Man Starts 'Gunbook' Social Media Site After His Gun-Loving Friends Were Kicked Off Facebook (buzzfeed.com)

CaptainDork shares a report from BuzzFeed: A British gun enthusiast whose friends were banned from Facebook for posting pictures of firearms has started his own version of the site for gun lovers. Called Gunbook, it was set up by David Scott, a 57-year-old shooting instructor who lives in Kilsyth, 20 miles from Dunblane. It went live three weeks ago and he says it already has more than 1,000 members, around 60 of whom are from the U.S. Scott admitted that part of the attraction of the site for members was that they could post about their love of deadly weapons without being judged by family and friends. "Quite a lot want to talk about guns and shooting and target shooting and their families can see and often people comment. Gunbook is the place where people can talk about guns without their families seeing because a lot of people have got anti-shooting and anti-hunting friends on these sites."

Many of the profile pictures on the site show people standing in striking poses with guns -- or are simply a picture of their arsenal. And just like any other social media platform, much of the content that has quickly populated the Facebook clone ends up being videos and memes. In contrast, his site is loosely controlled and encourages a community around gun ownership. It has two admins but reassures users in a Q&A on the site that "they will generally just leave you all to get on with things." It adds later that "they will never interfere [in a group] unless a post gets reported and even then only racist and really dodgy ones will get looked at if reported. Please do NOT upload porn videos to our servers though ;0."

Comments

How to get robbed 101

[cordovaCon83]

1) Post a geo-cached photo of where you keep your guns. 2) There is no step 2.

Re:How to get robbed 101

[PPH]

You think sites like these don't know how to strip EXIF data?

Even funnier: You don't think people who upload pictures can hack the geolocation data and insert the lat/long of some anti-gun whiners?

Re:How to get robbed 101

[chill]

Bullshit. Mega, epic bullshit. Texas is the #1 State with guns stolen from owners.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/stolen-guns-lost-firearms-by-state-data.html

http://www.dentonrc.com/news/state/2017/12/23/agents-seek-guns-stolen-harvey-100-weapons-taken-houston-stores-storm

http://www.kxan.com/news/crime/more-than-2-dozen-guns-stolen-from-copperas-cove-pawn-shop/994805063

https://www.chron.com/news/item/Stolen-Guns-Database-11252.php

Re: How to get robbed 101

[PPH]

anti - gun whiner can insert your lat/lon

Sort of pointless. I have pro-gun stickers on my car. And I imagine I've probably been followed for the purpose of cleaning my house out. Right up to the armed security guard in the gatehouse to my neighborhood.

Meanwhile, the antis aren't ready for a break-in or home invasion. Why would they? They have nothing. But try convincing the gangstas of that who sit them down and question them as to where the guns in the nice pictures are at.

Re:How to get robbed 101

[Solandri]

Texas is #1 only because it has a large population. If you combine the data in your first link with a list of state populations and rates of gun ownership, and calculate the number of guns stolen per owner ( (# of guns stolen) / (state population * % who are owners) ), Texas is 17th, and is statistically almost exactly at the national average (35.9% of Texans own guns vs 32.1% for the U.S., and 0.18% have a gun stolen or 1.03x the national rate). The District of Columbia ends up topping the list with a theft rate a staggering 162 times the U.S. national average.

The huge deviation of DC from the national average (29.3% of DC gun owners have a gun stolen vs 0.18% for the nation) makes me think gun theft is primarily a problem in urban areas, not rural. Further supporting this hypothesis is that Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and North and South Dakota all have gun ownership rates over 50%, but their rate of guns stolen is below the national average.

Also, the low rate for gun theft nationwide (0.18% per owner per year, vs 0.47% burglaries and 1.75% larceny) makes me think outside of certain cities, gun theft is not really a serious issue, and is more incidental property theft rather than targeted, and for the most part gun owners do a pretty good job keeping their guns safe from theft.

Rank State Guns_stolen Poplation %_owners Owner_pop Rate_stolen Times_national_average
1 DC 7,324 693,972 3.6% 24,983 29.32% 161.79
2 Georgia 12,906 10,429,379 40.3% 4,203,040 0.31% 1.69
3 New Mexico 2,198 2,088,070 34.8% 726,648 0.30% 1.67
4 Oklahoma 4,695 3,930,864 42.9% 1,686,341 0.28% 1.54
5 South Carolina 5,839 5,024,369 42.3% 2,125,308 0.27% 1.52
6 Louisiana 5,163 4,684,333 44.1% 2,065,791 0.25% 1.38
7 Arizona 5,431 7,016,270 31.1% 2,182,060 0.25% 1.37
8 Arkansas 4,091 3,004,279 55.3% 1,661,366 0.25% 1.36
9 Florida 12,571 20,984,400 24.5% 5,141,178 0.24% 1.35
10 Alabama 6,084 4,874,747 51.7% 2,520,244 0.24% 1.33
11 Nevada 2,288 2,998,039 33.8% 1,013,337 0.23% 1.25
12 North Carolina 9,320 10,273,419 41.3% 4,242,922 0.22% 1.21
13 Mississippi 3,439 2,984,100 55.3% 1,650,207 0.21% 1.15
14 Tennessee 6,101 6,715,984 43.9% 2,948,317 0.21% 1.14
15 Washington 5,053 7,405,743 33.1% 2,451,301 0.21% 1.14
16 West Virginia 1,966 1,815,857 55.4% 1,005,985 0.20% 1.08
17 Texas 18,874 28,304,596 35.9% 10,161,350 0.19% 1.03
18 Indiana 4,774 6,666,818 39.1% 2,606,726 0.18% 1.01
19 Missouri 4,662 6,113,532 41.7% 2,549,343 0.18% 1.01
20 Ohio 6,860 11,658,609 32.4% 3,777,389 0.18% 1.00
21 Kentucky 3,719 4,454,189 47.7% 2,124,648 0.18% 0.97
22 Alaska 717 739,795 57.8% 427,602 0.17% 0.93
23 Rhode Island 226 1,059,639 12.8% 135,634 0.17% 0.92
24 Connecticut 974 3,588,184 16.7% 599,227 0.16% 0.90
25 Hawaii 148 1,427,538 6.7% 95,645 0.15% 0.85
26 Maryland 1,964 6,052,177 21.3% 1,289,114 0.15% 0.84
27 Oregon 2491 4,142,776 39.8% 1,648,825 0.15% 0.83
28 Montana 911 1,050,493 57.7% 606,134 0.15% 0.83
29 Pennsylvania 6,566 12,805,537 34.7% 4,443,521 0.15% 0.82
30 Kansas 1,788 2,913,123 42.1% 1,226,425 0.15% 0.80
31 New Jersey 1,604 9,005,644 12.3% 1,107,694 0.14% 0.80
32 Delaware 344 961,939 25.5% 245,294 0.14% 0.77
33 Virginia 4,062 8,470,020 35.1% 2,972,977 0.14% 0.75
34 Colorado 2,609 5,607,154 34.7% 1,945,682 0.13% 0.74
35 Michigan 4,962 9,962,311 38.4% 3,825,527 0.13% 0.72
36 Illinois 3,302 12,802,023 20.2% 2,586,009 0.13% 0.70
37 California 10,639 39,536,653 21.3% 8,421,307 0.13% 0.70
38 Idaho 1,087 1,716,943 55.3% 949,469 0.11% 0.63
39 Vermont 298 623,657 42.0% 261,936 0.11% 0.63
40 New Hampshire 435 1,342,795 30.0% 402,839 0.11% 0.60

Re:How to get robbed 101

[chronoglass]

using research to come to a conclusion.. this is slashdot, that kind of tomfoolery won't be tolerated here

This is extremely good development.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It is just a matter of time before we liberals win the election. At that time when we want to come grab your guns, it is nearly impossible. Because Republicans have placed so many restrictions in government keeping track of gun obsessed fanatics that do not simply obey our commandments.

Now! with this Gunbook all those people who must be put down ruthlessly to make sure our Liberalism, Globalism and the Third World Order go unchallenged will be self identified! Our task has been made so much simpler.

Thank you Gunbook. Wait!

It is from the UK, the bastion of obedience and cradle to grave welfare state where we vote ourselves benefits paid for by taxing the idle rich. Is it possible this Gunbook was actually created by my comrade in arms? Is it a Flase Flag operation? Have I blabbered too much and gave the game away? OMG! What have I done!

Re: This is extremely good development.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Auto crroect is for the sisises. Real men need no atuo corrcet

Gun advocates heads explode

[cyber-vandal]

As they find out that guns aren't in fact banned in the UK.

Re:Gun advocates heads explode

[Anonymous Coward]

As they find out that guns aren't in fact banned in the UK.

But still much more restricted than in the USA. Many of us are quite aware of it, the issue is that we don't want things to get as restricted as they have it.

That aside I have no shortage of co-workers and friends who are immigrants who are interested in going to the range as my guest when they find out that I target shoot for sport, I'm always happy to give them a lesson for the cost of the ammo and range fee.

Re:Gun advocates heads explode

[Anonymous Coward]

Requiring burdensome licensing and handling requirements, being restricted to a small pool of low caliber/low capacity long guns, virtually no handguns, and having no right of self defense with a firearm. Yes, I'm sure gun advocates heads are exploding about just how great gun rights are in the UK. /s

Re:Gun advocates heads explode

[mjwx]

As they find out that guns aren't in fact banned in the UK.

Just imagine what will happen when they find out guns aren't necessary for self defence here in the UK because we haven't armed criminals to the teeth.

The biggest criminal risk at the moment are people on mopeds stealing phoned out of the hands of those not paying attention.

Guns are owned in the UK for mostly recreational purposes, which is fine with the overwhelming majority of Britons. You need a license, safe place to store it and a place to use it... and Volia... you can have a gun.

Re:Gun advocates heads explode

[admin7087]

Enforcing training requirements, "licensing", ever increasing levels of background checks, are all part of a slippery slope fallacy on a path towards removal of gun rights.

There, FTFY.

Re:Gun advocates heads explode

[Kernel Kurtz]

Just imagine what will happen when they find out guns aren't necessary for self defence here in the UK because we haven't armed criminals to the teeth.

Pretty much how I feel in here Canada. I own guns, and accept we have strict controls on them. I don't live for my guns so I don't obsess over it.

If I lived somewhere that I felt I needed to carry a gun to be safe, I would move.

But to each their own.

Re:Gun advocates heads explode

[CrimsonAvenger]

Here in the UK you're unlikely to stumble across a bag of automatic pistols if you nick someone's car or burgle their house.

Y'know, here in the States you're unlikely to "stumble across a bag of automatic pistols if you nick someone's car or burgle their house" either. And this speaking as someone who owns a fair number of firearms. Of course, if someone were to burgle my house, they'd find more than a few single-shot rifles (y'know, like they used in the 19th century), and several bolt-action rifles (y'know, like they used in WW1&2 (yes, I own an SMLE)). And even a double-barreled shotgun.

The fraction of the population that owns multiple automatic pistols (more properly "self-loading pistols", since you still only get one shot per trigger pull) is really quite small. Larger than in Europe (outside the upper classes, who seem to have no trouble getting firearms permits over there), but not large....

Re:Gun advocates heads explode

[ScentCone]

Hey, look! Another liberal who immediately - when confronted with the notion of rape - can't resist thinking of a black guy doing it. I've never met a more consistent, evil bunch of racists than every single Progressive I've ever encountered. And bonus points for being a misogynist who assumes all women are simple-minded fools who can't defend themselves with a firearm. Maybe you should go for the trifecta and find a way to get some homophobia in there, too?

Re:Gun advocates heads explode

[Archangel Michael]

For the record, slippery slope is a LOGICAL fallacy, not because it is always false, but rather because it can be false. Slippery Slope is a valid argument as a POTENTIAL of uncertain outcomes, not as logical proof of certainty.

In this case, it is a reasonable if even remote possibility. The fact that it does happen, is reason enough to offer it up as a slippery slope possibility.

https://www.louderwithcrowder....

Re:Gun advocates heads explode

[SuiteSisterMary]

Ok, but you know how many mass *killings* the UK has has since Dunblane? And how many before Dunblane in which firearms were used?
Lets see.
1972 - Bomb - 12 dead.
1974 - bomb - 5 dead.
1974 - bomb - 21 dead.
1980 - arson - 37 dead.
1987 - Shooting - 16 dead.
1988 - bomb - 270 dead.
1996 - shooting - 18 dead.
2005 - bomb - 52 dead.
2010 - shooting - 12 dead.
2017 - vehicle and knife - 6 dead.
2017 - bomb - 23 dead.
2017 - vehicle and knife - 8 dead.

So, what we see in the UK is that mass killings a) generally aren't via gun, b) guns aren't particularly extra efficient.

Now, I'm all for increased firearm licensing and regulation, but it has to be a) effective, b) not trampling on the rights of lawful gun owners, and c) not bullshit security theater.

On the other hand, people have to stop worrying about 'gun violence' and address the root causes of, well, 'violence.' Shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, blowed up, shouldn't matter. But for some reason, it does. And one reason is human psychology and mass media.

Put a report on prime time CNN each and every time somebody dies to a drunk driver, and see what happens.

Re:Gun advocates heads explode

[SuiteSisterMary]

Your assumption is that if guns magically disappeared from the US of A, the murder rate would drop about 5 times. My assumption is that if guns magically disappeared from the US of A, the murder rate would stay about the same, but the tools used would change.

Re:Gun advocates heads explode

[shutdown -p now]

Amusingly, the gun laws in Canada are generally much more permissive than UK laws. If anything, just going by the types of guns that civilians can own, for example, I'd say that Canada is much closer to US than it is to UK.

Yet, when you look at the crime rates etc, Canada is more like UK.

It's almost as if it's not the gun laws that make the difference between these two, and US.

Gun nuts

[110010001000]

Gun nuts are funny people. They think their peashooters are going to protect them from a "rogue Federal government". Tell me guys, when are you going to start doing that? I would love to hear the plan for your well regulated militia you are going to form (soon).

Re:Gun nuts

[Major Blud]

They think their peashooters are going to protect them from a "rogue Federal government".

Funny these guys didn't get that memo.

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

Re:Gun nuts

[drinkypoo]

Gun nuts are funny people.

Anti-gun nuts are children, lost in a world of confusing realities and apparent contradictions.

They think their peashooters are going to protect them from a "rogue Federal government".

Yeah, what a dumb idea! That's never had the slightest effect on US policy, except in Afghanistan, Iraq, Viet Nam...

Tell me guys, when are you going to start doing that? I would love to hear the plan for your well regulated militia you are going to form (soon).

The authors of the second amendment stated in no uncertain terms that the purpose of the 2a was to avoid the need for a standing militia because they knew such an instrument was harmful to freedom both foreign and domestic. George Washington, who the natives knew as "Town Killer" for his massacres, decided we needed a standing military and the rest is the history of American imperialism. If you look in a dictionary of the day, you will not find "rules and regulations" as a meaning for regulated, which came later. What it meant was "working correctly" or "working on time" — a regulator is a device for making an machine run at a given speed, and this is the contemporary sense.

Gun violence is actually falling as more guns are sold, and percentage of gun ownership remains roughly constant. But you're being sold a lie about it in order to support taking guns away from as many people as possible. That few guns are grabbed is due only to effective resistance. The ACLU doesn't give one shit about self-defense, which is the only reason the NRA even exists. If I had a dollar for every gun owner who's said "the NRA is crap but I need range insurance if I want to shoot" or "I don't agree with everything they say but nobody else is looking out for my rights" I could start my own goddamned NRA, with blackjack and hookers. By refusing to support the second amendment, the ACLU effectively created the NRA. Yes, the NRA predates the ACLU, but it wasn't always this kind of political powerhouse.

Re:Gun nuts

[Nidi62]

Gun nuts are funny people. They think their peashooters are going to protect them from a "rogue Federal government".

I just like guns, especially older military issue firearms and antiques, because I am actually a history nut and each of those old guns tells a story. For example, my family has a Lorenz rifled musket which was one of the most used long guns in the Civil War, so it is very likely that gun was carried during the war. Same for my Mosin-Nagant which is stamped 1942 and is matching serial numbers except for 1 minor part. So it was manufactured during World War 2 and quite possibly issued during the war as well. My great uncle served in Korea and my grandfather was drafted but did not get deployed to Korea, so I will be buying a WW2/Korea dated M1 carbine to make a display to go along with my grandfather's dress helmet in honor of both of them (an original 1911 would be awesome as well but those are pricey, a war year M1 carbine should still be in the 3 digits-my dream one is an IBM just because I'm a nerd).

Do I think I'm ever going to need to use my guns against a "rogue federal government"? No. Do I think I will ever need to use one to protect myself on the street or in my house? Very unlikely (unless the country goes to shit). But do I enjoy shooting them? Yes. Are they heirlooms? Yes. Am I also for strong, sensible, effective gun control? Hell yes. Guns can kill, and it's likely at least one of the guns I own has done so during it's existence. When exercising a right you have a duty to do so responsibly.

Re:Gun nuts

[nwaack]

You're a true idiot. A government...any government...would much rather face an unarmed populace than an armed one. I may be no match for a government drone but I can guarantee you that no army, no matter how powerful, wants to go up against 100 million armed citizens. The government would basically have to destroy the entire country to beat 100 million people with guns.

Re:Gun nuts

[Whorhay]

If there ever was another civil war in this country it would very likely not end up being the US military vs amateur hour red neck militias. The standing military is not some homogeneous organization, it is made up of millions of individuals who run practically the same gamut as the general public in so far as political leanings go. Whatever % of the population decides to take up arms against the status quo you could almost bet on getting a very similar % of active duty personnel absconding to, quite likely taking equipment with them. Then you have a very large number of veterans, who could throw in on either side, that obviously have military experience albeit possibly out of date.

Privately owned firearms by and large are going to be less powerful on average compared to whatever the military has, but would likely be more than compensated by sheer numbers. Some military weapons you mention would be worthless or nearly so in a civil war, the navy and ballistic missiles come to mind.

The biggest problem though in the event of a civil war, that doesn't break out along clear geographic lines, is infrastructure. Military bases are spread all around the country and often surrounded by civilian populations which support them. While there is usually some base housing it is not enough to actually house all of the enlisted and officers, let alone the civilian work force. So for the most part employees of the DoD, and their loved ones, live outside of the base perimeter.

Even supposing you could get all your people onto the base, you then have to worry about actually defending a perimeter, and I don't think I've ever seen a US military base in the CONUS that was laid out with defensive fighting positioning in mind. If you could spare the man power to man a perimeter you have to then arm and supply those positions, and again most places I've seen don't keep that many weapons on hand. Sure there is an armory for the policing force, plus some weapons for training purposes at the range, and you probably have a logistics group which keeps enough weapons to send out on deployments. But I really doubt there are enough weapons and ammunition on hand at each base to mount a sustained defensive posture. The military in general probably doesn't have enough small arms and ammunition to supply even half of it's personnel.

Then you have to worry about all of the other stuff you need to run the base properly, namely utilities. Sure individual facilities on bases will have backup supplies for power, fuel, water, and food but that is almost exclusively going to be limited to planned usage during natural disasters, intended to support minimum manning over a short duration. Those kinds of setups will not support full manning, plus dependents, for prolonged periods.

When the US military deploys to fight somewhere else it sets up bases that are planned for defense. They get hardened perimeters that are manned. Supplies are mostly shipped in from elsewhere. And all of the required personnel live within those defenses. That only works because the US can pour resources into supporting the relatively tiny number of people deployed to fight, from a peaceful first world nation.

A civil war in the US today wouldn't play out like that unless it was a largely geographic split. Regardless, I wouldn't expect a revolution to work in the long run unless it had a significant majority of the public behind it. It doesn't take a winning revolution to screw the whole country over for decades to come though. The threat of a civil war, even if it's not likely to succeed, is important in my mind because it can keep people working longer and harder to find a non-violent compromise that works rather than risk decades of misery and strife.

Re:Gun owners in North America have the same probl

[Luthair]

Youtube is demonitizing them because advertisers don't want to be associated with it.

Re:Gun owners in North America have the same probl

[Austerity Empowers]

The risk here that people who support gun-rights should fear most is exactly what is happening with their extreme stance on guns: public support will evaporate, and they WILL be taken away. Once taken away, it's gone forever, we all know that. I have no problems with gun or gun ownership for mentally stable adults with no criminal record, who have been trained on how to handle and care for guns, and who are willing to take responsibility for them and own the consequences. I share their distrust of government, and particularly the people who buy our government and set its laws and policies. We absolutely should be armed. But not all of us.

The complete abdication of responsibility in favor of total devotion to the second amendment is going to result in them being removed, one way or another. It doesn't seem like it right now, the NRA is still strong and the currently installed government is favorable, but what may not be seen clearly is how tenuous that position is, that much of this government was installed with the bare minimum of popular support, and that on this particular issue, one of many, may not actually be that popular even amongst their own.

The NRA is failing everyone right now, and Facebook is one of a multitude of examples of that. The NRA should be acting as a steward, being the voice of reason that champions gun rights by making sure they're well and properly used. That the people most likely to misuse and abuse their rights are restricted from gun ownership. They ought to be researching and offering solutions to help ensure that gun owners are going to be the best and safest examples of what an armed populace could be. Taking a hard-line, extreme, no tolerance stance on gun control is ultimately going to be self-defeating. And we are watching it happen in slow motion.

No problems policing their policies

[petes_PoV]

Please do NOT upload porn videos to our servers though

When a group who are armed to the teeth ask you politely, who would possibly argue with them.

History

[gDLL]

In my country the last free men that fought the communists/NKVD were the armed ones. And they lasted for years in the forrests. Some of us look up to them and would do the same, and some of us are little spineless dogfemales that have no problem living in chains and should tilt their eyes down when the adults are talking.

Re:How to get SHOT 101

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to you US cunts who can't figure out how you voted an orangutan to the presidency !!!

They're just nerds

[rsilvergun]

or Otaku. I know several gun nuts and it's a social circle for them that accepts them without preconditions. Shared passions are like that. Religion, MMOs, D&D, etc all fall into the same boat. A lot of times they've got various personality defects or are just plain bad at socializing. This isn't a knock on them, that's just what it means to be a nerd. But it means they're intensely defensive of their right to own and shoot guns. Try and take them away and you're cutting them off from their social circle.

I don't care much for Bill Clinton. His right wing economics got us into the mess we're in now, all so he could win the presidency with an alliance of social liberals and economic right wingers. But he was smart enough to leave the gun nuts alone. You can't win with them. They've got too much at stake. They're instant single issue voters who show up at the polls.

Re:They're just nerds

[brennz]

my favorite technique when someone takes a contrary position is to come out with a group of ad hominem attacks, and claim they have personality defects. /Sarcasm. It isn't like we in the US have a sizeable number of active duty & veterans across all the 7 uniformed services, and gun bearing professionals in Law enforcement & security, and just regular citizens with interests. We don't number in the millions, we are just a figment of your imagination....

Re:Gun owners in North America have the same probl

[SirSlud]

I share their distrust of government, and particularly the people who buy our government and set its laws and policies.

I've yet to see anyone make a decent case of how guns would be a useful and/or effective means of remedying that. If poop hits the wall, it's not the guns that tear the state down, it's the millions of people storming the gates, guns or no guns. A far more plausible scenario for the states, *if* a large enough group of armed citizens took over the government would be an equally shitty junta - and if they couldn't take over but were sizable enough, I doubt they'd be any less shitty than the dozens of other 'people's army' rebel groups that mar the history books and countries of today.

Your best weapon against a shitty government is education, birth control, and a well informed and intentioned populace.

Re:How to get SHOT 101

[giggleloop]

We didn't lose it. Empires rise and fall. We just decided to grant most of the colonies independence once a few started causing trouble (usually aided by the French).

Re:Gun owners in North America have the same probl

[JudgeFurious]

Oh, almost forgot. Capitalism hasn't had any effect on arming teachers in Texas. There are already over 150 school districts where this is allowed and no insurance companies have bothered to intervene in this at all. There a bunch of reasons for that but basically it comes down to CHL holders being safer and more law abiding than even police officers.

Re:Who cares

[Opportunist]

Actually, it is. Think of the implication: As Facebook (and other social media sites) are "banning" certain topics, these topics will migrate to other platforms or, like in this example, a new platform for this topic will emerge.

The established social media platforms will have to decide between losing customers to "special interest" platforms, and in turn lose influence and money, or they will have to stop caving in every time someone whines about a huwt widdle feeling because someone was allowed to talk about something.

Capitalism dictates how they'll have to decide. This could become quite interesting quite soon.

Re: How to get SHOT 101

[Type44Q]

Desperation... coupled with a shitty selection.

Next question?

Re: How to get SHOT 101

[Type44Q]

I know just enough to know that one should use the right caliber for the right job and that the tactical advantage of having a gun is lost as soon as someone is aware that you do in fact have a gun.

Right, because the only way to utilize a gun is as a deterrent; it's not as if they shoot real bullets or anything.

Got any other meaningless ramblings you'd care to discharge?

Oh yeah?

[DontBeAMoran]

I'll go build my own Facebook, with blackjack... and hookers!

Re:what is a dodgy one?

[Opportunist]

Guns are beautiful tools. Crafted with precision and with mechanisms that make clockworks look like toys. Have you seen a P90 fire? Whoever invented this thing is either a genius or a nutjob.

But you don't have to go for modern guns to find beautifully crafted designs, just look at wheellock guns (actually the first guns to be outlawed, at the court of Maximilian I of Austria, because they could be used for assassination since it was the first kind of gun that could be stored in garment, ready to shoot). Beautiful mechanics and sure a highlight for any gun nerd.

Fun part, I'm not even that interested in firing guns. I'm just fascinated by the various designs and mechanics that human minds came up with.

Re: How to get SHOT 101

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's hilarious that certain people think that the voters voted for Trump rather than against Hillary. If the DNC establishment hadn't rigged the primary in favor of her, or run an even borderline competent campaign, we probably wouldn't have a President Trump.

Instead, they chose to disenfranchise a huge number of Democrats, chose a shitty right wing Democrat as a running mate, made absolutely no effort whatsoever to win over the Sanders wing of the party, promised absolutely nothing to the voters and couldn't be bothered to campaign in certain states that shockingly enough weren't enthusiastic enough about her to show up to vote.

The real amazing thing here is that there are people who still can't figure out why she lost. I personally think the only mystery is how she managed to win the popular vote despite being the most corrupt and hated candidate of all time.

Re:Who cares

[cyberchondriac]

Who thought this was newsworthy?

Buzzfeed, apparently. I love how they have to stick this dig in: "part of the attraction of the site for members was that they could post about their love of deadly weapons ". Niice. They can't write a single article without interjecting their snark or bias into it.
Lots of things are "deadly". Far more people have been killed in car accidents, and yet there are millions of car enthusiasts. The argument is always, "because we need cars and their main purpose isn't to kill but to transport", but I'd counter, the main purpose of a gun, technically, isn't to kill, but to eject a projectile out at high velocity. How one chooses to use that tool is up to them. (Military guns are meant to wound, not kill, anyway). Technically, a Hilti gun is a gun (.22 caliber), I own one and have used that to nail the sole plates and studs to the concrete while framing out a room in my basement.
I'd prefer not to aim and fire any gun at a living being, (I'm not even sure I could personally shoot Bambi's mom for food, to be perfectly honest) but shooting targets as pure sport is pretty fun and a good challenge of coordination.

Re:Gun owners in North America have the same probl

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

They claimed Obama was a tyrant.

No one stormed the white house or rose up in rebellion using their second amendment right provided guns

It just proves most gun owners are in severe need of viagara and they are using guns as a poor substitute. All that talk of being the last stop against tyranny is just self delusion.

But they do show up in elections, and vote, and enable unlimited and unfettered access to guns for every deranged mass murdering psychopath. That is the situation.

Nice. Very nice. Like it. (No joke!)

[Qbertino]

This is *EXACTLY* how the internet we all want should work.

Don't like the commercial forum? Quit whining and set up your own with likeminded people.
This guys actually deserves some credit for not whining around but actually doing something. .... Wow, check it out, I'm a continental Eurohippster actually siding with a working-class gun-enthusiast on this one. ... *mindflash*

This is what was so cool about the iNet back in 2001 and why we all love slashdot.

Re:Gun owners in North America have the same probl

[CaptainDork]

You left out the most important weapon -- the vote.

Re:How to get SHOT 101

[tehcyder]

put a rock through their car window while they are in the grocery store

It's in my holster, with me inside the grocery store. And if I spot you doing that to another car, I'll see your rock and raise you a .357 Magnum round.

Could you tell me where you live where it's legal to murder someone because you see them carrying out a minor crime?

So I can avoid it like the plague.

Re: How to get SHOT 101

[brennz]

While I am not a big democrat, I think many of us wanted to see Bernie vs Trump.

It was clear that Bernie had the energy, the youth support, and that he was much closer to the heart and soul of the modern Democrat party. I can respect that, and his complete support for a certain type of system. While I might not agree with it, at least he is completely honest about where he stands and what he represents. Crazy Uncle Bernie should have been given a chance.

Bernie vs Trump would have been a grand battle royale of dueling narratives. A socialist, neo-communist vice the slick hyper-capitalist.

We, the American people lost out when this battle of ideas was not waged in the public, for our mindshare. Instead, we were left with a Democrat insider with a catalog of health issues, hardly able to defend Democrat positions.

Given above, is it any suprise that many people chose to vote against Hillary?

Re:How to get SHOT 101

[nwaack]

the tactical advantage of having a gun is lost as soon as someone is aware that you do in fact have a gun.

Riiiiiiight. You do realize that guns can fire real bullets, yes?

False equivalanccy fallacy.

[aepervius]

Car are made for transportation , knife mostly to cut material invented and perfected as a hunting tool before even being for hunting warfare. Gun were invented for a sole reason : killing. Your technicality "he main purpose of a gun, technically, isn't to kill, but to eject a projectile out at high velocity" is the most stupid thing I heard. There may be a *limited* sport & hunting usage we have now, but the majority of the usage , gun birth & evolution, and cartridge evolution was to maim and kill, why do you think 5.56 nato was made ? Or semi automatic/full auto ? or even the first guns ? Hint : it was not sport or fun. It was all warfare.

As for the stupid NRA "pool and car also kill" yes they kill and in absolute number car even kill more, but that is ignoring how pervasive car are in cities, street and how much part of our life they take - and we increase security and lower the number of death per year. Gun by comparison are not so pervasive, take little part of our life and yet kill nearly as many people as car, and murder take a significant slice of it. And gun are perfected every year to be better more reliant killing machine. The comparison is so stupid to many level, you are either from the NRA, or a "useful idiot" to them. You may as well compare orange and jug of methanol (not even orange to apple). When I worked in research we had a name for such comparison : "it isn't right, but it ain't even wrong - it is just plain stupid".

Re:Gun owners in North America have the same probl

[ScentCone]

The NRA is failing everyone right now

Why, because they call for exactly what you're talking about? They are the first ones to scream for actual enforcement of actual laws. The vast majority of murders involving guns are at the hands of criminals already blocked from owning and possessing firearms, most of whom have already been busted doing so in the past. And yet they walk around free to keep doing the same.

They ought to be researching and offering solutions to help ensure that gun owners are going to be the best and safest examples of what an armed populace could be.

Which is exactly what they do. But they have ALSO had to mobilize to fight back against the Democrats' increasingly overt message that nobody should be allowed to own guns. These are not mutually exclusive tasks.

Re:How to get SHOT 101

[stealth_finger]

Idiocracy is not a how-to video.

The Brits don't need a how-to video, they're so incompetent they still don't understand why they lost their empire.

As opposed to the incompetent Americans that don't understand why they can't have one.

What framework is he using?

[wardrich86]

That site looks a whole lot like Facebook... is there a framework available that looks and functions that similar to FB? I'm actually interested in checking it out.

Re:How to get SHOT 101

[PPH]

a minor crime

You are holding a weapon (a rock). Game over.

Re:what is a dodgy one?

[ortholattice]

Guns are beautiful tools. Crafted with precision and with mechanisms that make clockworks look like toys. Have you seen a P90 fire? Whoever invented this thing is either a genius or a nutjob.

That's nothing. Shoe lasting machines are beautiful tools that make guns look like toys. I don't think there's a big collector market for them, though.

Trivia of the day: Long thought to be impossible, the first shoe lasting machine was invented in the late 19th century. It was so intricate and complex that the patent office couldn't believe such a machine could exist, and they sent someone to Massachusetts to witness it. It produced 100s of shoes a day and cut the price of shoes in half. Its lone inventor, black shoe worker Jan Matzeliger, is said to have worked himself to exhaustion and early death in his 30s, never fully seeing the profit from his machine.

Re:How to get SHOT 101

[jwhyche]

Its not that we can't have one, it is we don't want one.

Re: How to get SHOT 101

[toadlife]

...the modern Democrat party.

It's the Democratic party.

The political circles one runs in are exposed by the usage of that pejorative term.

Actually that's not too far from the truth

[rsilvergun]

even with mountains of training cops accidentally shoot people all the time. Throw somebody with little or no training outside of weekly target practice in an active shooter situation and they're probably going to screw up. I remember when Gabriel Giffords got shot. There was a 'good guy with a gun' on site but he didn't draw. When asked why he said he couldn't figure out who the shooter was and was afraid he'd shoot the wrong person or get shot himself by another "good guy with a gun".

One of the late night comedy hosts did a skit once (Colbert or Oliver, can't remember which) where they staged an active shooter scenario with regular people and pain bullets. The people in question knew what was going to happen and they still couldn't stop the shooter.

Re:How to get SHOT 101

[sfcat]

Idiocracy is not a how-to video.

The Brits don't need a how-to video, they're so incompetent they still don't understand why they lost their empire.

As opposed to the incompetent Americans that don't understand why they can't have one.

The US currently has military bases in over 70 countries...right now, after we closed down a bunch of them to save money. What can't we have again? The better question is 'what is the right mix of projection of military power vs use of soft power'. Treating the world 'empire' like a binary state is silly, governments project power over geographic regions and some project farther than others.