What gun control would you actually support?

[HTRN]

They see that the police need guns, but can't imagine that any other person could also walk in dangerous places. Well, lots of people do.

The Earth is a dangerous place, and last time I checked, we all walk here.

A gun, or any weapon is just another tool.


Sent via Tapatalk. Please excuse typos.

 

[Bob P]

You guys are right that this is not necessarily a realistic situation, that focusing on things like nuclear bombs and C4 is extreme. However, it is also Philosophy 101 to take a concept to the extreme in order to test whether it holds up to scrutiny. The example with the neighbor could possibly reveal something we could apply to more normal circumstances, help us see it more clearly. I don't care what the neighbor has, it is just something that can kill you and your family easily by accident. The details are unimportant unless you can justify why.

Timber: What if you talk to him and he tells you to piss off? What if you call the "authorities" and they say "hey, we live in a libertarian utopia, he's allowed to own that, we can't do anything." And then you go take him out, and you go to jail or are executed. Are those really the options?

Of course they're options, you just need to be willing to accept the consequences of those options. It's called self-sacrifice.

EDIT.

Got pissed off and posted too quick. Didn't see it had been answered

 

[Boghog1]

my neighbor has a bomb not 50 ft from my bedroom, he isn't too bright and there is a good possibility he could blow up my house, his house and the neighbors house
View attachment 20159

Now granted that is 8000 gallons vs 500 but picture being 50ft vs 5000 feet away

Now what is stopping him from building a bomb with Diesel and fertilizer? nothing. let people do what they want to do, punish them for not following basic principles like do no harm

 

[NHPatriot]

I would be more than happy to describe to you why I think gun rights and liberalism are compatible, but I'm not sure that would be a good idea.

Zbrod, plenty of people on this board have entertained your request to answer your hypothetical questions. When are you going to describe why you think gun rights and liberalism are compatible? From your own quote, you are clearly stating that you have come to a conclusion about that topic, so please don't hide behind the often used statement of "forming your opinions" in your response. Also, so that we can understand your points please detail what specific beliefs are the foundation to your interpretation of liberalism.

 

[xtry51]

You guys are right that this is not necessarily a realistic situation, that focusing on things like nuclear bombs and C4 is extreme. However, it is also Philosophy 101 to take a concept to the extreme in order to test whether it holds up to scrutiny. The example with the neighbor could possibly reveal something we could apply to more normal circumstances, help us see it more clearly. I don't care what the neighbor has, it is just something that can kill you and your family easily by accident. The details are unimportant unless you can justify why.

Timber: What if you talk to him and he tells you to piss off? What if you call the "authorities" and they say "hey, we live in a libertarian utopia, he's allowed to own that, we can't do anything." And then you go take him out, and you go to jail or are executed. Are those really the options?

My neighbors all have these things and use them everyday. They're called cars. They kill thousands of people every year, yet we still let people own them. Why is that? Seriously answer the question, because cars kill more poeple than guns.

 

[chinalfr]

View attachment 20154

I was just thinking when the pics will be out.

 

[Mr_Irritating]

I'd support a shooting test, administered by the NRA, and challengable in court. If you can't react to a signal, make a ccw draw and hit the chest vitals at 10 ft in 1.5 seconds, you are inept.I'd require it to vote and drive, as a matter of fact. The inept should have no say in anything.

Or, if you get banned from NES, you are inept and lose your 2nd amendment rights.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Some say taxing cigarettes is bad because if a person wants to kill themselves, so be it. But others would argue that we all end up paying for the health care those people end up needing.

Are you one of the 'others' that argues this?

 

[HTRN]

Are you one of the 'others' that argues this?

The funny thing is that recent data is showing that now costs are increasing because too many floks have quit smoking.

They are living longer overall, and the HC costs as folks age is very high.

The natural answer is to stop forcing folks to pay for others' healthcare.

Sent via Tapatalk. Please excuse typos.

 

[P-14]

Why not? If their parents feel theyre responsible enough to carry, its their decision, if theyre wrong then theres consequences. As for the asylum, theyre there for a reason, if theyre healthy enough to leave then they can get their guns back.

And the teachers should carry, too. Like in Israel. No school shootings there anymore.

 

[Palladin]

Found a new food source for shtf. Zbrod.
Without COD, he won't have a clue.....certainly not a date. Thank Christ for the female species, they know who not to f*ck and breed with.

 

[jude061]

I don't care what the neighbor has, it is just something that can kill you and your family easily by accident.

My neighbors own cars, motorcycles, axes, kitchen knives, a gas stove, an oil burner, matches, perscription medication, cigarette lighters, chain saws, screwdrivers, alcohol... all of those things can kill you BY ACCIDENT OR NEGLIGENCE. Gun control is flawed in that it seeks to outlaw an inanimate object. I know a few (too many) people that have died as a result of misuse (theirs or someone else's) of many of the above objects. Should we ban cars? motorbikes? gas stoves? staircases? zbrod, when will you realize that your reasoning about gun control is flawed? restricting gun ownership is NOT about preventing criminals from gaining access to guns. It never has been, it never will. It is about the powers that be attempting to disarm the people of an effective means ofself defense, regardless of their right to carry that weapon. If i were a criminal, and I wanted to commit a violent act, I would obviously choose a gun, regardless of whether the law allowed me to carry one or not. If I couldnt obtain one, I need do no more than go to the nearest hardware store for a box cutter, hatchet, kitchen knife, fishing sinker and string, claw hammer, or whatever else would give me the advantage over my prey. Your logic is clearly flawed if you think gun control will "help people." It hasn't, and it won't ever. It is an attempt to control the populace by a political faction. The foolish logic that gun control will prevent (potential) crime is idiotic. noone can predict crime by prohibiting an object. that's as rediculous as saying outlawing cars will prevent drunk driving deaths. it's a political ploy disguised as altruistic. Have you read any of the material I suggested you read? What other rights are you willing to concede so people's feelings aren't hurt or people aren't scared?

 

[jude061]

And the teachers should carry, too. Like in Israel. No school shootings there anymore.

My physician asked me "have we talked about classroom safety?" Kids today make you pick your battles...

 

[zbrod]

Man, lots to respond to. I'll do my best.

My neighbors own cars, motorcycles, axes, kitchen knives, a gas stove, an oil burner, matches, perscription medication, cigarette lighters, chain saws, screwdrivers, alcohol... all of those things can kill you BY ACCIDENT OR NEGLIGENCE.

Of course they're options, you just need to be willing to accept the consequences of those options. It's called self-sacrifice.

To all of you who actually answered my question with reasoned responses, thank you, this is what I was looking for. No need to get angry. But...

zbrod, when will you realize that your reasoning about gun control is flawed?

Are you (and several other people on here) incapable of having a hypothetical discussion? How many times do I have to say I'm not arguing in favor of gun control, that I am simply trying to have a theoretical discussion? I know you guys think I'm being disingenuous but please, get over it.

Are you one of the 'others' that argues this?

Yes, but it is not something I am religious about, I'm open to arguments against it. Would prefer to keep it on guns though.

Zbrod, plenty of people on this board have entertained your request to answer your hypothetical questions. When are you going to describe why you think gun rights and liberalism are compatible? From your own quote, you are clearly stating that you have come to a conclusion about that topic, so please don't hide behind the often used statement of "forming your opinions" in your response. Also, so that we can understand your points please detail what specific beliefs are the foundation to your interpretation of liberalism.

I've been trying to inform everyone of my beliefs and thoughts incrementally when I think I actually have something solid. I haven't come to any conclusions but I have some theories. Any post on liberalism though is going to be long and start a shitstorm, I'm kind of slowly working my way up to it. Plus, I keep getting distracted by other shit.

Maybe you should go meet some of them, talk to them. God forbid, maybe even join them. Instead of just getting your intellectual jollies by jumping into a forum dedicated to something you know nothing of, - and have very little desire to learn about-, and demanding that they accept you're stunted rhetoric on the basis that your parents paid for some pieces of paper.

Are you trolling me? What do you think I'm doing right now? I'm talking to "them." I have met one person from here so far and went shooting with him. You think I'm reading 45+ pages of posts because I like getting shit on? How can you claim I have no desire to learn? How many times do I have to stress that I'm not asking anyone to accept anything or trying to change anyone's mind, that I'm just trying to learn? Did I say I'm smarter than you because I have a degree? Was I the one who even brought up college in the first place (hint: no).

Friday night pizza Call of Duty fests that most 20 somethings engage in now

I think Call of Duty and other games are getting younger people interested in guns. It's not realistic, but they use real gun names and models. Certainly got me more curious. I would think gun enthusiasts would support this.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Yes, but it is not something I am religious about, I'm open to arguments against it. Would prefer to keep it on guns though.

I'll break it out into another thread in the morning. This kind of thinking is what is wrong with liberals though.

I'll call the thread something like "Why Liberals Suck".

You're not going to like it; you're taking up an indefensible argument.

ETA: I didn't think you were religious about anything.

 

[Bob P]

I think Call of Duty and other games are getting younger people interested in guns. It's not realistic, but they use real gun names and models. Certainly got me more curious. I would think gun enthusiasts would support this.

COD, like everything else in life, is fine in moderation.

EDIT

One other thought: You're trying to have a 'hypothetical discussion' about something most people here feel very passionate about. Hypothetical conversations with people who have strongly held beliefs seldom work out smoothly. If you poke a bear with a stick, don't cry when you get mauled. You come here where the politics are pretty plain and then you whine when you get strong responses to your contrarian positions. That kind of behavior tends to provoke ever stronger reactions.

 

[Ziptar]

Short answer:

My answer to the tile of this post..

None.

The longer answer:

I'm also going to make another attempt at explaining why I made this thread. It was supposed to be a very academic question about what form of regulations/restrictions gun owners might consider to be "fair."

You doomed yourself from the start, there is nothing academic about it, and theres nothing that'll make it fit in a nice neat organized academic box.

I can attempt to rephrase it:

Do you believe that there are any laws, regulations, or restrictions regarding guns that would not infringe on the 2nd amendment and would be effective in reducing the amount of harm done by guns being used in criminal acts, presumably but not limited to making it more difficult for persons who would commit such crimes to obtain them? If so, what are they?

Again, your attempt to rephrase the question fails. The logic is circular and flawed and your presumption assumes a definitive outcome which is false.

Lets break it down.
1) Any "laws, regulations, or restrictions regarding guns" automatically "infringe on the 2nd amendment", so that cancels itself out.
2) "and would be would be effective in reducing the amount of harm done by guns being used in criminal acts" By their very nature "criminal acts" are a violation of "laws, regulations, or restrictions" so it is self defeating, therefore the amount of harm that is reduced is zero, even if the amount of "criminal" acts are increased due to new " laws, regulations, or restrictions".
3) "presumably but not limited to making it more difficult for persons who would commit such crimes to obtain them?". This is a straw man. There are already laws on the books for any number of things that presumably make doing allot of things more difficult, yet those of ill intent still manage to do them. You labor under a presumption that the enactment of "laws, regulations, or restrictions regarding guns" automatically put an end to any undesired behavior, they don't. They are just words printed on paper or as Tyler Durden put it, "The illusion of safety". In addition, in order to identify "persons who would commit such crimes" we'd have to employ the equivalent of the big flaming eye dude Sauron from "The Lord of the Rings" in order to look into the minds of such "persons" to preemptively identify there would be any violation of any "laws, regulations, or restrictions". In other words what you presume is not effective, applicable, realistic, enforceable, sustainable, or reasonable.

With above removed from your rephrased question, we are left with:

Do you believe that If so, what are they?

Have another go at it.

The answer to the "Which 1911 to get?" Question.
My preference is the 1927.

My answer to the

Before you start typing, I want everyone to think of this hypothetical question: the person who lives next to you acquires some sort of (atomic or otherwise) large explosive that, if detonated, would kill you and your whole family, and destroy your house. This explosive is highly volatile and your neighbor is an incompetent idiot, so there is a good chance he will accidentally set off the explosive. But he legally owns it and it is on his property. Does he have a right to put you and your family in that kind of danger?

Question.

If the phrase "some sort of (atomic or otherwise) large explosive" encompasses things like "8 decade old, long past its service life, cantankerous steam boiler 1 floor below thats already caught fire once" and the phrase "your neighbor is an incompetent idiot" can be substituted for "your land lord is a complete cheap bastard.".

Ain't no hypothetical about it, its my daily life. Not only does he have the right, I keep paying the rent.

And now its my turn for name calling and insulting!!

“I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!”

 

[speedy]

The key word is "CONTROL". Hmmmmmm
Freedom and control... yikes, do not mix very well unless done properly, and even then it is still a "sticky situation".

 

[NHPatriot]

I guess I am confused.

People seem to care very little what I think, seeing as I've stated many times I don't support gun control measures in general, especially the ones in Mass. Or, they interpret my attempt to figure out my beliefs, and my wavering on things such as C4 and tanks, as a full blown endorsement of taking away their guns and imprisoning them in FEMA camps. Really I'm surprised no one has accused me of raping their mother by proxy because I have reservations about private citizens owning atomic bombs.

I understand now, you are against gun control. But then you say later in reference to gun control:

I'm not "assuming" anything, I'm asking. As 30+ pages have demonstrated, the feeling on this forum is a resounding "no", and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing at the moment.

Well, which is it? Because you can't have it both ways.

Alright, well since many of you have called for me to share my opinions, once again I will try to articulate them. This time though please try to read this carefully and with an open mind, otherwise we are not going to get anywhere. Also, keep in mind that I'm NOT trying to change anyone's mind; in fact, I am on here to learn (though not to write any research papers), because my own opinions are not yet well formed. As much as I love mud-slinging, too many of these posts, even the well-thought out ones, seem too preoccupied with ME as a person and not the topic itself. They are separate concerns and blending them is making it difficult for me to take things seriously (though these last posts have been much better).

I'm also going to make another attempt at explaining why I made this thread. It was supposed to be a very academic question about what form of regulations/restrictions gun owners might consider to be "fair." I admit I worded it in a way that was not objective, but it was not because I was attempting to somehow insert my own beliefs in there. I was actually attempting to echo what I THOUGHT was the sentiment I had been reading on the forum, that some gun laws were okay if they kept them out of the hands of "bad guys." I was curious what these laws were. Clearly I misinterpreted those posts. But I was not trying to make any statement about my own opinions, or imply anything. I did mention the C4 because I was genuinely surprised that people were supportive of the right to own it, but I was mostly curious about what people had to say on the matter.

I'm going to split this up in a few posts, more to come.

If you are not going to be objective (by your own admission), then why ask a slanted question if your mission truly was to learn? I know you state that you were stating it in a slanted fashion because that is what you thought the general thought was in the forum. Let me ask you this, if you go onto a gun forum, wouldn't you think the slant of the question would be towards the pro-gun side? Frankly what you are asking us to believe would be akin to going to DU, posting a question with the slant that everyone there generally agreed with Bush, and then being shocked when you got a lot of flak in return.

Frankly, your behavior has been completely opposite what I would expect from someone who truly wanted to learn. The only two options I see at this point is that you are at odds internally between rational analysis of this topic, or you have a specific agenda to try and get quotes from gun owners which can then be turned around to be used in an argument along the lines of "even these gun owners support reasonable regulations". You have stated that you are not writing a research paper, but you sure sound like someone trying to establish rapport with a group of individuals to win their trust and then use their words against them somehow.

As you can tell we haven't played along with your false premise in the opening argument and throughout 30+ pages. I notice that you changed it now since we exposed that statement for what it was. That statement reminded me of our friend Rosenthal who likes to point out that he is a gun owner right before he likes to start making statements as to why gun control is perfectly acceptable. We didn't play that game, which is one of the reasons why this thread has gone on for so long because I don't think we gave you what you were looking for, hence why you still need to hedge and say your opinions "are not well formed".

I suppose I should speak to the college/hillbilly thing as I seemed to have struck a nerve. I'd like to point out that the reason I even brought up education is because people were stereotyping me as a college freshman philosophy major writing a paper for class. In fact, I'm pretty sure if I remember correctly someone asked me straight up if I was a college student. So I did not bring that up as some sort of proof that I know better. Having been to college, I'm well aware of how little it matters in terms of what you know.

A bigger man would have ignored the quips that I was just a (female) college brat, but I am not that bigger man, and I enjoy stereotyping as much (probably more so) than anyone. I also think many of you think your views are a little more mainstream and would be more well received by the general public than they actually are when you accuse me of not living in the "real world" (though I am aware, as many of you pointed out, that being mainstream doesn't mean it's right, Mr. Social Proof, and also that I could be similarly mistaken about the popularity of my beliefs). Hence the charges of living in the woods and banging your sisters. But I'm well aware you come from all walks of life, and are among us, possibly in the office right next to me (peeks out the door).

Jose: The entering post was (meant to be) a question, not an argument. I can attempt to rephrase it:

Do you believe that there are any laws, regulations, or restrictions regarding guns that would not infringe on the 2nd amendment and would be effective in reducing the amount of harm done by guns being used in criminal acts, presumably but not limited to making it more difficult for persons who would commit such crimes to obtain them? If so, what are they?

Well done, you identifed and removed the social proof part of your argument.

After 30 plus pages, even if you toss out any personal attacks, there is a plethora of facts stated repeatedly for you to see that gun control doesn't achieve the stated goal of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and instead makes criminals out of innocent people. Not only that, gun control has shown several times to be a critical step in making individuals defenseless against governments who want those individuals dead because they don't fit in with a particular agenda. Not to mention the logical error of relying on a criminal who doesn't obey laws to obey a law. Frankly, in the face of overwhelming facts I find it rather impossible for a rational person who truly wants to learn to not see the inherent failure of gun control.

And, I hate to say it, but there are two different personas that you are operating under while posting. On one hand you try to portray that you are pro gun by asking about 1911s and make statements that you are against gun control. But then you also write posts implying that we are hillbillies, that you are much more mainstream in your thinking, and then that you are still forming your opinions about gun control. Note the "us" versus "them" tone of your language. When your words and your tone are at odds, that is what trips the "troll" response by some of the other posters here because that is contradiction between what you actually believe and what you say you believe. That contradiction is either because you truly don't understand why it is good or bad, or you have an anti-gun agenda.

And as for focusing on you as a person, we are not talking about superficial things relating to you. What is relevant to this discussion is your thought process in forming the foundation to your argument (an argument that we still haven't seen in entirety). That is fair game in a discussion because that is the process you use to come to a particular conclusion. And noticeably absent in this discussion is a consistent declaration of what you believe, even when asked multiple times and even though you say you say you will discuss your liberal based beliefs. When you are not consistent in your argument the only rational thing to do is then start asking about HOW you came to that conclusion. If you have inconsistent conclusions (as we have seen) then there must be an error with your premises.

I've been trying to inform everyone of my beliefs and thoughts incrementally when I think I actually have something solid. I haven't come to any conclusions but I have some theories. Any post on liberalism though is going to be long and start a shitstorm, I'm kind of slowly working my way up to it. Plus, I keep getting distracted by other shit.

If you are waiting for something solid to appear when dealing with a liberal (or better term to use would be socialist, in your words) based argument, then we can fast forward this discussion. While those ideas may seem new and wonderful to you, those arguments have been around for several years. Rational minded individuals have systematically taken them apart and put on display the utter failures those ideas are when taken to their logical conclusion. If you truly do want to learn, then just post what you think and see if it makes sense when looked at objectively.

 

[drgrant]

Ammonium nitrates are easy to get if you know a farmer.

True enough. And there is nothing stopping a pissed off farmer from building a bomb either. So what if he has to get a "permit" for it...

Food for thought... that nutbag in norway probably did exactly that. He supposedly bought/owned a farm, so he could buy fertilizer, and in turn he obviously constructed a very powerful device of some sort or another. He had "papers" for everything he did up until the moment he started killing innocent people.

That whole incident may be a prime example of why trying to stop people with malum prohibitum BS is a somewhat fruitless idea. It's just feel good bullshit.

-Mike

 

[ChevyGuy91]

I am almost prestige in Black Ops, and I have the AK47, so I know it will **** up some soldiers and babies, as well as the Russian invasion.

 

[biaj53]

gun control

Make it so jail isn't appealing for criminals to spend time. Enforce laws that are on the books more strictly. Ie. Don't allow prosecutors to offer plea bargains to suspects arrested for felon in possession or possession in commission of crime. Make them do the mandatory time. If they plead not guilty, grow some balls and take it to trial. Stop going for easy numbers ny pleading these aholes out. Those are themajor problems. If you use a firearm in commission of a crime make it life in prison. Chain gang, not plush time. If your a felon in possession same thing. Recidivism is so high because criminal don't fear jail. It's a better environment than where they come from and provides shelter, gym, tv, education, 3 meals a day and medical care.

As far as your .45 stay away from S&W for 2 reasons, A. They sold out gun community by making deal with MA AG to get an 'approved weapons roster' This requires nonsense weapon 'safety' modifications. This causes a hassle for gun owners and manufacturers alike. B. Sig Sauer and Kimber make much better weapons. Kimber is LAPDs SWAT choice, Seals go with Sigs, although they are p226 9mm. Any more question shoot me an email.

Btw: keep your finger off the trigger and out side the trigger guard until you've acquired your Target and your ready to fire. Treat every gun as if it's loaded. Know your Target it's back stop (what's behind it) and beyond. Never point your gun at anything you do not intend to shoot, kill or destroy. That's proper gun control.

John

 

[Lamina]

It got you more curious because it allowed you to pretend you were doing things that made a difference in physical reality without having to learn about endurance, dedication to training, and the sheer terror that goes along with that kind of activity. It lets you pretend you're killing people, - lots of people-, without being exposed to the dirty work involved with death. Or the endless hours of routine bullshit that accompanies your little care packages that drop from the sky when you're on a kill streak.

I have no problem with COD or other games like that, but I would think you should. How can you consider it healthy for a young liberal who wants everyone to be fed and happy to be lusting over slaughtering human beings with .mil style weaponry in an unrealistic revival kind of game? Seriously, dude... those make believe people you're shooting up with your buddies have make believe wives. Make believe children.

At the end of the day, there's some make believe kid eating trash in a make believe gutter because you slaughtered his make believe daddy in order to get to the next prestige and look cool in front of your internet buddies.

Nice f*cking make believe world you live in there.

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Timber again."

Rofl.

 

[Spanz]

Read the Chinese walmart with guns thread! It is obvious to those posters from afar that guns in the hands of Americans prevents our government from turning into a dictatorship (something they are experts in)! So, controls on owning those guns, from that standpoint, is chipping away at our constitution and the health of America.

 

[jude061]

zbrod, your civil rights aren't academic. they are real life. without them, you wouldn't be academically discussing anything. I'm not sure that one can be in favor of the big, micromanaging, nanny-state type of government that liberal progressives favor AND civil rights... one can only be for liberty or against liberty. being for SOME liberty and against others is kind of like being sort of pregnant... either you are or you arent; there's no middle ground.

 

[Fixxah]

okay then, my question to you is: what ANFO control would you actually support?

i'd love to go to the store and be able to buy a tiny little nuke. if it was fun to trip the charge in an airbag under three feet of dirt a little nuke of similar yield would be awesome jammed inside a pumpkin or watermelon!

That would be just wonderful. There's zero radiation concerns with any nukes, we all know that.

Ask the Japanese.

Sent from the Hyundai of the droids, the Samsung Replenish, using Tapatalk.

 

[zbrod]

Nice f*cking make believe world you live in there.

That's the beauty of make believe. I will decapitate a school bus full of children with a chainsaw and sleep like a baby if it's in a video game. I can tell the difference between real and fake. I prefer Battlefield to COD anyway.

I'm not collecting quotes to use against you guys. In fact, I've actually brought up many of your points (with regard to guns) with my liberal friends to see what their responses are (usually not very convincing). I'll have you know that you've largely convinced me of what I already heavily suspected was true before even coming here, that gun control is wrong and ineffective. I know it enrages you, but you'll pardon me for not throwing away me entire liberal ideology on all other issues because of that, however.

I've got a long day ahead of me, I'll be on later.

 

[jasons]

Also only 1 person has told me what 1911 I should buy.

First you need to ask Martha what kind of 1911 you can buy.

 

[mcb]

I think Call of Duty and other games are getting younger people interested in guns. It's not realistic, but they use real gun names and models. Certainly got me more curious. I would think gun enthusiasts would support this.

Actually I might suggest that is the problem. At this stage you are only curious and already pondering gun control. You've stated in your other epic thread your willing to give up to gain what you think is important. Unfortunately gun owners don't want to give up anything for your liberal hypothetical gains that have been proven false. When your curiosity wanes you'll join the rest of the liberals where gun control simply means no civilian gun ownership. We can't have that, just get a gun, learn to shoot and if you find you don't appreciate it then STFU like good liberal.

 

[Boghog1]

as for the 1911 to buy, you need to ask why you want a 1911 or why you want any gun for that matter. then once you decide that reason then decide on the gun you want. I would say get a plastic fantastic gun in 9mm or 22lr