All your guns are belong in this thread.

[PatrThom]

So since there was no existing thread (that wasn't locked or behind a wall) I started this one to discuss firearms, firearm safety, firearm choices, and how difficult it can be to obtain a phased plasma rifle in the 40W range.

Since discussion about this particular topic can get rather heated, I've at least stuck it in the political subforum.

Despite my enthusiasm for the 2nd amendment, I actually only own one gun, and I only got it a few years ago. It's a pump action shotgun, a Mossberg Maverick 88 with an 18.5" barrel chambered for 12 gauge. Well, technically, my father has also said that the Ruger Mk II target pistol (.22 cal) that I favored when I lived at home is mine for the taking whenever I want it, but I haven't gotten the chance to go get it (I'd have to drive, as I'd rather not try to get it through airport security). Anyway, I got the shotgun thinking it'd have worse wall penetration than a rifle or pistol (and I'd probably have gotten a .45 or a 380 if I'd gotten a pistol), so as to have a reduced chance of perforating neighbors if I had to nail a critter or a home invader, but it turns out 00 buckshot penetrates walls just fine. Whups.

Go get it when you get the chance. Mark IIs are extremely reliable, easy to keep clean, and highly desirable. If you don't get it yourself, you are potentially allowing some other, more opportunistic relative a chance at a very valuable windfall.
00 (or "double-aught") buckshot is actually slightly larger than .32 cal, so it stands to reason it would penetrate at least as well as handgun ammo of that caliber. Even birdshot can penetrate walls at that close range. You can compensate for this by handloading your own rounds to much lower muzzle velocity, or with plastic pellets or beanbags, but that's a lot of work. The reason shotguns have earned that "home defense" reputation is because their pattern spreads so quickly that they are not good at distance (good for houses set apart, not so much for apartments/trailer parks) and because the sound of racking a slide is supposed to be so well-known that burglars will flee in terror.
In reality, shotguns are not as great for home defense as their reputation suggests because they are physically too long and overpowered to function well in a confined space (such as a home). This is why things like The Judge exist.

I'm his only son, and he's already verbally promised it to me But yeah, that thing is awesome. It's got the bull barrel so the balance is exquisite and the recoil is nonexistant, and all the other stuff you said too.

The bull barreled ones go for an even higher premium, so yeah, you need to make that one yours. When contemplating the drive, pretend he's offering you $500, because he practically is. Just make sure you apply for the permit to purchase (or whatever they do in your state) prior to the trip, otherwise you'll have problems down the line.

--Patrick

 

[Gruebeard]

This is my rifle, this is my gun . . . ?

 

[PatrThom]

This is my rifle, this is my gun . . . ?

I considered "weapons," but that felt too vague.
See first sentence in first post for confirmation.

--Patrick

 

[GasBandit]

Well, now that I'm home, I can take a picture of it.

The Mossberg Maverick 88 pump action 12 gauge. 18.5" barrel, in Tacticool black, with 5 round elastic stock bandolier and 10 round padded carrying strap, tube magazine holding 5. I'm not one of those guys who has to keep a round chambered all the time, though.

 

[Frank]

My sidearm is kept at work.

 

[Tinwhistler]

When we got together, my wife was deathly afraid of guns. Not in the "if a gun is pointed at me, I have every right to be deathly afraid" sense, but rather in the "there's a gun theoretically sharing the same living space as me, oh my god, we're all gonna die" sense.

Then, one weekend, the company I worked for sent us all to Rough Creek Lodge for a company retreat. There, I convinced her to do some clay shooting. After getting over her initial resistance, she found that she rather enjoyed it--and now the gun in the house no longer bothers her.

I used to have a 40 caliber Walther p99 pistol (and since I used to own a crappy Texas Instruments computer as a teen, I always wall call this a p99/4A hah) and a 30.06 rifle of unknown provenance--I bought it from a co-worker in the 90's who was down on his luck. There were no makers marks anywhere on the gun, and the gun people I took it to figured it was some kind of foreign Springfield knock-off. Both were sold before I filed for divorce from my previous wife.

Now, I don't have a rifle any longer, but do still have a smith and wesson sd9ve that I've done some custom work to in order to reduce the trigger pull. The guy in the video takes 10 minutes to do it. It took me an hour. Heh

 

[Officer_Charon]

I own a Glock 21 .45 caliber, Generation 2 - my previous sidearm. My current sidearm. Is a Gen 4 Glock 21. Both are kept at home, loaded with spare mags nearby. Personal is kept in a gun safe atop my armor stand. My belt is (currently) kept hung on a door too high for my kids to reach, but only until I can get a safe that will hold both pistols and my taser.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Denbrought]

I am effectively prohibited from owning firearms because of the Brady Act.

 

[Eriol]

Good video about weapons in Canada:

I have this starting where he talks about antique firearms, because I found that the most interesting/insane, but the whole first part is a good summary. 2nd half is about knives/swords/other.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I have a SMLE, SKS, Ruger 10/22, Single Shot 20 gauge shotgun. Ruger P95dc, Springfield Armory .40 XDm. And a Saturday Night Special 9mm that can't fire a full clip with out jamming.

 

[Gruebeard]

And a Saturday Night Special 9mm that can't fire a full clip with out jamming.

I'm picturing a pistol getting down on the dance floor.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I'm picturing a pistol getting down on the dance floor.

Just a pistol that costs less than $100.

And that'd be the Saturday Night Fever...

 

[Gruebeard]

Just a pistol that costs less than $100.

And that'd be the Saturday Night Fever...

You got a new nickname for your gun!

 

[DarkAudit]

 

[PatrThom]

I had no idea something like this existed.
I think I liked it better that way.

--Patrick

 

[Ravenpoe]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen, and I live in Florida.

 

[DarkAudit]

Bright light! Bright light!

 

[PatrThom]

Bright light! Bright light!

Before it was stolen, my father used to have a .357 S&W with a 2in barrel. Firing that thing at night was...impressive.

--Patrick

 

[DarkAudit]

The gun version of Mercedes selling off all it's tooling to produce Trabis...

 

[DarkAudit]

The man who provided the WVU Mountaineer mascots with their trademark black powder muzzleloaders since 1977 has passed away.

 

[PatrThom]

You know, I get what they're going for, but... I really don't think what is essentially blackmail is the right way to go about it.

Salesforce institutes new policy barring retail customers who use its technology from selling semiautomatic weapons and some other firearms.

behind the scenes in recent weeks, the Silicon Valley tech giant has delivered [a] message to gun-selling retailers such as Camping World: Stop selling military-style rifles, or stop using our software.

--Patrick

 

[sixpackshaker]

STOP DOING THIS LEGAL THING OR WE WILL BE UPSET....

I am that weird liberal that believes in constitutional rights.

 

[Tress]

STOP DOING THIS LEGAL THING OR WE WILL BE UPSET....

I am that weird liberal that believes in constitutional rights.

I would argue that the Constitution does not prohibit a business choosing not to work with another business. The Constitution has nothing to do with it and no one's rights are being violated.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Software is a public service, it should be available to anyone that wants to use it and pay. Just like a lunch counter or bakery.

 

[Tress]

Yeah, no. It's not the same at all.

 

[Eriol]

Software is a public service, it should be available to anyone that wants to use it and pay. Just like a lunch counter or bakery.

IIRC you're only prohibited from dealing with someone/thing if you were discriminating on protected grounds (race, sex, a few others). If you're saying "I don't like you because you did X that's unrelated to my business with you" then you're perfectly within your rights to refuse service. Hell, I think it'd be legal to refuse service to anybody wearing a Toupee, but probably prohibited to refuse service to somebody because they're bald. I may not be right on that one though.

So I actually agree with @Tress on this one over you @sixpackshaker .

Now do I think that this is good business, or desirable? No I don't, but I wouldn't say it's a legal matter. That's the tricky thing with many things like "Freedom of Speech" and related: it's only applicable to government most of the time. Because them defining such things gets different because they can actually jail you. Now when you get into corporations doing such, which are "government-esque" in their reach of power, should there be controls on such? Maybe, but maybe not. Maybe more "free" services (beer or speech, take your pick) will dominate as people go away from where they feel they're being controlled. Or maybe not. It gets weirder when it goes into monopoly territory and free speech and "banning" people based on legal speech (Google, Facebook, Twitter), but generally, a business can choose to do (or not) business with anyone they wish.

That's one of the downsides of freedom - you have to let people do "bad" things, because the government policing everything gets darker a lot faster.

 

[PatrThom]

generally, a business can choose to do (or not) business with anyone they wish. That's one of the downsides of freedom - you have to let people do "bad" things, because the government policing everything gets darker a lot faster.

I know I said it before, but a corporation is, by definition, amoral. It doesn't care what it does or doesn't do, whether it even lives or dies.
However, the people driving a corporation, should they be allowed to wield that corporation as a club to further their own agenda?
On the one hand I want to say yes, because that would allow a company to exert pressure on unethical suppliers of labor or materials, but on the other hand this permits a handful of execs to withhold and starve humanitarian causes or support regressive ones, so I admit I'm conflicted about the "should it even be allowed?" part.

--Patrick

 

[blotsfan]

While technically all decisions a publicly traded company makes has to be about making more money, it's easy to sell things like this as "the good PR will make us more than selling to Gander does." Since that's not objectively false (and kinda impossible to prove), it's legal for them to do.

 

[Eriol]

@PatrThom you point out one of the large reasons IMO why Corporations have been able to pervert Western Democracy in so many ways: they weren't accounted for when the structures of such were setup. The power of such an entity was not predicted, hence why there was a lot more effort on dealing with "Great Individuals" (or some variant language thereof) than something like a Corporate Entity. So how to "deal with" them is poorly defined, poorly understood, and thus poorly dealt with.

 

[Bubble181]

While technically all decisions a publicly traded company makes has to be about making more money,

No, they don't, and this lie being told often enough that people now believe it fully is one of the reasons modern democratic capitalism is heading for a great big blow-up. It's exactly what bankers were saying prior to the Great Depression, and before the 2008 crash - and after that second, people apparently didn't learn.

There's no reason why a company, publicly traded or no, should hold money as the one and only guiding principle.

 

[figmentPez]

There's no reason why a company, publicly traded or no, should hold money as the one and only guiding principle.

You're damn right. I can't count how many times I've heard people say "the purpose of a business is to make as much money as possible", and that's absolutely wrong. The purpose of a business is the fair and equatable exchange of goods and/or services. If a business puts making as much money as possible over the practice of fair trade, then they're not a business, they're a scam.

 

[PatrThom]

There's no reason why a company, publicly traded or no, should hold money as the one and only guiding principle.

I mean, there completely is a reason to do so, but that reason is (usually) that shareholders* demand that a company grow, Grow, GROW in order to maximize the return on their investment, consequences be damned. So still profit motive, just once removed.

If a business puts making as much money as possible over the practice of fair trade, then they're not a business, they're a scam.

Well, I wouldn’t say a “scam,” exactly, but I’d certainly agree a business that puts profit above people is not the sort of business that deserves my business (Looking at YOU, healthcare!), if I want that perception to change.

—Patrick
*sometimes “all the shareholders” just means the three funds that hold all their stock, but that just means the profit motive is now twice removed.

 

[Eriol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary

aka: Fiduciary responsibility, or Fiduciary Duty. The only reason to have "good" behavior is if reputation drives more business and money to you. Otherwise, fuck it. Anything else you're told about corporations is an outright lie IMO. It's all a means to an end, or else they aren't doing their job.

 

[figmentPez]

Well, I wouldn’t say a “scam,” exactly, but I’d certainly agree a business that puts profit above people is not the sort of business that deserves my business (Looking at YOU, healthcare!), if I want that perception to change.

If someone knowingly takes advantage of someone (i.e. They intentionally conduct what they know to be an unfair exchange of goods and or services), that's a scam. Scam: to swindle, cheat, defraud, to obtain by deceit. Put it however you want, if someone knows that they are unfairly taking advantage of someone else, they are a crook.

 

[figmentPez]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary

aka: Fiduciary responsibility, or Fiduciary Duty. The only reason to have "good" behavior is if reputation drives more business and money to you. Otherwise, fuck it. Anything else you're told about corporations is an outright lie IMO. It's all a means to an end, or else they aren't doing their job.

While this may be standard practice, I'm talking about ethics and morality, not legality. There are many things which are legal, but that still grossly violate ethics and morality.

Secondly, as you've stated it, such an idea of fiduciary duty would compel people to break the law to fulfill "fiduciary duty". It's an absurd notion that businesses should exist for the sole purpose of making as much money as possible, above and beyond all other interests. It's quite arguable that most businesses do pursue money to that absurd degree, but that's because most people have bought into the idea that such is the ideal form of business. Not only do I challenge that notion, but I firmly reject it, morally and ethically. It should never be accepted, it should never be repeated, and any suggestion that is is inevitable should be shouted down with all the fervor the human race can muster. We are not doomed to be thieves, and we cannot allow ourselves to resign ourselves to institutionalized greed.