How many guns are enough?

[El Kabong]

Before Katrina none, after Katrina two.

What exactly are you so scared off?

If its such an issue to live in that area why don't you just move.

If I may....


Now this is Baton Rouge and not New Orleans but how different is it really? And see the firearms shown in this video I'll go out on a limb and say they ARE NOT LEGAL...probably not registered, probably not licensed, probably owned and operated by felons. So for your little checklist (illegal, illegal, and illegal).

They are also firing off multiple rounds within the city limits which is.......care to take a guess


yeah ILLEGAL

[Beanflicker]

If I may....


Now this is Baton Rouge and not New Orleans but how different is it really? And see the firearms shown in this video I'll go out on a limb and say they ARE NOT LEGAL...probably not registered, probably not licensed, probably owned and operated by felons. So for your little checklist (illegal, illegal, and illegal).

They are also firing off multiple rounds within the city limits which is.......care to take a guess


yeah ILLEGAL

Just because so many criminals and thugs own and use firearms, doesn't mean the average Joe needs legal guns of his own...a fter you're murdered, the cops will probably catch them and a judge will probably convict them. And crime scene cleaners do great work and are sure to get those pesky blood stains out of your carpet.

All gun control does is make it harder for the good guys to protect themselves. We know that, everyone with a clue knows that.

Americans should have multiple guns, placed around the house in safe, strategic locations.

[Master]

You are from Canada, you want them all to shoot themselves and die.

[Beanflicker]

You are from Canada, you want them all to shoot themselves and die.

Shhhhh... our secret.

[imp]

Before Katrina none, after Katrina two.

What exactly are you so scared off?

If its such an issue to live in that area why don't you just move.

If I may....


Now this is Baton Rouge and not New Orleans but how different is it really? And see the firearms shown in this video I'll go out on a limb and say they ARE NOT LEGAL...probably not registered, probably not licensed, probably owned and operated by felons. So for your little checklist (illegal, illegal, and illegal).

They are also firing off multiple rounds within the city limits which is.......care to take a guess


yeah ILLEGAL

Kabong,

Your just scared of anything black.

Grow a pair...please.

[bozo6]

Guns are a tool. You need different tools for different jobs.

The 'jobs' you are likely to encounter are;

* Walk em up hunting. AND,
*Tree stand or ambush hunting.

3 different game categories; Small, medium and large game, requires 3 different tools. Walking with a rifle all day also requires some consideration to weight of the rifle and its 'handiness', Barrel length.
Small game; Bolt action .17wmr
Medium game; Bolt action 22/250, 243, 7mm08.
Large game; semi-auto, bolt action 270, 30/06 (or larger)

*Varmining

As you are in one position and not walking around, weight is not a major concern, accuracy and range is.
Small game; Bolt action, 17wmr to 22/250 or 220 swift.
Medium game; Bolt action, 243 all the way to the 25/06 and the Weatherby range of large varmint calibres.
Large game; Bolt action, Take your pick of anything over 27 cal. Preferably over 30 cal


*Bird hunting.

12GA shotgun. Pump, semi-auto, over and under.

*Scrub gun for medium game.

Short barrel lever, pump action shotgun or rifle. Winchester 'trapper' 44/40, 30/30. BLR 308.

*Fun gun.

Cheap shooting rifle for shooting tin cans, targets etc.
Lever action, pump or semi-auto .22.

So I think one could get away with just having 10 rifles and a shotgun or 2. But as its a hobby, interest in a new style of rifle or new calibre will always motivate us to get a new toy..

[TitoFan]

There's probably some of those on this rack. Scoot the Pampers over a little bit, have the little girl get off and help push the shopping cart, and the guy could easily kill two birds (excuse the pun) with one stone.

[Bill Paxtom]

A gun can be used as an instrument.

At one time, a pretty good 'raunchy' Hard Rock band.

[greynotsoold]

I think about 175 would be good. There would be more but I dont see the point in the very light caliber rifles or the very large caliber handguns.

[El Kabong]

The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality: The Independent Review: The Independent Institute


The "Wild" West, pfffft more like The "Mild" West

[SlimTrae]

The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality: The Independent Review: The Independent Institute


The "Wild" West, pfffft more like The "Mild" West

I stand by the claim that bad guys get access to all kinds of guns- including the 1800's- there is no era innocent or free from killers; none.


This (sole-single) link you gave -by Anderson, Hill & Umbeck, backed by a Bruce Benson gives you the confidence to say the “West was not violent?
I focused on (2) things:
1. Their claims
2. Their sources for such claims (they gave quite a few references at the end )

As I read-Something stood out- like sweaty buttocks: ass open: I noticed_ ALL of the material can be dated 1860-1890
Are the writers insinuating that :
the West wasn't wild until 1860-1890? then they blame Indians for it?

Every historical source I've come across are in agreement that by the 1880's the Vaudeville shows were a success- because it allowed the old WEST to be relived on stage. the Anny Oakleys of the world went on tour- acting out a time that had come and gone- BUT according to the writer(s) of the link U provided, the west --just got wild? Did I miss any references? At the bottom they all detail 3 decades- that's it.


They refuse to site the names of criminals during the 1800's. I mean even I know that some of the stories were embellished. Yet the names are real. Wyatt Earp to Johnny Ringo, Billy the Kid, Abran Baca the Outlaw who was lynched by a vigilante committee, his brother Antonio Baca: killed by authorities to James Malone executed for murder.


But this article says fuck even acknowledging those names. Why? These criminals came after the invention of the camera- - they took photos- so we know they existed!! At least put their names out in this article then invent/lie makeup some shit as how/why Hollywood took their 2 or 3 killings and turned them into 2 or 300. But, no. They said fuck it all together.

Index of Old West Outlaws - M
The above link is one of (many) records that government had- in order to pursue those who did have guns and used them illegally.


Then this link U have pissed all over the government for what they did to Indians --and they pulled it off without having to name people- (blame the government but not the soldiers who executed what the government asked them to do-...then if indians respond- well then- THAT is the west going wild?

Indians killin' mofos. Speed up to 2015- black killing mofo's -outside of these two- it appears that writer wants me to think guns haven't caused problems in America, they prevent them.

ALL of their resources hinges on the Lincoln era. No wonder they claim the west wasnt wild- they did no fucking research on it (the 1800's)-

They researched the end of the 1800's- 1860-1890, then zeroed in on the effects of the civil war & the profiteers- Republicans, Lincoln and a few families- the ones that when I name them- I'm called a liberal...well now these guys are tearing the booty lining outta republican politicians just to claim- the west wasnt wild.


By their perspective of looking at 1860-1890, I'd begrudgingly agree with them. However if they look at how many guns were owned by common people since the advent of mass producing them. They'd have to ask, what for? Why do you need guns in an era that isn't (WILD)?
- Let me re-read over one other point they mentioned---brb...

[SlimTrae]

This article isn't rewriting history rather it is ignoring it- in order to deflect the evil that gun-toters brought to this continent. This seems true when the article sites this: It is untrue that white European settlers were always at war with Indians, as popular folklore contends. After all, Indians assisted the Pilgrims and celebrated the first Thanksgiving with them;

Really? How many tribes sat down and ate squash with these puritans?

And what about France, Italy Holland, Spain; several European nations were already here. Did they partake in this feast? How does this writer pretend that ALL INDIANS celebrated with Pilgrim taking puritans? That is geographically impossible. Cherokee & Pochanatans is all he named-he's short by about a hundred or so tribes.

The writer then continues cleaning up history with this: As Jennifer Roback has written, “Europeans generally acknowledged that the Indians retained possessory rights to their lands. By the twentieth century, some $800 million had been paid for Indian lands.


When did this begin? early or late 1800s? and what was the natives supposed to do with paper printed with words they had no fucking clue of?

They weren't allowed on the premise(s) of these lands so called paid for. And paper currency is meant as a debt for trade of resources- well shit: resources are apart of the land. So why would they need paper to access that which was stolen/bought for?

And why does the diaries of pilgrims contradict this? The narration of the Mayflower rejects this all day long. By 1640 the Narragansett tribe to name one- were betrayed by the children of the 1st generation of the Mayflower- The writer(s) of this seems oblivious to King Phillip's war- Natives were long at odds with Puritans before the 1860...this dude has to be on some meth or something to even pretend... Natives were long at odds with puritans and those who came afterward 1700's and on.

Why does the founder of Rhode Island aka Roger Williams the 1st baptist contradict this? He wrote the blood tenant in which he CLEARLY stated he was to be kicked out of the colonies for bad mouthing Massachusetts for stealing land from the natives. Not according to this link- shit; they paid for land.

The writer(s) would have me believe Indians were paid well for their land- yet they still did (something) to create the (wild) for the western territory. Based on Lincoln & a reference to a link in this article called him (NOT SO HONEST) Abe.

a quote from it: We are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians check and stop the progress [of the railroads],” Sherman wrote to Ulysses S. Grant in 1867 (qtd. in Fellman 1995, 264

Well if there are just a few..and they are ragged- how do they contribute to the west becoming (WILD)?

W*rites Benson, “[t]here were few instances of violence on the wagon trains even when food became extremely scarce and starvation threatened.

In other words: never have Europeans manifested primal behavior- even in the worst of times- they were civil.

The contractual system of law effectively generated cooperation rather than conflict, and effectively quelled through nonviolent means” (1998, 105).



So there it is. The West wasn't wild, so guns weren't a problem. And when it became wild- blame the Indians. As today blame the gangs which are primarily African-American.

In reality- The west was wild, the 1920's were roaring with gangs, mafia driven and today guns are still able to find the hands of evildoers as in the past. EVIL--- To whom belong no specific people, be they black, white,, red male or female exists in all eras. And when guns are plenty- they get their fair share.

Since we want to be a nation of gun-toters- the least we can do: is ensure those who get them legally- should have the right to carry them--and as many. But if they choose to sell them- how the heck do they not become responsible for what becomes them? We should learn from the Wild West, the Roaring 20's that too many guns produced will fall into the hands of sick & evil.

Have the right to bare arms- but have the godliness to ensure none of our brethren or neighbors sell them to the unfaithful, the crazy, the sick, the evil just for a profit.