Er... no they're not. Guns have one use only - killing things, quite often people. How dangerous is that? It's like saying that a mortar bomb or a hand grenade is only as dangerous as a spanner, or a tin opener. Just ridiculous. It's not about misusing guns. It's all about using them. I just don't enjoy killing things, though I understand that plenty of people do.
I had a stubby sig 9mm and I loved it. Could get some very tight grouping close in and some decent work at 25m. I was using a glock 2 weeks ago, very light, very light action. It wasn't mine to clean so I don't know how easy they are to maintain but pistols are usually very easy. If you have an opportunity to fire a G36, it's a fantastic weapon. Very light, accurate, low recoil. Again I don't know what it's like to maintain. AK47s, at least the 5.45 caliber version is a waste of time. Has about 10 million parts and is difficult to use efficiently. M4s make shooting things very easy, a doddle to clean and easy to use. Older style MP5s are good close up but no good beyond 25m without a decent sight. Especially silenced. Although a dropped wallet makes more noise than the bolt moving. I've yet to use the new style UMP45 but it looks good.
You're right in that a gun is designed to propel a piece of metal at something, with the intention of causing damage or death. However, because everyone knows that and the idea is so strongly attached, most of the time simply having a gun is enough. It doesn't need to be fired at anyone or anything. If you judge the proper use of a weapon to be that it is only used when considered absolutely necessary for the protection of life then you might agree that sometimes it's ok to shoot someone. A mishandled or inappropriately applied weapon is clearly a bad act, however so is hitting some one over the head with a hammer. A hammer is designed to hit things with. You've used it for it's intended purpose. But it's still wrong. Using a gun to shoot a kitten is the same principle. You would have fulfilled the base intention of the tool but carried out a bad act. I stand by my comment that a weapon that is correctly handled and applied is, in my opinion, a useful tool.
i totally understand you and agree weapons handling is the be all and end all….the problem is on this site most havnt got a scooby about weapons or tactics….
I'm totally with you. It's a really useful tool if you want to shoot something. A sword is probably a very handy tool if you want to attack someone, close up. Andyb is correct. i don't have a scooby about weapons, but I don't want to have. I find it to be an unhealthy interest. Obviously, if you are in the armed police or the military, it goes with the territory, but some of us have avoided joining these organisations so as to have nothing to do with the territory. I assume a liking for the territory goes with the career choice. Either that, or you're in the wrong job.
I think you are looking at a gun as such that if you have one, you have to shoot someone with it. A soldier holding a gun at the front gate of a camp is a useful tool for deterring unauthorised entry. He didn't shoot anyone. An armed police officer pointing a weapon at a violent criminal and causing violence free surrender is careful application of a useful tool. He didn't shoot any one. A gun is a marker of authority and power, useful when trying to establish authority over an individual or group unlikely to listen to reason. A gun doesn't need to be fired to be useful and I'd say 99% of the time it does it's job without being fired at all.
I think there is a difference between armed police, where I agree, on the whole, it shouldn't be necessary to fire the gun (which is where the Duggan thread started), and the army, where it is utopian to imagine that you're going to send a load of troops to somewhere like Afghanistan, or Iraq, and people are just going to lay down their own weapons and give in. That doesn't often happen, so yes, soldiers are sent to kill people. And yes, I don't want to be dominated by some bloke packing a weapon and telling me what to do. There are far too many idiots in the world doing just that. Africa seems to be full of them, especially. Clearly, soldiers and their weapons are a necessary evil - pointless to think otherwise, and I'm not a pacifist. But having an army you can send to sort out people who are annoying you is the macro equivalent of a guy having a gun and threatening you with it because he thinks you are annoying him.
Some people for their 'legal' living are put in a position where they are likely to encounter people, who in the course of their 'illegal' actions may carry a weapon...........therefore, the former should be permitted to be in possession of their own weapon in order to defend themselves (and / or others) subject to specific rules of engagement.......... .......the armed forces clearly have one rule; the police clearly have another; whilst alternative professions will have a completely different one to both the previous.
There seems to be a general argument on here that guns are for shooting someONE. Some guns are designed to shoot people, some are not. For many years I had a rifle that was very carefully designed and built specifically to make a 0.22 inch hole in a piece of paper at anywhere between 10 and 25 yards. It was very good at doing just that (unfortunately my ability didn't match that of the gun, but that's another story) : it would have been next to useless for shooting people, or anything else that actually moves. Not all guns are for shooting living things; not all guns are for killing. A shotgun designed for clay pigeon competition is different from a hunting gun. I like shooting - I enjoy the challenges it presents, the concentration that it requires, attempting to perfect the techniques required - BUT the only things I enjoy shooting are made of paper or clay : I do not enjoy shooting any living creature and never have. So - just to offer my opinion - not everyone who enjoys shooting is a psycho, a "survivalist" or a wannabe Rambo...
The Spitfire was designed with one objective, to shoot other aeroplanes down which did also often result in death like guns but I like many others can differenciate between form and function and get huge pleasure in seeing these killing machines flying.
........adding to JR45's above post, the M1 carbine 0.30 calibre (the one normally seen used by US military (and others including some of the German forces) from WW2 to Vietnam) wasn't a lot of use in the Korean War owing to the round's inability to penetrate the 'Gooks' padded jackets.... ......yet what is almost the forerunner to the M1, the Armalite (now the M16) has a 5.56mm calibre (less than a 0.22) which is capable of removing body parts at quite a long range......
I would check that if I were you...... To be precise, 5.56mm = 0.2188976 inch and 5.6mm = 0.2204724 inch..........Neither of which are a 0.223
They both fire .224 bullets,the measurements differ as to whether you measure the lands or the grooves. A 44 Mag is actually a .429 bore. I would check if I were you....
If you wish to see the two, I have a 5.56mm and a 5.56mm barrel here, together with their individual and different rounds.......so drop in when you are passing by and you can inspect and measure them...
