's military surplus. I just want some feedback on the SKS if any one of you has used it.
If money is an issue I personally don't see any major issues with an SKS. One could do much worse such as one of those horrendously bad Mosin Nagants you see for $79. I remember being a broke ass teenager that needed "cheap and reliable" so I got a Ruger P-89 and a Norinco SKS. Back then I think dirt cost more than bulk 7.62X39! In the following several years I shot the snot out of them both and I can't rightly remember any FTF's or FTE's. In my humble opinion a fella could get by just fine with an SKS if he took the time to test different types of ammo for accuracy, made darn sure he knew how far out the rifle would still give acceptable accuracy and stayed within those limits. Keep in mind that the SKS was made with reliability as the top priority (read looser tolerances) so don't expect gilt-edged accuracy. Food for thought - thousands of game animals are taken each year with beat up old lever actions that aren't exactly tack drivers either but the owners know the limits of their rifle. All that being said I absolutely agree with my esteemed friend blivetNC in that a fella can hardly go wrong investing in a high quality firearm. Quality constuction and quality materials can considerably extend not only the range and performance of the weapon but also its usable life. With its quality steel and excellent engineering your Mini-30 is an example of this. High quality firearms are certainly a beauty to behold and a real pleasure to use. Someone around here got me ten shades of jealous with a certain 627 he got a smokin' deal on! Soapbox.... To me the Minis are a couple of the most durable, reliable and affordable semi autos available. I've had a stainless Mini-14 for nigh ten years now, shot everything from nasty Norinco to handloads and haven't had a single issue that wasn't directly attributable to a bad magazine. I think just about every Mini owner would agree with me that quality mags for the Mini can be a real bitch to find. That was especially true of the mags they cranked out before Clinton's asinine brady bill. I've a whole drawer full of Mini mags fit only for scrap. As an aside, one thing I really like about the Mini-14 is that it is factory spec'd to shoot 5.56X45 NATO ammunition which is slightly different than .223 Remington dimensionally (to anyone who doesn't believe me, look it up) and generally loaded to higher pressures. I saw a shooting forums where a guy jacked up his commercial .223 chambered AR receiver by shooting hot NATO ammo in it. Too-tight chambers and higher pressures aren't a good combination. I like knowing my Mini was purpose built to handle NATO ammo. Off the soapbox Hey blivet, I think you'll get a kick out of this. To help make ends meet I work weekends at Walmart and this past weekend as I was going by the electronics department my trigger finger started quivering something awful - every big and little screen in that place was playing some nature program showing a close up of a big 'ol fat prairie dog sittin' on his mound just barking away. I was ready to grab a rifle from sporting goods and start shooting!
Hey Neph, I know the feelin', (Now you know why they keep the toys under lock and key--- and display them near the big screen TVs)everytime I see a murder of crows descending upon some poor farmer's newly planted corn field along the highway I have a great urge to drive up to the farmhouse and introduce myself and volunteer to rid him of his pestilence. Nothing deters crows from infesting a field better than the sight and sounds of one of their own disintigrating in front of their eyes. Also didn't realize that the .223 was different sized case than the Nato round, Hmm, learn something new everyday. By the way, Although I never owned a Ruger, I loved shooting the one my friend had.
My local gun store wants to sell it for 275. Is this a good price? Also is it hard cleaning cosmoline?
Rugers are great guns! I've owned many and never had a bad one. $275 seems high to me but then again I haven't followed prices for quite some time. J&G Sales lists Yugoslavian SKS's from $149 to $249 depending on the condition. The Yugoslavian made rifles seem to be the most desirable. What's the condition of the rifle and where was it made? With the right stuff cosmoline isn't hard to remove. As a dumb teenager I just used gasoline but thats probably not the best way. Carb/brake cleaner and mineral spirits works well on the metal. After a good wiping off the stock can be propped up in the hot sun and it'll "sweat" out what cosmoline is left in the pores.
@Neph, been snickering all day with the thought of you surrounded by plump, furry targets and no shootin' irons handy. Could this be a foreboding preview of Hell?
Blivet I think you got it. Hell would be a field of varmints and no varmint gun. Somebody should whip the varmint. LOL I hear those are some sweet shootin guns. There may still be some available near the same price; still a bit pricey (but worth every penny if you like the best in custom wheel guns). abuzar1 I agree with Neph. The SKS is okay, as long as you remember what it is. They're reasonably accurate to about 100 yards. Most game is taken much closer than that. As mentioned, not all SKS(s) are the same. Get Neph to explain .308 and .310 in the 7.62x39 caliber. It's food for thought when sharing ammo between an SKS and Mini 30. I hear Ruger used barrels with both measurements. Acetone works good with the cosmolene. Good ventilation and rubber gloves readily come to mind. You can pick up a can at the auto parts house, plumbing store, or paint store. I just picked up a big can at Advance, but Wally World sells it as well.
