Page 1 of 2
#1
The bi-annual gun show I attend is next Saturday and Sunday. I have work on Saturday, so I guess I'll be going Sunday. I have about $300 just sitting around....... doing nothing....... I just bought two effects pedals so I don't really need anything music oriented right now. If you had $200-$300 just sitting around, what ya buy?

Oh, and this is another one of those "I don't care what you say about guns, I'm buying one anyways" type threads. Anti's need not post, trolling will be swiftly and joyfully reported.

I'm thinking a Walther P-22, $300ish. A .22 pistol would be awesome.


Or a Ruger10/22. A semi-automatic .22 rifle would be awesome.


Or an AR-15 .22LR conversion kit would be awesome.... or like an WWII Japanese Arisaka or something. The Arisaka would be cool, but the ammo (6.5mm for the Type 38, 7.7mm for the Type 99) would need to be handloaded myself. The new production is expensive, and the surplus is rare/down right dangerious.

I dunno. :P
#2
i know nothing about guns... but that first one looks BADASS
Last edited by just17n8 at Feb 18, 2008,
#3
if i was going to get a handgun like that i would go for something a bit bigger than a .22...although they are incredibly cheap to shoot and mantain. whatever floats your boat i guess.
Quote by Peradactyl
alright, off topic but how do i make forum posts



Quote by The_Paranoia
a4lrocker is an offical thread legend.
#4
dude... get more money and buy a desert eagle. that is if they are legal
Quote by TinPants
ramen is the greatest achievement of mankind since pornographic photography.
#6
Yeah, man, get something larger than a .22. My handgun of choice is a Sig p226. Pick one up and see how it feels. Depending on the reason of buying....a 9mm isn't really practical. Get a .45. For home defense, it will have more stopping power.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot. Sig makes a .22 version of the p226. Its just as awesome, but a bit smaller. If you find you like Sig, then it would be worth checking out.
X Sign Here
#8
Yeah, i'd get a sweet pistol, or a .17 Magnum Rifle, cause those things pack a punch for being so little!
Hello
#9
I use to have a .22 pistol. Lots of fun, I would recommend it over the rifle.
Quote by C O B H C
If you want to get really technical about it..

1. Grab sticks.
2. Bang sticks on drums.


^how to play drums.


UG POKER
#10
My dad has the ruger 10/22 it is a very solid and acurate rifle. IF you are more interested in the pistol shooting sport then find a nice .22 semi-auto hadngun and take it to the range for some target practice.
#11


Dude. Step up to one of those .22's. 'Tis what I use (for shooting paper targets)
When the music's over, turn out the lights.


Quote by pencap
i fingerd my girl the other day she got so wet nearly my entier hand was soked after that i ate her up, she blacked out it was awesome
#12
led/hed has a Ruger Mark 3 .22 pistol. I love it. It's around that price range.
To a shredder, a second is a long time.

Member of the UG Gentlemen of Higher Thought Establishment.

Invite only, if you want to be considered, contribute well to UG, and respect others as much as possible!
#13
Quote by ZedLeppy


Dude. Step up to one of those .22's. 'Tis what I use (for shooting paper targets)

Anschutz? I've done a fair bit of that when I was younger, never got 100 though (using outward gauging of course). 99 was my best. I reckon if I'd continued (left the club and went to uni) for just a little bit longer I would have been shooting perfect cards, I made a lot of progress just before I left.

Edit: Looking at your profile you are probably a lot better than I was
...Bleep Bloop...
#14
Quote by bendystraw
guns are evil.


Guns are inanimate objects.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#15




I have some larger caliber handguns, I was wanting a .22 for the cheap shooting.

Quote by ldl67
inanimate objects made for killing.

0.000003% of which are actually used to kill. So I guess 99.999997% are misused.
Last edited by -Wolverine- at Feb 18, 2008,
#16
Between me and my dad we have 3 10/22's and you will not be disappointed

they're beauties to shoot and you can mod them up to just about anything
#17
Quote by Archeo Avis
Guns are inanimate objects.

inanimate objects made for killing.
sup?
#18
Quote by ldl67
inanimate objects made for killing.


Inanimate objects made for launching small projectiles at high speeds, towards whatever the user points it at. If guns are made for killing, I've failed miserably every time I've gone to the range.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#19
Quote by GHJ
Anschutz? I've done a fair bit of that when I was younger, never got 100 though (using outward gauging of course). 99 was my best. I reckon if I'd continued (left the club and went to uni) for just a little bit longer I would have been shooting perfect cards, I made a lot of progress just before I left.

Edit: Looking at your profile you are probably a lot better than I was


Heh. Is competition rifle popular in the UK? It's not all too popular here in the states.

If you were using the A-17 targets, that's not so bad. I shoot 100-10x's lol.
When the music's over, turn out the lights.


Quote by pencap
i fingerd my girl the other day she got so wet nearly my entier hand was soked after that i ate her up, she blacked out it was awesome
#20
Quote by Archeo Avis
Inanimate objects made for launching small projectiles at high speeds.


Anyone who thinks guns aren't made for killing is an idiot.
Fender Classic Player 60s Strat
Washburn HB35
PRS Santana SE
Yamaha Pacifica 112MX
Vox AD30VT
Fender Champion 600
Dunlop wah
Danelectro Cool Cat fuzz
#21
Quote by Archeo Avis
Inanimate objects made for launching small projectiles at high speeds,

primarily for killing. guns weren't invented for shooting soda cans
#22
Quote by -Wolverine-




I have some larger caliber handguns, I was wanting a .22 for the cheap shooting.


0.000003% of which are actually used to kill. So I guess 99.999997% are misused.



bad wolverine, bad!

your eye is closed, whats with that mess?
#23
Quote by bendystraw
primarily for killing. guns weren't invented for shooting soda cans


Strangely, I've never used them for killing. Regardless, it really doesn't matter what they were made for.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#24
Quote by 5kuzgib
Anyone who thinks guns aren't made for killing is an idiot.


<--- idiot.... i find target practice a great stress relieve

guns in the hands of MURDERERS (sp?) are made for killing
#25
Quote by Archeo Avis
Inanimate objects made for launching small projectiles at high speeds, towards whatever the user points it at. If guns are made for killing, I've failed miserably every time I've gone to the range.

that is what they can be used for, but they were obviously invented for killing...
sup?
#26
Quote by ldl67
that is what they can be used for, but they were obviously invented for killing...


I don't care if they were invented for shooting black orphaned puppies, I use mine for target shooting.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#27
I blink from the recoil..........

......

Pre-blink:



Quote by Archeo Avis
Strangely, I've never used them for killing. Regardless, it really doesn't matter what they were made for.

Purpose is ultimately irrelevant, use is what is most important.

People cite the guns "original purpose" (which is what, 500 years old?) as some kind of half assed argument against guns. What they don't realize is that, assuming one gun to one death (this actually works for the anti's), 0.000003% of the nations guns this year will be used to kill. And 0.00011% (assuming one "gun owner" to each death, again, working for the anti's) of all "gun owners" will kill someone this year.

Arms control has historically been used for slavery and genocide, does this make it bad? Does that mean that the anti's support slavery and genocide? Answer, no, but they contradict themselves if they use the "original purpose" argument on guns, but refuse to admit to favoring slavery and genocide.

Anyone who says that "guns r madez 2 killz!!111" is narrow minded and knows nothing of the sport.
Last edited by -Wolverine- at Feb 18, 2008,
#28
Quote by ZedLeppy
Heh. Is competition rifle popular in the UK? It's not all too popular here in the states.

If you were using the A-17 targets, that's not so bad. I shoot 100-10x's lol.


Not massively popular, most of the clubs members were at least 30 - 40 yrs old, many 50+.

I don't know what you call the targets, but they had ten bulls on them, four on top, two in the middle row, and four again on the bottom row. They look similar to the A-17's I found on google, they just have the bulls arranged differently.
...Bleep Bloop...
#29
Quote by kossner
Yeah, man, get something larger than a .22. My handgun of choice is a Sig p226. Pick one up and see how it feels. Depending on the reason of buying....a 9mm isn't really practical. Get a .45. For home defense, it will have more stopping power.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot. Sig makes a .22 version of the p226. Its just as awesome, but a bit smaller. If you find you like Sig, then it would be worth checking out.


a little .22 through the head will kill you. As will a 9mm. Obviously a .45 will be more effective at stopping someone because of its higher caliber, but caliber doesn't really matter if you take one in the head.

And also, most people have never been shot before so even a little .22 round hitting anywhere on the body is enough for drop someone in pain.

I want to get a .22 handgun because the bullets are cheap. I have a Glock 17 9mm and go through 30$ of bullets (200 or so) in like an hour. For 30$ you can buy 500-1000 rounds of .22 rounds.

BTW this thread is starting to turn out like my gun thread, soon this will become a 10+ page debate over why the UK is better because they don't have guns.
Last edited by Dixie Whiskey at Feb 18, 2008,
#30
Quote by hard_rock101
dude... get more money and buy a desert eagle. that is if they are legal


And this guy's a dumbass.
#32
The Desert Eagle would be about $1,000 - $1,500.

So.... no. I haven't broken $1,000 on any of my single gun purchases, so I want to get a better job(s) before I cross that line.
#33
Quote by bendystraw
primarily for killing. guns weren't invented for shooting soda cans

and neither were bows and arrows,
but i don't see you flipping a bitch when the archery competition comes on on ESPN or something.
#34
Quote by -Wolverine-

People cite the guns "original purpose" (which is what, 500 years old?) as some kind of half assed argument against guns. What they don't realize is that, assuming one gun to one death (this actually works for the anti's), 0.000003% of the nations guns this year will be used to kill. And 0.00011% (assuming one "gun owner" to each death, again, working for the anti's) of all "gun owners" will kill someone this year.

Arms control has historically been used for slavery and genocide, does this make it bad? Does that mean that the anti's support slavery and genocide? Answer, no, but they contradict themselves if they use the "original purpose" argument on guns, but refuse to admit to favoring slavery and genocide.

Anyone who says that "guns r madez 2 killz!!111" is narrow minded and knows nothing of the sport.

And how many gun owners is that? Does it matter that it's a low percentage? They are still unnecessary deaths, and should be taken seriously.
sup?
#35
Quote by ldl67
And how many gun owners is that? Does it matter that it's a low percentage? They are still unnecessary deaths, and should be taken seriously.


All murders are "unnecessary", the problem comes when you assume that banning inanimate objects will change anything (I point you to the UK, where burglary and assault rates are higher than many places in America, and the government itself has testified that there are millions of illegal weapons on the street)
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#36
Quote by bendystraw
guns are evil.


no, evil people who have guns are evil.
Quote by Spoony_Bard
Depends on what she's on top of. If she's on top of my pizza I'm gonna have to scissor kick a bitch.


MY BUILD!
#37
Quote by bendystraw
primarily for killing. guns weren't invented for shooting soda cans


primarily for protection (police in particular)

and fun (shooting soda cans, targets, etc.)

yes people do kill with them, but if you tried hard enough, you could kill someone with a spoon. I think its safe to say that spoons aren't evil.

btw, gtfo, TS specifically said that no one cares if you don't like guns
Quote by Spoony_Bard
Depends on what she's on top of. If she's on top of my pizza I'm gonna have to scissor kick a bitch.


MY BUILD!
#38
Quote by -Wolverine-

Purpose is ultimately irrelevant, use is what is most important.

People cite the guns "original purpose" (which is what, 500 years old?) as some kind of half assed argument against guns. What they don't realize is that, assuming one gun to one death (this actually works for the anti's), 0.000003% of the nations guns this year will be used to kill. And 0.00011% (assuming one "gun owner" to each death, again, working for the anti's) of all "gun owners" will kill someone this year.

Arms control has historically been used for slavery and genocide, does this make it bad? Does that mean that the anti's support slavery and genocide? Answer, no, but they contradict themselves if they use the "original purpose" argument on guns, but refuse to admit to favoring slavery and genocide.

Anyone who says that "guns r madez 2 killz!!111" is narrow minded and knows nothing of the sport.

btw, I went over your maths from your thread the other night and it's wrong

you need to multiply your 0.00011 by 100 to make it a percentage, as it stands it's just a fraction. edit: fraction expressed as a decimal.

plus you used 11000 as your homicide number when it's actually like 25000.

edit: also based on 220,000,000 weapons in america you're 0.000003% figure doesn't work out either.
Last edited by freedoms_stain at Feb 18, 2008,
#39
I was never taught to multiply by 100. :?

11,000 gun related homicides. Not all homicides.

The number of guns is based on 270,000,000.
#40


this graph says 10 gun related deaths per 100,000 population

which = 30,000 with a population of 300,000,000.

and even if it was based on 11000 the result is 0.011%

because:

what percentage of 10 is 2? 2/10= 0.2, multiply by 100 = 20% that's how percentage calculations work. So you've been doing it wrong.

so 11,000/80,000,000 = 1.375 x10 to the -4(or 0.0001375, so your calculation to this point was even wrong), x100 = 0.01375%

so your calculation = wrong

believe it or not adding 60 million guns won't change your results by 4 orders of magnetude (10,000x)

based on the figures I could find your calculations are widely out.

edit: can I just say I'm not arguing gun control here, just pointing out the stats you keep issuing appear to be false.
Page 1 of 2