@fuckamerica109 No, Blood loss and massive internal injuries kill people. Fire arms are simply a tool that allows people to inflict these injuries on other people. If you want to say "guns kill people" then you have to accept that knives kill people, cars kill people, hammers kill people, bricks kill people, so on and so forth.
@ItsDburch even fist kill people...so thats what i say to people who disagree with guns and no its none of these that really kill people its the person in control of them that kill people if im holding a gun the gun didnt shoot i shot the gun...
Modern day semi autos do not jam so much as they used too. My beretta has jammed only once during 2000 rounds but that was because of the magazine not the pistol. Id go with a semi auto because revolvers are ammo deficent.
glock is not a good personal defence gun unless you are going to shoot some one about 10yds away because of its light weight it has a very bad recoil witch is just one of the many factors that contribute to its inaccuracy
I like all of your videos but I have to laugh a little when you have a video titled "How to pick a handgun." It would appear that you chose all of the above.
If I was really going into a war/battle situation. I would pick up the glock and the smith and Wesson and put those in my left and right pocket. Then grab that carbine as my main weapon of fire. I would then take the 32 & the magnum and put them to the left and right of the front of my pants tucked in. I would use semi automatic precise streams of gunfire. Then when I ran out of bullets I would dual wield any of the 2 guns. I stored in my pants or pockets. I would leave the other 2 magnums :D
that would still be a glock not a beretta m9 because ak 47 is ridiculously popular like the glock and you can beat people up with both of them and they would still work also i'm pretty sure both of them can shoot in extremely hard conditions also they both have kinda terrible aim
idk what beretta m9s failure rate is but Kimber Pro Carry II was tested by the Tacoma PD and they discovered it to have a failure rate of less then one half of one percent.
you never need one these al lyou need a rocket launcher,Aka 47,maybe even m16 with a grednade launcher attached,and then a shotgun and then you can live in irap have fun. send me some photos :D lol
you cant tell people to stay away from a glock if they have a smaller hand .. glock has several diffrent sized guns from the subcompact "baby glocks" to the full sized full frame and even up to comp sized, just pick a frame size and a caliber that suits your needs
Doesn't mean it is going to be as accurate. Got a .22 LR revolver that shoots the same rounds as my bolt action rifle and the rifle is mroe accurate. Enough said...
i would prefer the 38. I have a custom rubber grip and a lazer built into it.and a nice silver finish.very nice,small enough to fit in your pocket,and inexpensive
the only reason im defending it is because your asking me to and yes im going to make it my sole mission in like to keep guns out of your hands but only yours and to entertain your question
pro-gun Democratic Governor in Ted Strickland Ohio
HATCH-CRAIG GUN CONTROL AMENDMENT (May 14, 1999) -by Orrin Hatch (RUT) and Larry Craig (R-ID) passed by a 48-47 vote. 47 of 55 Republican Senators voted FOR this legislation.
was that a kel-tec p32? because i love that gun its what i use as my daily carry its very small and easily concealable reasonably priced as well i find its adequately accurate to 10 yards and at least in my hands it points very naturally for me i found you video informative and interesting keep up the good work nice collection as well im jealous i only own 6 firearms presently
In regard to the quoates by historical figures, I would like to chime in with one.
"For the first time in history, a civilized nation has full gun restriction. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient. And the whole world will follow our lead into the future"
When I ask folks "Who said that" I get replies like "Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln" When I tell them who really said that (ADOLF HITLER!) They stop and think about views.
I only know one guy who's done it, he used them in pig hunting. Often the pigs would get aggressive & ram the truck, he liked to have a 45 revolver (not sure what type) handy to finish them off. At that range they're much easier & safer to manuever, and those heavy pistol rounds sure pack a punch!
This debate is one which has real life precedent, as some countries with similar cultures have strict gun control laws & some do not, so we don't need to invent hypothetical situations. Here's some of the things we can observe:
* Serious bad guys never have trouble getting guns, no matter how strict the gun control laws.
* There are way fewer homicides in countries with strict gun control - particularly handgun control.
I personally like guns but I still concede that gun control saves lives.
corvan I agree with your first observation. However, this debate did not spring from gun control. It came from the outright ban of guns. Since banning guns is a hypothetical, I presented a hypothetical consequence to that action. In regard to your second observation, you may have numbers on your side, but statistics are problematic for many reasons. Many point to the fact that the US has a higher percentage of its citizens incarcerated than any other industrialized nation.....
but they fail to point out that its because we have the least corrupt police force and a more efficient court system than those other countries. We are more apt to investigate and prosecute crime than other nations. As far as gun stats go, there are no stats for my side of the argument. How many people would have been saved at Columbine by one legally concealed weapon? We'll never know. People don't mind an armed guard watching their cash in a bank. I would rather one watch over my children.
Sorry, mustn't have read back far enough. Yes statistics are advisory only. Regarding the legally concealed weapon argument, I agree 100%. IMO it's a bad compromise letting people own concealable weapons, but not to let anyone carry them. You give potential bad guys easy access to them, but don't allow good guys access to theirs when they potentially need them the most. If 1 in 50 civilians and 1 in 5 teachers/profs were allowed C&C permits, would that save lives? Would be an interesting study.
You're right corvan, I think it would be an interesting study, but also impossible. That was the point I tried to make about the teachers carrying. Its impossible to study deterred crimes because they never happened. That is why anti-gun people always use statistics, because we on the other side have no numbers for reply. I think it would be rather eye opening for many and would make this less of a debate if we could determine how many lives have been saved by legally carrying citizens.
More's the pity. I may be steering the debate a bit off topic here, but do gun enthusiasts in the US generally believe no regulation is safest? Or do they believe in some form of control? It's always interesting to hear the opinion of insiders :)
corvan, I won't speak for all gun enthusiasts, but my personal opinion is that if I have the possibility of being attacked, then I was born with the right to defend myself against that attack by whatever means I'm able. I don't live by what the world SHOULD be like. I know that it is a certain way and I prepare for that. That being said, no regulation falls in that scope, but I personally have no use of a machine gun. Is that muddy enough for you? ha ha
You don't but if my life is on the line I believe in using the most effective weapon I can get my hands on, while you may use a Shotgun I would prefer an M-16, or better yet an M-249. I'd use Atomic Annie if I could. See the need, or not it is your absolute constitutional right as an American, and basic human right as a Human Being to own one, or as many as you want for that matter.
Hehe, yes, perfectly muddy. It highlights well the problem with identifying the best way to deal with the issue of gun control & goes a long way towards explaining why lots of states & countries have different laws. It's such a cloudy topic that identifying clear paths through it is confounding. Lucky we can chew the fat for a few minutes on YouTube then go back to our real lives!
An armed society is a polite society, I again draw from my previous analogy, if your a criminal are you more, or less likely to commit a crime when you know that there is a very high likelihood that your victim is armed, and may shoot you in the face? How much crime then would there be in a 100% armed society. The gun is the great equalizer. Once again why are mass shootings in "Gun Free Zones" where the victims are guaranteed disarmed, and not at Gun Shows where almost everybody is armed?
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
-James Madison
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin 1759
To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
Basically I was saying that while you're clearly passionate about the subject your points don't hold water, so if you want to convince people of your opinion you should polish them up or ditch them for better. IMO If you don't care about convincing people though, don't worry about it! ;)
Exactly what part of my arguments "don't hold water"? How is it that it doesn't?, or is it simply that you have no counter, and your resorting to sticking your fingers in your ears?
Also so I don't need to make yet another reply, how is any of this in any way muddy?, what are you finding difficult to understand? How does our founders very unequivocal quotes at all highlight the "muddiness"? What part of Shall Not Be Infringed do you not understand?
What exactly doesn't hold water regarding your arguments? I've only got 500 characters & 5 min, but hey. Here's a few points to get you started:
* If I'm a criminal and there's a strong chance my victim is going to shoot me in the face I: a) crap my pants then die; or b) ambush him.
* If no-one gets shot at gun shows (which we shall take as fact for argument's sake) could it be: a) because there are lots of guns there; or b) due to many complicated factors.
How does it not, are you going to start shooting up a room full of heavily armed people?
Yeah they could try an ambush, but that's kind of what they do now anyway isn't it? However you avoided the question though (not surprising as you don't like the answer, and have no argument) would they be more, or less likely to want to? If your the victim would you stand a better, or worse chance being left defenseless by force of law? Your under attack, do you want a gun in your hand, or your dick?
Easy! The fks who do mass shootings like that don't intend to live, just cause carnage. That's why good guys with guns will never completely solve the problem bad guys with guns cause - because even if you've got a gun you just can't predict who is going to do what and when.
The trick for America is to find a way to uphold the individual's right to bear arms with the individual's right to live. I'm just playing devils advocate with you 921945 in case you can give me any ideas there ;)
Actually I seem to remember at least one with an exit plan, but whether they intend to live or not is irrelevant, why do they target "gun free zones"? Clearly there ignoring the signs, and coming armed anyway, there victims however do, and are left completely defenseless, they don't stand a chance. I'll put it to you this way, would you walk through the bad part of town at night wearing a T Shirt that proudly proclaims you to be unarmed? Again name a "gun control law that ONLY affects criminals.
921945 im having flame wars with you on other videos it seems to me that you are completely radical and are detrimental to those of us that actually support guns because u come across as a gun wielding psychopath whether you realize it or not do pro gun people a favor and STFU
How can you be pro gun, and support restrictions, and bans? In what way am I radical? Is thinking that we should be able to have what we what UNINFRINGED, like the constitution says, and the founders intended, and repeatedly said (See the quotes.) radical?, then I guess all our Founding Fathers were all real radical wackjobs then. to.
i in no way support any of that you just put me in that position because i cant be a pro gun liberal democrat in your eyes so where does it leave us now and yes they were radical nut cases our founding fathers but look how it turned out WHOOOOOO i love the usa bang bang bang
you support weapons bans and want to take away the right of people to bear arms seriously dude do you not read your saying the same thing over and over i do not support anti gun agendas i vote for reasons beyond simple ideas in which im not worried about because it is in the constitution i dont feel that i need to be scared about what is going to happen to them...... you really are bad at arguing its sad
further more liberal politicians have gotten a bad rap about gun control when in reality its been republicans who have instated the most gun control laws.......i can have different stances on different stances im not for gun control but i dont care about what homosexuals do or the well being of fetuses i do care about the people who are of lower income and how the united states is viewed as a whole in the international community..your logic is like saying you cant support peace if u support guns
How many anti gun laws have been proposed, or passed by liberals/democrats? How many have been proposed/passed by Conservatives/Republicans? To even attempt to say that democrats are more pro gun than Republicans is hysterical, that's sheer delusion.
Since were on the subject why should my tax dollars go to support someone who won't work/spend all there money on booze, drugs, or "bling"? Also what does it matter what anyone else thinks of us? I'm concerned about THIS country NOT theirs.
Than why are you defending the anti-gun agenda? Also since you brought it up why do you vote for people who's mission in life is to disarm me, you, and everyone else?
In what way does it save lives? In order for that to be true the Criminals would have to obey the law, since when do they do that? That's why there called CRIMINALS. Do you really think that there going to stop and say "gee I better not murder this person, because my gun is illegal?" All you do is disarm innocent people I.E. The Victims, gun control COSTS lives.
On a simple level, your point may seem to make sense, sadly realty is more complicated. As stated above, hardened criminals will still get weapons on the black market. But unplanned crimes of passion & crimes by petty criminals are far less fatal to their victims when strict gun control is on place. e.g. in Australia, bikes and drug dealers will still have shootouts but some guy who gets dumped by his girlfriend can't get drunk & angry, then pull out his 45 & take it out on his friends & family.
That's why violent crime is going up there then right? You also have a lack of deterrent, imagine your a criminal, are you more or less likely to commit a crime when you KNOW that your potential victims are disarmed by force of law, and will be unable to defend themselves? Why do you think mass shootings occur in "gun free zones" like schools, and not at Gun Shows? Also someone determined enough to kill, assuming they somehow magically couldn't get a gun, will just use something else.
Hey 921945, added a response before but it didn't fly cause I added a link :/
You should Google homicide rates. It's very interesting to see the trends & compare countries. You'll see 2 things at least: 1. Australia's crime rate is going down not up, same almost all of the western world thankfully. 2. The US doesn't do well compared to most countries, inc. virtually all of those in the west, on a per capita basis.
Once again, the numbers aren't perfect but they are indicative on a high level.
Try again. Try getting your "statistics from a source other than anti-gun groups. Once again if your a criminal, are you more, or less likely to commit a crime when you KNOW your victim will be unarmed?
I almost got robbed once. I was at a drive-up ATM when 3 guys tried to get into my car. Luckily the doors were locked. Then I dropped my wallet from off my lap & I was trying to get it from under the seat. Suddenly, the one guy yelled "He's got a gun!" And they all 3 ran away. I was shocked by how close I was to getting attacked.
Back then I didn't have a pistol, but I do now! Something like that will never happen again! Better safe than sorry.
dog ur dum as shit and even i know u do not want a gun to just piss some guy off. how bout u get some good guns too. Those stupid six shooters would never do. A small police issue revolver is good.
and a derringer? u gotta be shittin me. And if u want a conceal carry why the hell would u put a .223 in there? thats the dumbest shit ive ever heard
yep, that's if Obamma does not fuck that up, his stupid ass wants to get rid of civilian owned assault rifles, but ya, i don't think there is ant limitation to the amount of guns a person can have
wtf are you on about, as soon as he gets rid of guns the better.
what the fuck do civilians need assault rifles for? I don't agree with hand guns, but for arguments sake lets say its fine for hand guns for self defence. what are you gonna use your assault rifle for?
seriously, people go on about how school shootings are such a tradgedy, then do smthn abt it, ditch the guns
Ever hear about a shooting that claimed any large number of lives at a store that sold assault rifles? Fact is, the school shooters target schools because they know that there will not be any guns. most school shooting (or shootings in general for that matter) are not carried out with assault rifles. The second amendment states that the people's right to bear ARMS (not for sport, but weapons) shall not be infringed. People use assault rifles machine guns and DD's for fun or defense from govt
You're brilliant silverstrike. Get rid of guns huh? You really thought this one out didn't you? The government outlawed cocaine. Good thing no one can find cocaine anymore, huh? Ponder that genius!
that is exactly my point. criminals would still have guns the way they still have cocaine. You don't get rid of it altogether. Only with the banning of guns, only criminals would have them and law abiding citizens would have their car keys to defend themselves with.
using philmont6802 's point, people in schools wouldn't have guns with them anyway. so they would only "have their car keys to defend themselves with" anyway.
Granted, (atleast in movies lol) some stores have shotguns or smthn behind the counter in case of a robery, but how many actually do?
my point is, by outlawing guns, it would be more difficult for people to get a hold of them. this would reduce the number of shootings. (continued on next post)
Im sure there have been incidents where gun owners have been able to defend themselves frm gunmen with their own guns but the number of times that happens per year would probably be less than the number of shootings prevented from outlawing guns.
The majority of gun owners are probably somewhat safe and mature about their weapons, but the constitution (or wherever it says americans can bear arms)is way out of date. that was used in the times when there was a threat of an american indian attack.
silver, the 2nd Amendment had nothing at all to do with Indians. It developed from Lockean ideas that the government is owned and operated by the people, who have an obligation to take that power back if the government tried to usurp it. There are plenty of incidents where gun owners protect themselves, you just won't see it covered on the news because that isn't as "sensational" as murders or the economy.
As far as people in schools not having guns with them, perhaps someone should've told Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold that it was against school policy to bring firearms into the school. Then all those people at Columbine wouldn't have died. Or maybe, two teachers with licenced CCWs could've ended the situation quickly and saved lives. We'll never know because law abiding citizens can't carry weapons where they're needed most
I'm enjoying the debate because it hasn't turned into a screaming match like these normally do over this topic. This is what democracy is all about and what we're supposed to do to solve disagreements
Don't get a revolver, it's a bitch to reload under tense condition.
2cool4uification 1 year ago
how old are you. you sound like you are 14
theDONofHSI 1 year ago
me choosing a handgun: .357 magnum, 9mm, .45
futureusmc100 1 year ago
Mr fireman says change that battery on your smoke alarm.. Nice video.
paininthe10 1 year ago
DUDE , CHECK YER FIRE ALARM .....it's chirpin .get er done . OOOOOh rah
TURBODIESELWAGON 1 year ago
guns kill people
fuckamerica109 1 year ago
@fuckamerica109 No, Blood loss and massive internal injuries kill people. Fire arms are simply a tool that allows people to inflict these injuries on other people. If you want to say "guns kill people" then you have to accept that knives kill people, cars kill people, hammers kill people, bricks kill people, so on and so forth.
ItsDburch 1 year ago
@ItsDburch even fist kill people...so thats what i say to people who disagree with guns and no its none of these that really kill people its the person in control of them that kill people if im holding a gun the gun didnt shoot i shot the gun...
patpat122 1 year ago
@fuckamerica109 no people with guns kill people
patpat122 1 year ago
Modern day semi autos do not jam so much as they used too. My beretta has jammed only once during 2000 rounds but that was because of the magazine not the pistol. Id go with a semi auto because revolvers are ammo deficent.
Kennyan11b 1 year ago
the Glock (18) ! My choice.
maninscratch 1 year ago
i carry a kimber pro carry 2
blingblingjon34 1 year ago
oh shit, the cats going for a gun! *gets down*
shadowmario1000 1 year ago
Kimber Pro Carry II in .45
armypenguin 2 years ago
Get a Colt .45 (M1911). Believe me, once you try it, it will be your weapon of choice.
MiracleKD18 2 years ago
cat walking, hahahahaha
skater3shefik 2 years ago 12
hahahahahahahah, hell yeah kat walking rocks!
relicright 2 years ago
glock is not a good personal defence gun unless you are going to shoot some one about 10yds away because of its light weight it has a very bad recoil witch is just one of the many factors that contribute to its inaccuracy
shootin77 2 years ago
Bigger grip = better hold on the gun
i wouldn't dare try shooting a Smith & Wesson .44 Magnum with a small grip
grimmjowfan40 2 years ago
the cat could take out an eye
1127raymond 2 years ago
this sucks!
jayslong18 2 years ago
I like all of your videos but I have to laugh a little when you have a video titled "How to pick a handgun." It would appear that you chose all of the above.
PDFlogic 2 years ago
I choose the cat.
Elephantintheroom01 2 years ago 12
You'll shoot your eye out kid.
scavenger4life 2 years ago
1911 forever
FrikkenVV 2 years ago 3
What the heck is catwalking
Spanky00Cheeks 2 years ago
i have that celtic 32. and the glock
USAconstitut1on 2 years ago
Kel-tec
JeffDougherty58 2 years ago
kitty cat
fatcatt6 2 years ago
If I was really going into a war/battle situation. I would pick up the glock and the smith and Wesson and put those in my left and right pocket. Then grab that carbine as my main weapon of fire. I would then take the 32 & the magnum and put them to the left and right of the front of my pants tucked in. I would use semi automatic precise streams of gunfire. Then when I ran out of bullets I would dual wield any of the 2 guns. I stored in my pants or pockets. I would leave the other 2 magnums :D
BraveMokurai 2 years ago
have fun blowing your nutsack off
ng416 2 years ago
Lol "Hey whats that noise" C
BraveMokurai 2 years ago
fire alarm makes that noise periodically my old one use to do that
Rellik451 2 years ago
I was taught three simple rules:
1. A hit with a 22 is worth two misses with a 44.
2. If you can't stop' em with your first five rounds, another nine won't matter much.
3. Revolvers never, ever jam!
Sooner or later, ALL 1911's, ACP's and Semi Auto's Jam. Once; during an emergency, I had not one but two autos jam on me... Never again!
Remember, 357's never, ever jam, period.
TonyZayasEDS 2 years ago
i have seen a revolver jam and i have seen a few with the clinder out of alingment no gun is perfect!
mp5man 2 years ago
i had a .357 jam on me at the range one day. :P fired the round but the cylinder wouldn't cycle.
godzilla74114 2 years ago
beretta m9's do not jam. they are the ak47 of the pistol world
spazzz64 2 years ago
that would still be a glock not a beretta m9 because ak 47 is ridiculously popular like the glock and you can beat people up with both of them and they would still work also i'm pretty sure both of them can shoot in extremely hard conditions also they both have kinda terrible aim
6037084 2 years ago
Excellent points.
wwwjbcitycom 2 years ago
ive heard of aks jamming...... can be rare but possible
skater3shefik 2 years ago
idk what beretta m9s failure rate is but Kimber Pro Carry II was tested by the Tacoma PD and they discovered it to have a failure rate of less then one half of one percent.
armypenguin 2 years ago
where do u live that u'd actually go through a combat situation? haha.
jcarranza209 2 years ago
i was thinking about getting a little log cabin in iraq lol
TacticalMonky 2 years ago
you never need one these al lyou need a rocket launcher,Aka 47,maybe even m16 with a grednade launcher attached,and then a shotgun and then you can live in irap have fun. send me some photos :D lol
OrtonFan3212 2 years ago
haha Irap
Rellik451 2 years ago
:P lol i know
OrtonFan3212 2 years ago
glock 30 every time
stwars2 2 years ago
Replace the batteries on your smoker detectors. They're beeping lol
stealthbeast 2 years ago
lol
LtWolf 2 years ago
ill take the big ass one on the right, shuv it down my pants, and pull it out when sum 1 talks shit!!!!
awwwwnaaaa 2 years ago
You would probably be shot before you could draw the carbon 15.
my24939 2 years ago
lol........i was kidding
awwwwnaaaa 2 years ago
Oh sorry. I come across people who literally think that is a viable option. Guess I take it too seriously.
my24939 2 years ago
try not to shoot the cat
dingo8baby118 2 years ago
rofl that cat made me laugh so hard
RapandBasketball 2 years ago
Me:
Sig P226
Or glock 17 with a 17 round mag and +2 baseplate
Or A good old PPk.
For backup a Colt mustang .380 or a Smith and wesson Model 60.
fixdeluxe1 2 years ago
replace the battery in your smoke detector
POGIE151 2 years ago 2
The snub nose is in a last ditch effort gun, i personally cary a snub nose in my anckle holster, and carry my glock 21 at all times.
SocomElite187 2 years ago
how in the hell do you conceal that hand cannon?!
AnnaNicolesDeathbed 2 years ago
Tactical Cargos/ BDU's :)
SocomElite187 2 years ago
fair enough...although there is no way in hell I'm going around wearing those all the time. lol
AnnaNicolesDeathbed 2 years ago
nice cat lol
guns are cool too
Catman704 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
KILL THE CAT HAHHA ... why buy a gun when you can get a rifle?
svamse 2 years ago
a rifle is still a gun....
GalilxG3 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yea but the vid says "picking a !handgun!" not "picking a gun" so GET A RIFLE A SHOOT SOME BIRDS MAAAYN
svamse 2 years ago
this... didnt really help
criticaboutvids 2 years ago
Thanks for sharing. I guess you know everything. Why don't you make a video or shut up troll.
gmcjetpilot 2 years ago
so many things wrong with your reply...
i watched this video to learn... so i clearly dont think i know everything
and a troll is such a gay word
criticaboutvids 2 years ago
i agrea.. who says troll ? lol
123456789hellboy 2 years ago
lmao lol i love how the cat just walks in randomly
MonteLSV6 2 years ago
the big1
bryanlow5 2 years ago
you cant tell people to stay away from a glock if they have a smaller hand .. glock has several diffrent sized guns from the subcompact "baby glocks" to the full sized full frame and even up to comp sized, just pick a frame size and a caliber that suits your needs
TubeYou8587 2 years ago 2
alway pig the bigest and the smallest lol
TheOriginalSourBanan 2 years ago
get the cat
armyman390 2 years ago
Those crickets in the background are right
buzkill47 2 years ago
hahah cat walking nice vid
1995martin 2 years ago
For home w/short hallways THE JuDGE
For car THE JUDGE or 38spl
Any time nice sub compact Glock
When your in a corner
" Mossbreg Home Defender"
ikickknowledge 2 years ago
I would use my .38 or 9mm in all of those situations.
northernpatriot54 2 years ago
Yes!!! .38+p is good Thinking of buying a 44mag next week ruger ....never owed a Ruger
ikickknowledge 2 years ago
I got a 44mag super redhawk its my fav gun i own get one
phxsuns111 2 years ago
the other day I went to my local gun dealer and looked at a glock think it was a 40cal a 27 I think nice gun
ikickknowledge 2 years ago
like the rifle..very nice
element2259 2 years ago
CHange your smoke alarm batteries
HUMBOLDTG35DRIVER 2 years ago 7
I'd choose the Glock 17C because i have bear hands :S
abc0100 2 years ago
i envy u, im a thin guy like the one in this video.. i want a 45 but i just know id never be happy with the feel of it.
leaves me limited in what i can look at.
since i just want a pistol for target shooting i really need a full sized one, but damn its like they design them around guys like you.
lejink 2 years ago
lol cat
4944bob 2 years ago
Wonderful timing on the cat's entrance ^^
Your Glock looks like a 17 model, am I correct?
CrystalHunter1989 2 years ago
its a 21
mp5man 2 years ago
wow yea the .223 is a RIFLE round.
tepid3 3 years ago
Doesn't mean it is going to be as accurate. Got a .22 LR revolver that shoots the same rounds as my bolt action rifle and the rifle is mroe accurate. Enough said...
powerman2442 2 years ago
that rifle has a rifle round retard.think m4 ot m16 buddy
r6v2man 3 years ago
i would prefer the 38. I have a custom rubber grip and a lazer built into it.and a nice silver finish.very nice,small enough to fit in your pocket,and inexpensive
r6v2man 3 years ago
does the term "cat walking", have anything to do with the cat , that walked, on to the guns? :D
MindBullets2142 3 years ago
haha ya
crayzmoe 3 years ago
Dude, change battery on your smoke alarm, it may save your life!
AXE914 3 years ago
OMG thats the same cat as mine!
topbloood 3 years ago 2
is that the extended barrel glock? or the "L" model?
dandaisapanda2 3 years ago
standerd 21
mp5man 3 years ago
i prefer that fury gun that just walked across the table
donnellhamilton 3 years ago 2
it sounds like a girl
scarff94 3 years ago
i bet his dad whoped his ass when he found out he was playin with his guns lol
geotaddei 3 years ago
my dad beat me with a wire hanger and the cut of my fingers with a rusty pair of pruneing shers
mp5man 3 years ago
...serious? :I
Moderm101 3 years ago
this is probably some kid showing his dads guns
HitMan1263 3 years ago
i prefer rifles but handguns are cool to
Gunsmith420 3 years ago
cat walking
g0odoodolls 3 years ago 2
yup
arandomotaku 3 years ago
Wooo, MP7!!!
lightshado2 3 years ago
that big 1 isn't an mp7. none of these are mp7's. it doesnt even look like an mp7
mastercfromhalo3 3 years ago
i agree whoever said that gets his info from cheesey ps1 shooting games
r6v2man 3 years ago
NOPE
swanson1434 3 years ago
well now that u got self defence cover! show these fine people how to change the battery in your fire alrm lol the beeping isnt telling u it works.
boostedd15 3 years ago
if you want one for cat walking anyone will work. lol
jiggy446 3 years ago 2
what a fucking voice!!!!!!!!
andrew881thebest 3 years ago 2
Reps. Jack Brooks of Texas, John Dingell
of Michigan, Bill Brewster of Oklahoma and Jolene Unsoeld of Washington state, or Sens. Howell Heflin of Alabama and John Breaux of
Louisiana ALL democrats that support the 2nd amendment
pro-gun Washington state Democrat Rep. Tom Campbell
Don Baldwin president of D2A (democrats for the 2nd amendment
Thomas Jefferson was a democrat
Retired anti-gun Republican Governor Bob Taft of Ohio beat by pro-gun Democrat Ted Strickland
i really could go on and on
darkninja210 3 years ago
Thomas Jefferson was a democrat???? That's news to me. Check your facts, son. I think you're confused.
Hammeroftruth 3 years ago
nope
darkninja210 3 years ago
the only reason im defending it is because your asking me to and yes im going to make it my sole mission in like to keep guns out of your hands but only yours and to entertain your question
pro-gun Democratic Governor in Ted Strickland Ohio
HATCH-CRAIG GUN CONTROL AMENDMENT (May 14, 1999) -by Orrin Hatch (RUT) and Larry Craig (R-ID) passed by a 48-47 vote. 47 of 55 Republican Senators voted FOR this legislation.
Rudy Giuliani ANTI-GUN republican
darkninja210 3 years ago
was that a kel-tec p32? because i love that gun its what i use as my daily carry its very small and easily concealable reasonably priced as well i find its adequately accurate to 10 yards and at least in my hands it points very naturally for me i found you video informative and interesting keep up the good work nice collection as well im jealous i only own 6 firearms presently
darkninja210 3 years ago
oh my gawsh, the cat walking line slayed me! Too funny.
martilynnc 3 years ago
glock 17
GunFan007 3 years ago
In regard to the quoates by historical figures, I would like to chime in with one.
"For the first time in history, a civilized nation has full gun restriction. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient. And the whole world will follow our lead into the future"
When I ask folks "Who said that" I get replies like "Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln" When I tell them who really said that (ADOLF HITLER!) They stop and think about views.
Food for thought.
cbiedy 3 years ago
Why would you hunt with a handgun when you can have a rifle?
DannyEddy187 3 years ago
I only know one guy who's done it, he used them in pig hunting. Often the pigs would get aggressive & ram the truck, he liked to have a 45 revolver (not sure what type) handy to finish them off. At that range they're much easier & safer to manuever, and those heavy pistol rounds sure pack a punch!
corvanphoenix 3 years ago
dog walks by, accidentally triggers a loaded pistol, rebounds off a metal wall, hits a chandalier, chandalier falls on camera...
FrostysRose 3 years ago
This debate is one which has real life precedent, as some countries with similar cultures have strict gun control laws & some do not, so we don't need to invent hypothetical situations. Here's some of the things we can observe:
* Serious bad guys never have trouble getting guns, no matter how strict the gun control laws.
* There are way fewer homicides in countries with strict gun control - particularly handgun control.
I personally like guns but I still concede that gun control saves lives.
corvanphoenix 3 years ago
corvan I agree with your first observation. However, this debate did not spring from gun control. It came from the outright ban of guns. Since banning guns is a hypothetical, I presented a hypothetical consequence to that action. In regard to your second observation, you may have numbers on your side, but statistics are problematic for many reasons. Many point to the fact that the US has a higher percentage of its citizens incarcerated than any other industrialized nation.....
ausable92 3 years ago
but they fail to point out that its because we have the least corrupt police force and a more efficient court system than those other countries. We are more apt to investigate and prosecute crime than other nations. As far as gun stats go, there are no stats for my side of the argument. How many people would have been saved at Columbine by one legally concealed weapon? We'll never know. People don't mind an armed guard watching their cash in a bank. I would rather one watch over my children.
ausable92 3 years ago
Sorry, mustn't have read back far enough. Yes statistics are advisory only. Regarding the legally concealed weapon argument, I agree 100%. IMO it's a bad compromise letting people own concealable weapons, but not to let anyone carry them. You give potential bad guys easy access to them, but don't allow good guys access to theirs when they potentially need them the most. If 1 in 50 civilians and 1 in 5 teachers/profs were allowed C&C permits, would that save lives? Would be an interesting study.
corvanphoenix 3 years ago
You're right corvan, I think it would be an interesting study, but also impossible. That was the point I tried to make about the teachers carrying. Its impossible to study deterred crimes because they never happened. That is why anti-gun people always use statistics, because we on the other side have no numbers for reply. I think it would be rather eye opening for many and would make this less of a debate if we could determine how many lives have been saved by legally carrying citizens.
ausable92 3 years ago
More's the pity. I may be steering the debate a bit off topic here, but do gun enthusiasts in the US generally believe no regulation is safest? Or do they believe in some form of control? It's always interesting to hear the opinion of insiders :)
corvanphoenix 3 years ago
corvan, I won't speak for all gun enthusiasts, but my personal opinion is that if I have the possibility of being attacked, then I was born with the right to defend myself against that attack by whatever means I'm able. I don't live by what the world SHOULD be like. I know that it is a certain way and I prepare for that. That being said, no regulation falls in that scope, but I personally have no use of a machine gun. Is that muddy enough for you? ha ha
ausable92 3 years ago
You don't but if my life is on the line I believe in using the most effective weapon I can get my hands on, while you may use a Shotgun I would prefer an M-16, or better yet an M-249. I'd use Atomic Annie if I could. See the need, or not it is your absolute constitutional right as an American, and basic human right as a Human Being to own one, or as many as you want for that matter.
921945 3 years ago
Hehe, yes, perfectly muddy. It highlights well the problem with identifying the best way to deal with the issue of gun control & goes a long way towards explaining why lots of states & countries have different laws. It's such a cloudy topic that identifying clear paths through it is confounding. Lucky we can chew the fat for a few minutes on YouTube then go back to our real lives!
corvanphoenix 3 years ago
An armed society is a polite society, I again draw from my previous analogy, if your a criminal are you more, or less likely to commit a crime when you know that there is a very high likelihood that your victim is armed, and may shoot you in the face? How much crime then would there be in a 100% armed society. The gun is the great equalizer. Once again why are mass shootings in "Gun Free Zones" where the victims are guaranteed disarmed, and not at Gun Shows where almost everybody is armed?
921945 3 years ago
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
921945 3 years ago
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?
---Patrick Henry 6/2-26/1788
921945 3 years ago
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, 1787-1788
921945 3 years ago
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
-James Madison
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin 1759
To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
-Alexander Hamilton
921945 3 years ago
My 1st response to you got screwed again, yay.
Basically I was saying that while you're clearly passionate about the subject your points don't hold water, so if you want to convince people of your opinion you should polish them up or ditch them for better. IMO If you don't care about convincing people though, don't worry about it! ;)
corvanphoenix 3 years ago
Exactly what part of my arguments "don't hold water"? How is it that it doesn't?, or is it simply that you have no counter, and your resorting to sticking your fingers in your ears?
Also so I don't need to make yet another reply, how is any of this in any way muddy?, what are you finding difficult to understand? How does our founders very unequivocal quotes at all highlight the "muddiness"? What part of Shall Not Be Infringed do you not understand?
921945 3 years ago
What exactly doesn't hold water regarding your arguments? I've only got 500 characters & 5 min, but hey. Here's a few points to get you started:
* If I'm a criminal and there's a strong chance my victim is going to shoot me in the face I: a) crap my pants then die; or b) ambush him.
* If no-one gets shot at gun shows (which we shall take as fact for argument's sake) could it be: a) because there are lots of guns there; or b) due to many complicated factors.
I don't think answering A holds water.
corvanphoenix 3 years ago
How does it not, are you going to start shooting up a room full of heavily armed people?
Yeah they could try an ambush, but that's kind of what they do now anyway isn't it? However you avoided the question though (not surprising as you don't like the answer, and have no argument) would they be more, or less likely to want to? If your the victim would you stand a better, or worse chance being left defenseless by force of law? Your under attack, do you want a gun in your hand, or your dick?
921945 3 years ago
Easy! The fks who do mass shootings like that don't intend to live, just cause carnage. That's why good guys with guns will never completely solve the problem bad guys with guns cause - because even if you've got a gun you just can't predict who is going to do what and when.
The trick for America is to find a way to uphold the individual's right to bear arms with the individual's right to live. I'm just playing devils advocate with you 921945 in case you can give me any ideas there ;)
corvanphoenix 3 years ago
Actually I seem to remember at least one with an exit plan, but whether they intend to live or not is irrelevant, why do they target "gun free zones"? Clearly there ignoring the signs, and coming armed anyway, there victims however do, and are left completely defenseless, they don't stand a chance. I'll put it to you this way, would you walk through the bad part of town at night wearing a T Shirt that proudly proclaims you to be unarmed? Again name a "gun control law that ONLY affects criminals.
921945 3 years ago
921945 im having flame wars with you on other videos it seems to me that you are completely radical and are detrimental to those of us that actually support guns because u come across as a gun wielding psychopath whether you realize it or not do pro gun people a favor and STFU
darkninja210 3 years ago
How can you be pro gun, and support restrictions, and bans? In what way am I radical? Is thinking that we should be able to have what we what UNINFRINGED, like the constitution says, and the founders intended, and repeatedly said (See the quotes.) radical?, then I guess all our Founding Fathers were all real radical wackjobs then. to.
921945 3 years ago
i in no way support any of that you just put me in that position because i cant be a pro gun liberal democrat in your eyes so where does it leave us now and yes they were radical nut cases our founding fathers but look how it turned out WHOOOOOO i love the usa bang bang bang
darkninja210 3 years ago
liberals arent pro gun, conservatives r pro gun dude, take a look at obamas platform, restrict guns!
therealsporadicaarmy 3 years ago
Yet you seem to support restrictions, and bans, how can you be pro gun, and take that stance?
921945 3 years ago
you support weapons bans and want to take away the right of people to bear arms seriously dude do you not read your saying the same thing over and over i do not support anti gun agendas i vote for reasons beyond simple ideas in which im not worried about because it is in the constitution i dont feel that i need to be scared about what is going to happen to them...... you really are bad at arguing its sad
darkninja210 3 years ago
further more liberal politicians have gotten a bad rap about gun control when in reality its been republicans who have instated the most gun control laws.......i can have different stances on different stances im not for gun control but i dont care about what homosexuals do or the well being of fetuses i do care about the people who are of lower income and how the united states is viewed as a whole in the international community..your logic is like saying you cant support peace if u support guns
darkninja210 3 years ago
How many anti gun laws have been proposed, or passed by liberals/democrats? How many have been proposed/passed by Conservatives/Republicans? To even attempt to say that democrats are more pro gun than Republicans is hysterical, that's sheer delusion.
Since were on the subject why should my tax dollars go to support someone who won't work/spend all there money on booze, drugs, or "bling"? Also what does it matter what anyone else thinks of us? I'm concerned about THIS country NOT theirs.
921945 3 years ago
Than why are you defending the anti-gun agenda? Also since you brought it up why do you vote for people who's mission in life is to disarm me, you, and everyone else?
921945 3 years ago
In what way does it save lives? In order for that to be true the Criminals would have to obey the law, since when do they do that? That's why there called CRIMINALS. Do you really think that there going to stop and say "gee I better not murder this person, because my gun is illegal?" All you do is disarm innocent people I.E. The Victims, gun control COSTS lives.
921945 3 years ago
On a simple level, your point may seem to make sense, sadly realty is more complicated. As stated above, hardened criminals will still get weapons on the black market. But unplanned crimes of passion & crimes by petty criminals are far less fatal to their victims when strict gun control is on place. e.g. in Australia, bikes and drug dealers will still have shootouts but some guy who gets dumped by his girlfriend can't get drunk & angry, then pull out his 45 & take it out on his friends & family.
corvanphoenix 3 years ago
That's why violent crime is going up there then right? You also have a lack of deterrent, imagine your a criminal, are you more or less likely to commit a crime when you KNOW that your potential victims are disarmed by force of law, and will be unable to defend themselves? Why do you think mass shootings occur in "gun free zones" like schools, and not at Gun Shows? Also someone determined enough to kill, assuming they somehow magically couldn't get a gun, will just use something else.
921945 3 years ago
Also these countries with supposedly less shootings also have much smaller populations, when compared by population density, they have more.
921945 3 years ago
Hey 921945, added a response before but it didn't fly cause I added a link :/
You should Google homicide rates. It's very interesting to see the trends & compare countries. You'll see 2 things at least: 1. Australia's crime rate is going down not up, same almost all of the western world thankfully. 2. The US doesn't do well compared to most countries, inc. virtually all of those in the west, on a per capita basis.
Once again, the numbers aren't perfect but they are indicative on a high level.
corvanphoenix 3 years ago
Try again. Try getting your "statistics from a source other than anti-gun groups. Once again if your a criminal, are you more, or less likely to commit a crime when you KNOW your victim will be unarmed?
921945 3 years ago
Guns in the hands of good people stop crimes.
I almost got robbed once. I was at a drive-up ATM when 3 guys tried to get into my car. Luckily the doors were locked. Then I dropped my wallet from off my lap & I was trying to get it from under the seat. Suddenly, the one guy yelled "He's got a gun!" And they all 3 ran away. I was shocked by how close I was to getting attacked.
Back then I didn't have a pistol, but I do now! Something like that will never happen again! Better safe than sorry.
xbones101 3 years ago
dog ur dum as shit and even i know u do not want a gun to just piss some guy off. how bout u get some good guns too. Those stupid six shooters would never do. A small police issue revolver is good.
and a derringer? u gotta be shittin me. And if u want a conceal carry why the hell would u put a .223 in there? thats the dumbest shit ive ever heard
ethanrichard13 3 years ago
shoot the fkn cat
shinigami852 3 years ago
only in america!!!
fuckers... cannot drink until they are 21 but can have lot's of gun's with 18years old!
tmmp1984 3 years ago
this guy is way older than 18 - i've seen his face in other videos he is pretty old (grey hair even)
imwhatsfourdinner 3 years ago
You have to be 21 to buy a handgun and handgun ammunition, fyi.
RebelWrestler45 3 years ago
yep, that's if Obamma does not fuck that up, his stupid ass wants to get rid of civilian owned assault rifles, but ya, i don't think there is ant limitation to the amount of guns a person can have
pattrow1992 3 years ago
wtf are you on about, as soon as he gets rid of guns the better.
what the fuck do civilians need assault rifles for? I don't agree with hand guns, but for arguments sake lets say its fine for hand guns for self defence. what are you gonna use your assault rifle for?
seriously, people go on about how school shootings are such a tradgedy, then do smthn abt it, ditch the guns
silverstrike25 3 years ago
assualt rifles for americas original homeland defense =D
vince3122 3 years ago 3
Ever hear about a shooting that claimed any large number of lives at a store that sold assault rifles? Fact is, the school shooters target schools because they know that there will not be any guns. most school shooting (or shootings in general for that matter) are not carried out with assault rifles. The second amendment states that the people's right to bear ARMS (not for sport, but weapons) shall not be infringed. People use assault rifles machine guns and DD's for fun or defense from govt
philmont6802 3 years ago 2
You're brilliant silverstrike. Get rid of guns huh? You really thought this one out didn't you? The government outlawed cocaine. Good thing no one can find cocaine anymore, huh? Ponder that genius!
ausable92 3 years ago 2
@ausable92
If coke was leagle shit loads more people would do it than now, and also people found with it are arrested now.
If guns were outlawed too, then fewer people would have guns and you would be arrested for owning.
Same thing with anything thats against the law. someone always does it anyway.
silverstrike25 3 years ago
that is exactly my point. criminals would still have guns the way they still have cocaine. You don't get rid of it altogether. Only with the banning of guns, only criminals would have them and law abiding citizens would have their car keys to defend themselves with.
ausable92 3 years ago
using philmont6802 's point, people in schools wouldn't have guns with them anyway. so they would only "have their car keys to defend themselves with" anyway.
Granted, (atleast in movies lol) some stores have shotguns or smthn behind the counter in case of a robery, but how many actually do?
my point is, by outlawing guns, it would be more difficult for people to get a hold of them. this would reduce the number of shootings. (continued on next post)
silverstrike25 3 years ago
Im sure there have been incidents where gun owners have been able to defend themselves frm gunmen with their own guns but the number of times that happens per year would probably be less than the number of shootings prevented from outlawing guns.
The majority of gun owners are probably somewhat safe and mature about their weapons, but the constitution (or wherever it says americans can bear arms)is way out of date. that was used in the times when there was a threat of an american indian attack.
silverstrike25 3 years ago
silver, the 2nd Amendment had nothing at all to do with Indians. It developed from Lockean ideas that the government is owned and operated by the people, who have an obligation to take that power back if the government tried to usurp it. There are plenty of incidents where gun owners protect themselves, you just won't see it covered on the news because that isn't as "sensational" as murders or the economy.
ausable92 3 years ago
As far as people in schools not having guns with them, perhaps someone should've told Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold that it was against school policy to bring firearms into the school. Then all those people at Columbine wouldn't have died. Or maybe, two teachers with licenced CCWs could've ended the situation quickly and saved lives. We'll never know because law abiding citizens can't carry weapons where they're needed most
ausable92 3 years ago
I'm enjoying the debate because it hasn't turned into a screaming match like these normally do over this topic. This is what democracy is all about and what we're supposed to do to solve disagreements
ausable92 3 years ago