UN global gun control

Pages: 1234
closed account (3qX21hU5)
It would all depends on the the additional kit you add to the rifles. AR-15's can easily hit the $1,500 mark with a high powered scope only. So yes I can see $1,500 as a realistic number, and $800 as realistic when your buying stock one. It would also depend on the state your buying one in to.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
I wounder how much an Accuracy International L115A3 Long Range Rifle would cost? I saw a program, I think it was "Weapons that changed the world" (about the M1 Garand Rifle) and they had a little bit about the L115A3.
If this article's accurate, then 34,000 USD
http://www.gizmag.com/worlds-longest-sniper-kill-247km/14992/
I'd love to get one of those. Even though I'm in favour of gun control, I can't pretend I don't like them. The k98k or Mosin-nagant are cool too.
Last edited on
I think anyone would like one of those :P

You can Mosin-nagants for cheap though. It's not uncommon to find them for $100 here.
@ResidentBuscuit

If you don't mind, where are you getting your AR-15 prices from? Two months ago I could buy stock AR-15 rifles for ~$750, but I checked all of the local dealers last week and the cheapest one (Bushmaster) was over $1,300 and that didn't even include a case! AR-15 Colts are going for ~$1,800 here in northern Pennsylvania. Soon, only the upper-class will be able to afford them, I fear...

On another side-note, I'm looking into joining a registered militia here in the free state of Pennsylvania. It's such a great thing that residents of society have the opportunity to protect their own communities.
Last edited on
I was just at a gun show this weekend, and seeing an AR-15 that was $1500 meant it had multiple accessories. For example, there was an Olympic Arms AR-15 (fitted for .223 and 5.56x45 NATO) there for 1400, that had a fore grip with attached LED flash light, holographic sight, high powered red laser, telescoping stock, and they threw in a couple extra magazines.

Stock AR-15's from various vendors were all selling for under $800. Unless of course you looked at Colt. Those were up there, but there was even Bushmaster stock AR-15's for less 800 there.

On a side note, anyone else want to own a Scar some day? They're pricey (didn't see one for under $2700 at the show) but they're nice. Two different main models, one fires a 5.56, the other a 7.62.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR
I've already seceded and formed my own country, I just haven't told anyone. I knew I couldn't single-handedly take on the worlds strongest military, so I strategically decided not to march into their capital announcing my treason. Funny how that works.
Last edited on
what you gonna do with these weapons other than cuddle them at nite and post facebook photos of yourselves posing with them?



mosin nagant is a beautiful rifle, is it the same one most of the russian snipers used in st petersburg?
Last edited on
I use weapons to hunt and personal defense. And I like to take them out and just shoot. Yes, mosin nagant was used heavily by Russia/Soviet Union
some guns i understand, i envy you for being able to go and hunt, plinking with an air rifle was allways satisfying i bet its 100 times more fun with a real rifle over larger distances.

the scar on the other hand is gonna be usless on the street for self defence on and aint gonna leave you much deer left either
Last edited on
closed account (3qX21hU5)
It turns into a hobby of collecting guns just to have them. Everyone likes to collect something it doesn't mean they use them.

Like take computers for example. A lot of people have really high end computer systems and always have to have the top notch stuff. In reality most of them don't need that powerful of a computer to do what they usually do. But they keep on upgrading because they enjoy it and its a hobby. The same can be said for collecting guns.
the scar on the other hand is gonna be usless on the street for self defence on and aint gonna leave you much deer left either


Once again, the Scar fires the same round that people hunt with. 5.56 NATO is equivalent to a .223, 7.62 Nato is equivalent to a .308. I own a .308 hunting rifle, and I know people who own .223 hunting rifles. It's all just a different look. I would never hunt with a Scar though. It's a big, heavy gun. It would just be cool to own. And imagine what someone would think if they break in your house and you're there with that in your hands.
devonrevenge wrote:
what you gonna do with these weapons other than cuddle them at nite and post facebook photos of yourselves posing with them?


"Rare" models are great investments. My employer spent $22,000 on a military stamped early M-16 (I'm not sure of the exact specs) with all of the proper holding permits. After a few months of having it, he was offered $28,000 for it. I can only assume that as they get harder to find, the values will continue to rise. My dream rifle is one of the old Vietnam era "Colt/Armalite" AR-15s, but realistically, I will never be able to afford one.
Last edited on
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
I have never met anyone who understands what a gun is for who was not in the military. Every gun collector I ever met had serious self-image problems.
@chwsks

"what a gun is for" is very subjective. I've not been enrolled in the US military, yet I have my own ideas of what my guns are for including:

1) Recreational shooting
2) Competitive shooting
3) Hunting
4) Heritage - my father, his father, and as far back as I can find enjoyed the above list. I will continue this trend, as I enjoy it, and I am sure that my children will enjoy it as well. The sci-fi future of yesterday that's becoming a reality today really scares me for future generations' sakes. I won't sit back and let the past be forgotten simply because of a view held by others.

Notice I haven't put self-defense on that list, as I am fortunate enough to live in a rural community that has never (as far back as I can remember [20+ years]) had an incident that warranted the use of a firearm between people private civilians.

Final note -

If anyone believes that the primary use of a gun is KILLING PEOPLE...that's seriously messed up.
Last edited on
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
If anyone believes that the primary use of a gun is KILLING PEOPLE...that's seriously messed up.


When my kids were young they wanted to go shooting, I took them because I wanted them to know how to handle a gun.

Every time I handed them the rifle I would ask them, what is a gun for? And they were expected to answer "a gun is for killing". I did not want them to think they were using a toy. My kids know that each time you handle a gun you look in the chamber and personally check to see if there is a round there.

I have met people who own handguns who were unsure how to check if a round had been chambered. Their own gun that they bought for protection.

Guns are for killing.

I was in the military, my father was in the military, his father was in, and my son is presently in. Not one of us ever had to kill but we all knew/know what guns are for.
im changing my mind with this gun thing as we speak, its a big part of american culture i guess, a man might want an m16 then try and find the reason for having it afterwards, i think the real reason nutcases fill their house with guns is because even though
guns are for killing
theyre going to be fun to own.

when i gun person tells you they are very serious things ... dangerous things that must be respected at all costs he may not tell you how much joy and fun he has being serious about them and with them.


i noticed that about bikers too, they want to have fun burning around and scaring old ladies but dont want to look like they enjoying themselves are in the process.

thats why i had to stash my air rifle when gypsy kids came to hang out, i knew it was a matter of time till theyre shooting each other...and me and stuff, you just get carried away with the danger/fun thing
Last edited on
Swords are for killing too, as are knives. Should we ban those as well? No one seems to care about people who collect swords/knives, but everyone flips out when someone collects guns. Both were originally intended to kill, but both are now old enough that there are modern and antique versions and people collect both. What then, is the difference? Obviously we shouldn't let just anyone buy a high powered semi automatic rifle, but a full ban is completely ridiculous, overkill and uncalled for. Guns have MANY other legitimate, legal and safe uses other than killing.
@chwsks

I have nothing but respect for you and both your father's and son's service in the armed forces, but there lies a discrepancy in the points that we both make. Guns can be meant for killing, yes. It all depends on the context in which they're used. All children should learn the basic "laws" of firearms - one of the cardinal rules being to know at all times whether the firearm is loaded or not. (Another being to never aim the firearm at another person - be it loaded or not.) The only aspect of this argument that I am stressing is that the main use for firearms (in the general context of civilian possession) is not killing people. There is a very big difference between "guns are meant for killing" and "guns are meant for killing people" that I want to make perfectly clear. I believe that any civilian that thinks that "guns are meant for killing people" is flat-out wrong (and furthermore shouldn't own a firearm on counts of mental instability). In a military context, it's different in some cases, but for civilians, even the notion of a gun killing another person is obscene unless in the most dire (rare) of circumstances.

I apologize if I have offended you, but I do stand behind my beliefs, and will continue to do so.
Last edited on
Pages: 1234