StarDestroyer.Net BBS

salm wrote:

noooo, look at the mauser homepage. it sucks!

http://www.mauserwaffen.de

Do you mean the webpage sucks, or the Mauser rifle sucks?

If the latter, I can't understand what would make you think so. The Mauser bolt action G98 was rightly considered one of the all time great military rifles. Extreme strength, reliability, and accuracy were its strong points.

I had a Brazilian contract contract G98 in 7x57mm Mauser that I sold a couple of years ago. It was just a battered, old service grade military rifle, not some match grade weapon, and it was so accurate that I could get 1 inch groups at 100 yards. That is referred to as "minute of angle", and it is very accurate indeed.

I only paid $100 for the rifle and bayonet together too. Talk about value for money.

I'm not a rifle expert, but my father has a small arsenal (for hunting). I think his favorite is something like:

http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/win73C.htm

I most likely have the model year wrong. I'm not sure if his love of the gun has to do with performance, he's also a western movie freak.

Perinquus wrote:

salm wrote:

noooo, look at the mauser homepage. it sucks!

http://www.mauserwaffen.de

Do you mean the webpage sucks, or the Mauser rifle sucks?

If the latter, I can't understand what would make you think so. The Mauser bolt action G98 was rightly considered one of the all time great military rifles. Extreme strength, reliability, and accuracy were its strong points.

I had a Brazilian contract contract G98 in 7x57mm Mauser that I sold a couple of years ago. It was just a battered, old service grade military rifle, not some match grade weapon, and it was so accurate that I could get 1 inch groups at 100 yards. That is referred to as "minute of angle", and it is very accurate indeed.

I only paid $100 for the rifle and bayonet together too. Talk about value for money.

The mauser bolt action is what all other bolt action rifles are measured against. There are literally hundreds of other rifles out that use basically the same action as the Mauser 98/96.

NF_Utvol wrote:
The mauser bolt action is what all other bolt action rifles are measured against. There are literally hundreds of other rifles out that use basically the same action as the Mauser 98/96.

It's only real rival is the Lee-Enfield, which is not quite as strong or generally quite as accurate, but is a bit smoother and slightly faster to manipulate. The American Springfield really is a Mauser. It was so close a copy that the U.S. government paid the Deutshe Waffen und Munitionsfabriken a royalty on every Springfield made.

Sorry, I just have a thing against owning a gun just because you can.

I think its pointless and stupid.

weemadando wrote:Sorry, I just have a thing against owning a gun just because you can.

I think its pointless and stupid.

Eh? WTF are you talking about? Not only is it a great way to relax by heading out to the range, it's also a great way to improve your concentration ability and I'm also learning how to hunt and I don't want to keep relying on other people's guns.

Coyote wrote:I too once lived in the People's Republic of California (the only state in the union with a red star and a bear on its flag... hmmm..) and some people seem to feel thay have an obligation to flip you shit if you own icky old guns.

weemadando wrote:What should you get?

A real fucking hobby.

And right on cue, as if to prove my point...

weemadando wrote:Sorry, I just have a thing against owning a gun just because you can.

I think its pointless and stupid.

My advice-- don't buy a gun, then.

Whizzing in everyone else's Corn Flakes just because you can is also a bit stupid and pointless, eh?

weemadando wrote:What should you get?

A real fucking hobby.

Sooo.. what's a real fucking hobby then?

.22 Semi-Auto Springfields are fun. Go try hunting rabbits with it. It's fun though sometimes difficult. I know it's called a shotgun but semi-automatics are better. I'd also recommend a Swedish 6.5x55 Rifle. Or if you historically accurate I'm buying my a K98. Killing varmnit Nazi Style! Other goodies are Semi-Auto BARs and Ganards.

weemadando wrote:Sorry, I just have a thing against owning a gun just because you can.

I think its pointless and stupid.

Maybe bouncing a little rubber ball on concrete and throwing it through a metal hoop is pointless and stupid.

Whacking a ball 200 yards with a metal club, only to chase it down and whack it again looks pretty pointless and stupid.

Maybe climbing onto a six foot-long piece of wood and trying to hitch a ride on waves to travel right back to the beach you started from is pointless and stupid.

Racing little remote control cars around a circular track is kind of pointless and stupid.

Jumping out of perfectly good airplanes might be pointless and stupid.

When you get right down to it, almost anything people do purely for fun might appear as pointless and stupid, mightn't it?

Objectively, how are any of these activities less pointless and stupid than drilling holes in paper targets with a gun?

But going out of your way to insult and sneer at people, just because they enjoy a pastime you happen not to like... THAT'S pointless and stupid, not to mention boorish and immature.

For your FIRST gun, I recomend the Ruger 10-22.
THE best 22 rifle EVER!
Cheap, reliable, accurate.

weemadando wrote:Sorry, I just have a thing against owning a gun just because you can.

I think its pointless and stupid.

THEN DON'T BUY ONE!

No one is making you buy one. Your loss, not ours. Just because you have a personal vendetta against them doesn't mean that you should take it out on everyone else.

Perinquus wrote: But going out of your way to insult and sneer at people, just because they enjoy a pastime you happen not to like... THAT'S pointless and stupid, not to mention boorish and immature.

Its not just a pasttime that I don't like - its my own opinion that gun ownership for the sake of it is stupid. If you are a farmer - fine, you need a gun. If you are a hunter - fine, have a .44 deer rifle or something. But its the people who buy handguns and assault rifles just because they enjoy punching holes in paper (and sadly, all too often other people) that shit me.

How often do you see slot-cars kill people? Windsurfers? Golf-balls (OK, that happens occassionally)? When was the last time you saw someone brained by a speeding basketball?

My issue is with firearms ownership "just because", and the culture that sadly tends to surround it.

Emperor Chrostas the Crue wrote:For your FIRST gun, I recomend the Ruger 10-22.
THE best 22 rifle EVER!
Cheap, reliable, accurate.

10-22s are fun to shoot, and I own one myself (Mannichler laminated stock, Leupold scope, very nice gun), but I wouldn't recommend one for the beginner.

It is best to go with a single shot or bolt action, as it helps develop your shooting discipline.

weemadando wrote:

Perinquus wrote: But going out of your way to insult and sneer at people, just because they enjoy a pastime you happen not to like... THAT'S pointless and stupid, not to mention boorish and immature.

Its not just a pasttime that I don't like - its my own opinion that gun ownership for the sake of it is stupid. If you are a farmer - fine, you need a gun. If you are a hunter - fine, have a .44 deer rifle or something. But its the people who buy handguns and assault rifles just because they enjoy punching holes in paper (and sadly, all too often other people) that shit me.

How often do you see slot-cars kill people? Windsurfers? Golf-balls (OK, that happens occassionally)? When was the last time you saw someone brained by a speeding basketball?

My issue is with firearms ownership "just because", and the culture that sadly tends to surround it.

Do you realize that there are more people hurt each year playing PING PONG than the shooting sports?

And you cannot buy a real assault rifle in the United States...

And why not own a gun 'just because'?

You haven't made a good argument against it yet.

You just HAD to turn this into a gun control debate cause you think the big bad gun is gonna come and get you.

weemadando wrote:

Perinquus wrote: But going out of your way to insult and sneer at people, just because they enjoy a pastime you happen not to like... THAT'S pointless and stupid, not to mention boorish and immature.

Its not just a pasttime that I don't like - its my own opinion that gun ownership for the sake of it is stupid. If you are a farmer - fine, you need a gun. If you are a hunter - fine, have a .44 deer rifle or something. But its the people who buy handguns and assault rifles just because they enjoy punching holes in paper (and sadly, all too often other people) that shit me.

How often do you see slot-cars kill people? Windsurfers? Golf-balls (OK, that happens occassionally)? When was the last time you saw someone brained by a speeding basketball?

My issue is with firearms ownership "just because", and the culture that sadly tends to surround it.

I don't understand your logic. People are killed more often by cars, and people own a great many cars just because. Christ, in other countries people take the public transportation system! How about bicycle accidents? How many people are killed on those godforsaken things, not to mention motorcycles! Jesus H. Christ! And why will people risk injury with skateboards is beyond me. Oh, let's not forget Hockey where by placing yourself on the rink opens you to a flying fist.

And let's outlaw baseball too! How many times has a person been whacked by a baseball bat? God only knows!

Get off your high horse there. If someone has murder on their mind, they'll go out and do it with or without a gun. How many serial murders used a gun anyways?

Ever thought to think that shooting those little paper things is actually a COMPETITIVE sport? Not as easy as you think.. probably that's why it's an olympic sport.

NF_Utvol wrote: Do you realize that there are more people hurt each year playing PING PONG than the shooting sports?

Yes, but how many people DIE while playing Ping Pong each year?

And you cannot buy a real assault rifle in the United States...

Good thing too, but can you still buy conversion kits?

Why not own a gun 'just because'?

Why?

You haven't made a good argument against it yet.

I'm saying that if you have no NEED for a gun you shouldn't own one. I'm aware that the right to own a gun is allegedly protected under the US constitution, but I believe that ownership of a firearm should most definately be a priviledge.

You just HAD to turn this into a gun control debate cause you think the big bad gun is gonna come and get you.

Just in case you weren't aware, the big bad gun already HAS come and gotten me.

http://www.tased.edu.au/tasfaq/history/portarthur.html

Trytostaydead wrote: I don't understand your logic. People are killed more often by cars, and people own a great many cars just because. Christ, in other countries people take the public transportation system! How about bicycle accidents? How many people are killed on those godforsaken things, not to mention motorcycles! Jesus H. Christ! And why will people risk injury with skateboards is beyond me. Oh, let's not forget Hockey where by placing yourself on the rink opens you to a flying fist.

And in all of those examples the items or events involved have a purpose other than killing and maiming. A firearm is designed for a singular purpose - with the exception of target pistols and rifles.

And let's outlaw baseball too! How many times has a person been whacked by a baseball bat? God only knows!

Strawman.

Get off your high horse there. If someone has murder on their mind, they'll go out and do it with or without a gun. How many serial murders used a gun anyways?

Not many do, but a firearm makes life so much easier if you do want to kill someone.

Ever thought to think that shooting those little paper things is actually a COMPETITIVE sport? Not as easy as you think.. probably that's why it's an olympic sport.

And one that Australia goes damn well at. Yet, somehow, we still have gun laws - it must be a vast left wing conspiracy eh?

Eer.. the US has a lot of gun laws too. Such as in California we're restricted up the wazoo on what types of guns we can buy too.

Most people are very responsible people. I know a few five year olds I can give a gun too and they'd be more responsible with it than I would. But yes, there are always nuts in the group, and a in a large population group, we're bound to have our share.

So I say, if you want to ban guns, let's ban knives and swords as well! I mean, those were also created for only one person weren't they? Killing and cutting.

Trytostaydead wrote:Eer.. the US has a lot of gun laws too. Such as in California we're restricted up the wazoo on what types of guns we can buy too.

Most people are very responsible people. I know a few five year olds I can give a gun too and they'd be more responsible with it than I would. But yes, there are always nuts in the group, and a in a large population group, we're bound to have our share.

So I say, if you want to ban guns, let's ban knives and swords as well! I mean, those were also created for only one person weren't they? Killing and cutting.

Errr, they too are restricted in Tassie. Knives and swords are classified as deadly weapons and also restricted. You can get "ornamental" swords, just like you can get (or rather, not down here) replica firearms.

Since Port Arthur we have banned handgun ownership, automatic ownership, semi-automatics with magazine capacity of 10+ rounds... And so on. Hell even Paintball and BB guns are illegal (that shits me).

To obtain a gun you must have a license, which means no criminal record, psych testing, 6 months "cooling off period", extensive paperwork and profiling. And thats just for basic rifle ownership. And did I mention that even then you need a REASON to apply for a license?

And can I at this point bring up the fact that America has 11,000 firearms deaths a year. While Canada, Britain, Germany and Australia combined have under 2000? You really have to ask questions.

weemadando wrote:I'm saying that if you have no NEED for a gun you shouldn't own one. I'm aware that the right to own a gun is allegedly protected under the US constitution, but I believe that ownership of a firearm should most definately be a priviledge.

And who are you to determine NEED for everybody else?

As a cop I can tell you that we do not protect people most of the time; we respond to the scenes of crimes after the fact. We very seldom prevent the murder, we show up and draw the chalk outline around the body after it's been done. Some people who live in crime ridden areas have a genuine need for a firearm as a means of protection.

In the first place, law abiding citizens who engage in shooting sports for pleasure DO NOT USE their guns to kill or injure other people. You are proposing restriction of an activity that does not harm people, and is conducted very safely, and has one of the lowest rates of injury of any sport. The actions of criminals are a different story entirely. And they do not obtain their weapons from the same sources; regulating law-abiding citizens is not going to stop them.

Take full auto weapons, for example. Since 1934, they've been highly regulated, but legal to own, if you pay all the fees and follow all the steps. I could, right now for example, go to a Class III weapon's dealer (there's one in Hampton VA, just 20 minutes by car from where I live), pay $2400 for a British Sten submachine gun he has, and pay a $200 fee for the Class III weapons permit, and I can legally own this fully automatic weapon. No doubt you would object to this, but the fact is that since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed, only two people have ever been killed with legally owned machine guns. Far more people have been bludgeoned to death with baseball bats.

So when people are enjoying a hobby that has a very safe record, and does not harm you or anybody else, why should you object?

Perinquus wrote: So when people are enjoying a hobby that has a very safe record, and does not harm you or anybody else, why should you object?

Perinquus.. I love you Hahaha

I was at the range one day, and an old man comes out to me and asks what type of gun I have. I tell him a Sig P225, 9mm. And he looks at me and says, "Well, when you grow up maybe you'll get a REAL gun."

Turns out he was a former cop, involved in 5 shootouts, 3 of them fatal. He was like, "You need a bigger gun. Don't wound them, put them down with one shot." He also taught me that day how to use blackpowder, cops are cool

Perinquus wrote:

weemadando wrote:I'm saying that if you have no NEED for a gun you shouldn't own one. I'm aware that the right to own a gun is allegedly protected under the US constitution, but I believe that ownership of a firearm should most definately be a priviledge.

And who are you to determine NEED for everybody else?

As a cop I can tell you that we do not protect people most of the time; we respond to the scenes of crimes after the fact. We very seldom prevent the murder, we show up and draw the chalk outline around the body after it's been done. Some people who live in crime ridden areas have a genuine need for a firearm as a means of protection.

In the first place, law abiding citizens who engage in shooting sports for pleasure DO NOT USE their guns to kill or injure other people. You are proposing restriction of an activity that does not harm people, and is conducted very safely, and has one of the lowest rates of injury of any sport. The actions of criminals are a different story entirely. And they do not obtain their weapons from the same sources; regulating law-abiding citizens is not going to stop them.

Take full auto weapons, for example. Since 1934, they've been highly regulated, but legal to own, if you pay all the fees and follow all the steps. I could, right now for example, go to a Class III weapon's dealer (there's one in Hampton VA, just 20 minutes by car from where I live), pay $2400 for a British Sten submachine gun he has, and pay a $200 fee for the Class III weapons permit, and I can legally own this fully automatic weapon. No doubt you would object to this, but the fact is that since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed, only two people have ever been killed with legally owned machine guns. Far more people have been bludgeoned to death with baseball bats.

So when people are enjoying a hobby that has a very safe record, and does not harm you or anybody else, why should you object?

Not EVERY person who does sports shooting never turns a gun on another person. Not EVERY registered gun is never used in a killing.

There will always be illegal firearms, hell we have quite a few in Australia, but you have to lookat the problem - why is there so much goddamn firearm related crime in the US? As a cop you would have to ask yourself that several times a day I'm sure.

Well done, you have restricted machine gun ownership, but somehow the students at Littleton still got SMGs LEGALLY. I can accept that some people might enjoy sport shooting, but again I have to raise the question, just what firearms are neccessary?

Perhaps if people didn't have firearms in their homes, the burglars wouldn't feel the need to carry firearms with them. IMHO its a vicious circle and one that is only going to get worse.

I feel sorry for people who think that they have to carry a handgun to be safe on the streets, but how many of them ever have to actually use it? And when they do use it - was it neccessary? Or where they shooting a kid running from a 7/11 with an unpaid for twinkie?

weemadando wrote: Well done, you have restricted machine gun ownership, but somehow the students at Littleton still got SMGs LEGALLY. I can accept that some people might enjoy sport shooting, but again I have to raise the question, just what firearms are neccessary?

*sigh*

*orders Ando siezed and thrown into the torture chambers under Passchendale*

The Littleton fucktards got their hands on a SEMI-AUTOMATIC
weapon, not a full automatic weapon, which is the definition of a SMG.