So serious question guys: what are your thoughts/opinions if a shooter brings a 1000 rounds of ammo to a range? granted all laws are being followed: firearms are secure and guns and ammo are separate.
Why would they need to bring 1000 rounds to the range? Why couldn’t the range supply the ammo? I don’t understand why anyone would need 1000 rounds in their possession. How many rounds does a combat soldier take on patrol or on a mission to kill the enemy? On average?
I probably have brought 1000 rounds of ammo to a range. As mentioned, range ammo is about double what you can get other places. Just like everything else you can possibly buy, ammo is cheaper in bulk. I used to buy 300-500 rounds at a time because it would be double the cost of 100 rounds. So why did I bring 1000 rounds to the range? Instead of a bachelor party at a strip club, mine was at a range. Had about 15 friends go with me. Most didn't own guns, and was just easier to have everyone pay me $50 and I buy all the ammo we needed. I can't remember how much ammo we brought, but was probably 2-3000 rounds. .22 ammo is so small it is often sold in boxes of 550 that is about the size of a softball. I'm guessing I probably had at least 2 boxes since half my guns are .22. And at least 1000 rounds of other ammo, probably more. Going through 100 rounds of ammo doesn't take long, easily less than an hour. So it makes sense to bring 2-3000 rounds when there was about 15 people there. Probably not the scenario you had in mind. But if I saw just 1 person with 1000+ rounds, I'd probably just think he plans to sight in and practice with several guns and plans to be there 8 hours. Maybe he just got a few new ones he wants to try before entering a competition, maybe he wants to try different ammo, maybe he has to drive far and only goes once a year so wants to make a day of it. Maybe he just had a better deal on bulk ammo and keeps it all in one ammo can. I can tell you I only buy .22 ammo in those 550 boxes, and usually buy 2 or 3 boxes when I can, because sometimes they can be hard to find. In any case, I wouldn't really think much of it. Unless he started pulling out some illegal belt fed weapon that can go through 1000 rounds in a few minutes, then he'd probably just be kicked out and banned.
I have to admit I find it quite disturbing that your stag party was at a shooting range. I know to you it's a hobby but I guess it just highlights the cultural difference between America and countries that don't have such high levels of gun violence (I.e. every other first world country). To you it's so normal to be around guns and for them to be commonplace, this is just so alien to me and for that I am extremely thankful
I have seen some of the Euro stag parties. A friend of mine live in the capital of a small country and every weekend the stag groups come into town, get extremely drunk, start fights, break stuff.
A range day by comparison was fun and relaxing.
Let me guess, white males? Maybe your friend’s country should implement a ban?
Always trying to introduce race into anything. Your life must be miserable.
Coming from someone who openly stated that they fear elimination of the white race, I find that laughable. Also, someone who fears the big bad gubment and all of the other things that you fear, them mainly, I think it’s you who has a miserable life. In fact, my life is quite enjoyable and rich, without a thunder boom stick and irrational fears.
So serious question guys: what are your thoughts/opinions if a shooter brings a 1000 rounds of ammo to a range? granted all laws are being followed: firearms are secure and guns and ammo are separate.
Why would they need to bring 1000 rounds to the range? Why couldn’t the range supply the ammo? I don’t understand why anyone would need 1000 rounds in their possession. How many rounds does a combat soldier take on patrol or on a mission to kill the enemy? On average?
I probably have brought 1000 rounds of ammo to a range. As mentioned, range ammo is about double what you can get other places. Just like everything else you can possibly buy, ammo is cheaper in bulk. I used to buy 300-500 rounds at a time because it would be double the cost of 100 rounds. So why did I bring 1000 rounds to the range? Instead of a bachelor party at a strip club, mine was at a range. Had about 15 friends go with me. Most didn't own guns, and was just easier to have everyone pay me $50 and I buy all the ammo we needed. I can't remember how much ammo we brought, but was probably 2-3000 rounds. .22 ammo is so small it is often sold in boxes of 550 that is about the size of a softball. I'm guessing I probably had at least 2 boxes since half my guns are .22. And at least 1000 rounds of other ammo, probably more. Going through 100 rounds of ammo doesn't take long, easily less than an hour. So it makes sense to bring 2-3000 rounds when there was about 15 people there. Probably not the scenario you had in mind. But if I saw just 1 person with 1000+ rounds, I'd probably just think he plans to sight in and practice with several guns and plans to be there 8 hours. Maybe he just got a few new ones he wants to try before entering a competition, maybe he wants to try different ammo, maybe he has to drive far and only goes once a year so wants to make a day of it. Maybe he just had a better deal on bulk ammo and keeps it all in one ammo can. I can tell you I only buy .22 ammo in those 550 boxes, and usually buy 2 or 3 boxes when I can, because sometimes they can be hard to find. In any case, I wouldn't really think much of it. Unless he started pulling out some illegal belt fed weapon that can go through 1000 rounds in a few minutes, then he'd probably just be kicked out and banned.
I have to admit I find it quite disturbing that your stag party was at a shooting range. I know to you it's a hobby but I guess it just highlights the cultural difference between America and countries that don't have such high levels of gun violence (I.e. every other first world country). To you it's so normal to be around guns and for them to be commonplace, this is just so alien to me and for that I am extremely thankful
Why? it wasn't common place for most of them. Half the group never shot a gun before, the other half maybe just 2 or 3 times. All thought it was fun because it was different. SO it was something different for everyone and we all had a great time. Unless just the existence of a shooting range is disturbing to you, what difference does it make why and when someone goes? I find it disturbing that a large portion of guys I know want to celebrate getting married by going to a strip club and dragging all their friends, half already married, with them. Thats so disrespectful to your soon to be wife to celebrate the wedding by one last fling with a stranger, that is disturbing to me that has become the norm for a bachelor party (especially living 3 hours from Vegas that was the norm). Not saying that is you, but I didn't want that for me. I wanted something different.
If you haven’t noticed yet, other countries find American’s relationship with guns bizarre.
Other countries don’t learn American History
evidence? And I stated American history specifically.
I have no idea why you keep insisting other countries don't learn American history. You're simply not correct on that one and it's kind of a bizarre assertion.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
So serious question guys: what are your thoughts/opinions if a shooter brings a 1000 rounds of ammo to a range? granted all laws are being followed: firearms are secure and guns and ammo are separate.
I do not think I’ve ever taken 1000 rounds to the range at once, but I have no issues with someone that does. 10 trips to the range could easily use up 1000 rounds. Personally, I worry more about the person that has a gun and one box of 20 that has never been opened. That most likely means they do not practice or know how to properly/safely use their firearm. I would never take that person on a hunting trip...
The 'other countries don't know US history' comment... hilarious. Double hilarious because... even if that was true... that would imply the citizens need to be armed for a day's notice war. Based on the country's history, the only people that might need assault rifles in the US are those people who are black.
Stag at the gun range? Oh my gawd. Well... that tells you all you need to know right there.
The 1000 rounds seems excessive, but I really couldn't care about that. Large capacity magazines, semi automatic weapons, and handguns grind my gears. The urban cowboy has no need for such weaponry. None. Period. If someone can prove through vocation they need a sidearm (like a rancher)... they should be able to have one for their work site (not their glove compartment). If someone wants one because it gives them a boner... sorry... no. There are pills for that- just don't get those pills stuck in your throat (you'll get a stiff neck).
I have no idea why you keep insisting other countries don't learn American history. You're simply not correct on that one and it's kind of a bizarre assertion.
Furthermore, the OP seems to be suggesting that if "other countries" learned American history (which they already do), they would be neck deep in, and obsessed with guns.
The 'other countries don't know US history' comment... hilarious. Double hilarious because... even if that was true... that would imply the citizens need to be armed for a day's notice war. Based on the country's history, the only people that might need assault rifles in the US are those people who are black.
Stag at the gun range? Oh my gawd. Well... that tells you all you need to know right there.
The 1000 rounds seems excessive, but I really couldn't care about that. Large capacity magazines, semi automatic weapons, and handguns grind my gears. The urban cowboy has no need for such weaponry. None. Period. If someone can prove through vocation they need a sidearm (like a rancher)... they should be able to have one for their work site (not their glove compartment). If someone wants one because it gives them a boner... sorry... no. There are pills for that- just don't get those pills stuck in your throat (you'll get a stiff neck).
Why do you keep attacking the men? The fastest growing class of hunters/firearm owners are women, haha! Are you suggesting women get boners from owning personal protection handguns?
The 'other countries don't know US history' comment... hilarious. Double hilarious because... even if that was true... that would imply the citizens need to be armed for a day's notice war. Based on the country's history, the only people that might need assault rifles in the US are those people who are black.
Stag at the gun range? Oh my gawd. Well... that tells you all you need to know right there.
The 1000 rounds seems excessive, but I really couldn't care about that. Large capacity magazines, semi automatic weapons, and handguns grind my gears. The urban cowboy has no need for such weaponry. None. Period. If someone can prove through vocation they need a sidearm (like a rancher)... they should be able to have one for their work site (not their glove compartment). If someone wants one because it gives them a boner... sorry... no. There are pills for that- just don't get those pills stuck in your throat (you'll get a stiff neck).
Why do you keep attacking the men? The fastest growing class of hunters/firearm owners are women, haha! Are you suggesting women get boners from owning personal protection handguns?
I’m pretty sure it’s white males who shoot the most people. Could be wrong.
The 'other countries don't know US history' comment... hilarious. Double hilarious because... even if that was true... that would imply the citizens need to be armed for a day's notice war. Based on the country's history, the only people that might need assault rifles in the US are those people who are black.
Stag at the gun range? Oh my gawd. Well... that tells you all you need to know right there.
The 1000 rounds seems excessive, but I really couldn't care about that. Large capacity magazines, semi automatic weapons, and handguns grind my gears. The urban cowboy has no need for such weaponry. None. Period. If someone can prove through vocation they need a sidearm (like a rancher)... they should be able to have one for their work site (not their glove compartment). If someone wants one because it gives them a boner... sorry... no. There are pills for that- just don't get those pills stuck in your throat (you'll get a stiff neck).
Why do you keep attacking the men? The fastest growing class of hunters/firearm owners are women, haha! Are you suggesting women get boners from owning personal protection handguns?
Men are easy targets I guess.
Your point is well taken though- women might just have a legitimate need for a sidearm if they spend any time in the vicinity of males. I need to rethink my position on that one.
I don't understand the issue with having your stag at a gun range. not only am I not disturbed by it, it doesn't bother me in the least. kinda sounds fun. people have all different types of hobbies. it's not like they all went out hunting and took 15 guys who had never shot a gun before. this was at a controlled establishment (assuming) with safety protocols. and yes, I'm sure shooting at targets would be fun. I remember learning archery in gym glass. It was fun as hell. I'm sure shooting a gun would be too. I would just never shoot a living thing, unless I had to for survival (as in eating), or have a gun of my own.
I think some people are picturing a bunch of rednecks in military vests shooting their guns in the air yelling "yee haw" with straw in their teeth, when it was most likely a harmless fun day out with friends.
The 'other countries don't know US history' comment... hilarious. Double hilarious because... even if that was true... that would imply the citizens need to be armed for a day's notice war. Based on the country's history, the only people that might need assault rifles in the US are those people who are black.
Stag at the gun range? Oh my gawd. Well... that tells you all you need to know right there.
The 1000 rounds seems excessive, but I really couldn't care about that. Large capacity magazines, semi automatic weapons, and handguns grind my gears. The urban cowboy has no need for such weaponry. None. Period. If someone can prove through vocation they need a sidearm (like a rancher)... they should be able to have one for their work site (not their glove compartment). If someone wants one because it gives them a boner... sorry... no. There are pills for that- just don't get those pills stuck in your throat (you'll get a stiff neck).
Why do you keep attacking the men? The fastest growing class of hunters/firearm owners are women, haha! Are you suggesting women get boners from owning personal protection handguns?
I’m pretty sure it’s white males who shoot the most people. Could be wrong.
That much more of a case for women to have their CCWs! They are victimized at a much higher rate! I support women having the right to protect themselves from white males (or any race of male). Evidently Hollywood actresses need to be carrying more.
I recall learning a tonne of american history. I recall actually reading somewhere that our Canadian curriculum was more in depth on american history than most history classes in the US were. but I have nothing to substantiate that claim with.
I recall learning a tonne of american history. I recall actually reading somewhere that our Canadian curriculum was more in depth on american history than most history classes in the US were. but I have nothing to substantiate that claim with.
I don’t doubt that, with a highly politicized core curriculum and standardized testing going on in the US. Private schooling is the way to go unfortunately.
I don't understand the issue with having your stag at a gun range. not only am I not disturbed by it, it doesn't bother me in the least. kinda sounds fun. people have all different types of hobbies. it's not like they all went out hunting and took 15 guys who had never shot a gun before. this was at a controlled establishment (assuming) with safety protocols. and yes, I'm sure shooting at targets would be fun. I remember learning archery in gym glass. It was fun as hell. I'm sure shooting a gun would be too. I would just never shoot a living thing, unless I had to for survival (as in eating), or have a gun of my own.
I think some people are picturing a bunch of rednecks in military vests shooting their guns in the air yelling "yee haw" with straw in their teeth, when it was most likely a harmless fun day out with friends.
That's definitely what I was picturing.
Just not for me. I mean... I can see paintballing- where you are on teams and competing, but I just don't see the range as a lot of fun. It seems like an opportunity to get together... and then spend time alone with your ear muffs and your paper target in the distance (getting together afterwards to talk about how they blasted the shit out of a paper target).
I think it was Mace who's stag it was? For the record and differences aside... he seems like a decent guy (thought I should put that out there).
So serious question guys: what are your thoughts/opinions if a shooter brings a 1000 rounds of ammo to a range? granted all laws are being followed: firearms are secure and guns and ammo are separate.
Why would they need to bring 1000 rounds to the range? Why couldn’t the range supply the ammo? I don’t understand why anyone would need 1000 rounds in their possession. How many rounds does a combat soldier take on patrol or on a mission to kill the enemy? On average?
I probably have brought 1000 rounds of ammo to a range. As mentioned, range ammo is about double what you can get other places. Just like everything else you can possibly buy, ammo is cheaper in bulk. I used to buy 300-500 rounds at a time because it would be double the cost of 100 rounds. So why did I bring 1000 rounds to the range? Instead of a bachelor party at a strip club, mine was at a range. Had about 15 friends go with me. Most didn't own guns, and was just easier to have everyone pay me $50 and I buy all the ammo we needed. I can't remember how much ammo we brought, but was probably 2-3000 rounds. .22 ammo is so small it is often sold in boxes of 550 that is about the size of a softball. I'm guessing I probably had at least 2 boxes since half my guns are .22. And at least 1000 rounds of other ammo, probably more. Going through 100 rounds of ammo doesn't take long, easily less than an hour. So it makes sense to bring 2-3000 rounds when there was about 15 people there. Probably not the scenario you had in mind. But if I saw just 1 person with 1000+ rounds, I'd probably just think he plans to sight in and practice with several guns and plans to be there 8 hours. Maybe he just got a few new ones he wants to try before entering a competition, maybe he wants to try different ammo, maybe he has to drive far and only goes once a year so wants to make a day of it. Maybe he just had a better deal on bulk ammo and keeps it all in one ammo can. I can tell you I only buy .22 ammo in those 550 boxes, and usually buy 2 or 3 boxes when I can, because sometimes they can be hard to find. In any case, I wouldn't really think much of it. Unless he started pulling out some illegal belt fed weapon that can go through 1000 rounds in a few minutes, then he'd probably just be kicked out and banned.
I have to admit I find it quite disturbing that your stag party was at a shooting range. I know to you it's a hobby but I guess it just highlights the cultural difference between America and countries that don't have such high levels of gun violence (I.e. every other first world country). To you it's so normal to be around guns and for them to be commonplace, this is just so alien to me and for that I am extremely thankful
I have seen some of the Euro stag parties. A friend of mine live in the capital of a small country and every weekend the stag groups come into town, get extremely drunk, start fights, break stuff.
A range day by comparison was fun and relaxing.
Seriously, I've seen, in my opinion, far more disturbing bachelor parties. My wife, her parents, the wives of my friends were all happy to hear I had planned something less traditional than the go to Vegas and the "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" type of party. Unless gun ranges in general are disturbing to you, then I don't know why this would bother anyone. And if that's the case, don't blame it on the party, just say you don;t like gun ranges.
The 'other countries don't know US history' comment... hilarious. Double hilarious because... even if that was true... that would imply the citizens need to be armed for a day's notice war. Based on the country's history, the only people that might need assault rifles in the US are those people who are black.
It also suggests that the poster thinks the US is the only country that was formed in conflict and rebellion. It really more points out the flaws in the teaching of history in the US, not in other countries.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The 'other countries don't know US history' comment... hilarious. Double hilarious because... even if that was true... that would imply the citizens need to be armed for a day's notice war. Based on the country's history, the only people that might need assault rifles in the US are those people who are black.
It also suggests that the poster thinks the US is the only country that was formed in conflict and rebellion. It really more points out the flaws in the teaching of history in the US, not in other countries.
This part isn't the hilarious part. It's the sad part.
The 'other countries don't know US history' comment... hilarious. Double hilarious because... even if that was true... that would imply the citizens need to be armed for a day's notice war. Based on the country's history, the only people that might need assault rifles in the US are those people who are black.
It also suggests that the poster thinks the US is the only country that was formed in conflict and rebellion. It really more points out the flaws in the teaching of history in the US, not in other countries.
I don't know if this is what he had in mind. But I've thought about before the timing and conditions of the US expansion. It happened when guns were really for the first time readily available, and almost necessary for anyone outside the New England region. Pioneers traveling west needed guns to hunt and protect themselves. Settles from the mid-west all the way to California relied on them for every day life. I don't think many countries have experienced the much growth as rapidly, in a territory that was as dangerous without any real established government and laws. That was still going on just a little over 100 years ago. The states where those conditions did not exist (New England), guns are not nearly as popular today.
Other countries born out of violence and rebellion didn't increase in size into a mostly vacant, but hostile territory 20 times its original size, essentially without any government control. Or it was hundreds, even thousands of years before guns.
I don't know how much of that influences gun culture today, but I do think this country is unique in terms of how and when it was developed. And probably plays at least some role. My dad's generation grew up watching The Rifleman and Roy Rogers.and shows like that, and kids grew up with cap guns that were made to look as real as possible. That was a direct influence from just a couple generations. just 50 years earlier. Its hard for me to believe that influence had a sudden stop with my dad's generation.
Canada's development was very similar to the US, Mace- even parallel timelines (roughly speaking).
I thought about that too. But isn't something like 90% of the population within 100 miles of the boarder. So it really didn't expand the way US did into as big of a hostile territory. It wasn't the same in terms of the number of settlers covering a huge amount of land mass, defending themselves from natives and other pioneers. I honestly don't know much about Canada's history, but I have never heard of the ruthless stories about Canada that you hear from American pioneers. Something like 1/3 of the people died on the Oregon trail just traveling out west. I dont think the Native American culture threat was the same, they were much more of a threat to the midwest Americans than up north. There was far more pioneers expanding, there wasn't the same movement that was equally dangerous, I've never heard of the Vancouver trail for pioneers with bodies buried every few hundred feet. Or am I completely wrong and they just don't teach any of that? Serious question.
Somehow I just knew the response was going to be "but it's not the same".
Americans seems to have a very strong need to believe themselves to be unique when there's really no evidence of that. I'm beginning to think that explains the gun culture - they know it's out step with virtually every other country and it doesn't make sense, and they're kind of proud of that.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
So serious question guys: what are your thoughts/opinions if a shooter brings a 1000 rounds of ammo to a range? granted all laws are being followed: firearms are secure and guns and ammo are separate.
Why would they need to bring 1000 rounds to the range? Why couldn’t the range supply the ammo? I don’t understand why anyone would need 1000 rounds in their possession. How many rounds does a combat soldier take on patrol or on a mission to kill the enemy? On average?
I probably have brought 1000 rounds of ammo to a range. As mentioned, range ammo is about double what you can get other places. Just like everything else you can possibly buy, ammo is cheaper in bulk. I used to buy 300-500 rounds at a time because it would be double the cost of 100 rounds. So why did I bring 1000 rounds to the range? Instead of a bachelor party at a strip club, mine was at a range. Had about 15 friends go with me. Most didn't own guns, and was just easier to have everyone pay me $50 and I buy all the ammo we needed. I can't remember how much ammo we brought, but was probably 2-3000 rounds. .22 ammo is so small it is often sold in boxes of 550 that is about the size of a softball. I'm guessing I probably had at least 2 boxes since half my guns are .22. And at least 1000 rounds of other ammo, probably more. Going through 100 rounds of ammo doesn't take long, easily less than an hour. So it makes sense to bring 2-3000 rounds when there was about 15 people there. Probably not the scenario you had in mind. But if I saw just 1 person with 1000+ rounds, I'd probably just think he plans to sight in and practice with several guns and plans to be there 8 hours. Maybe he just got a few new ones he wants to try before entering a competition, maybe he wants to try different ammo, maybe he has to drive far and only goes once a year so wants to make a day of it. Maybe he just had a better deal on bulk ammo and keeps it all in one ammo can. I can tell you I only buy .22 ammo in those 550 boxes, and usually buy 2 or 3 boxes when I can, because sometimes they can be hard to find. In any case, I wouldn't really think much of it. Unless he started pulling out some illegal belt fed weapon that can go through 1000 rounds in a few minutes, then he'd probably just be kicked out and banned.
I have to admit I find it quite disturbing that your stag party was at a shooting range. I know to you it's a hobby but I guess it just highlights the cultural difference between America and countries that don't have such high levels of gun violence (I.e. every other first world country). To you it's so normal to be around guns and for them to be commonplace, this is just so alien to me and for that I am extremely thankful
Why? it wasn't common place for most of them. Half the group never shot a gun before, the other half maybe just 2 or 3 times. All thought it was fun because it was different. SO it was something different for everyone and we all had a great time. Unless just the existence of a shooting range is disturbing to you, what difference does it make why and when someone goes? I find it disturbing that a large portion of guys I know want to celebrate getting married by going to a strip club and dragging all their friends, half already married, with them. Thats so disrespectful to your soon to be wife to celebrate the wedding by one last fling with a stranger, that is disturbing to me that has become the norm for a bachelor party (especially living 3 hours from Vegas that was the norm). Not saying that is you, but I didn't want that for me. I wanted something different.
If you haven’t noticed yet, other countries find American’s relationship with guns bizarre.
Other countries don’t learn American History
You mean that part of our history where people push fear to sell product?
Okay, but I asked for input. I'm willing to listen. You have yet to tell me how one country with a population of 32 million that almost entirely lives within an hour drive from the American boarder is the same as developing a country of 320 million that covers almost all of something like 3 million square miles that takes 24 hours to drive across (the short way). The population growth isn't the same, the land isn't the same, the territory covered isn't the same. So what is exactly the same about it then? And aside from all that, my only point was that pioneer/cowboy culture had a major influence well into the 20th century. Only makes sense that some of it still lingers around. I didn't say its the only reason for our gun culture, but it has to be at least a contributing factor.
Dispute over untied shoelace led to Walmart gunfire. A man is in custody after he fired a handgun inside Walmart following a confrontation with a store customer Monday night, police said.
The shooting incident didn’t seriously injure anyone, police said, but a woman who witnessed the fracas suffered a medical problem and died in the parking lot outside.
when all you have is a hammer, every thing looks like a nail
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Somehow I just knew the response was going to be "but it's not the same".
Americans seems to have a very strong need to believe themselves to be unique when there's really no evidence of that. I'm beginning to think that explains the gun culture - they know it's out step with virtually every other country and it doesn't make sense, and they're kind of proud of that.
It’s one of the downsides to the heavily valued independence in our culture. Unless were in a recession, then somehow we’re just like Greece and Venezuela!
Dispute over untied shoelace led to Walmart gunfire. A man is in custody after he fired a handgun inside Walmart following a confrontation with a store customer Monday night, police said.
The shooting incident didn’t seriously injure anyone, police said, but a woman who witnessed the fracas suffered a medical problem and died in the parking lot outside.
Too busy a work day planned to get into any detail. Maybe TBU will have the time, or failing that maybe I will later.
Certainly the population of Canada is smaller, but aside from that the essential factors of expansion and colonization into what became this country were the same. The same harsh conditions, the same conflicts with First Nations, the same injuries and epidemics and starvation and wars and death. Exploration and settlement covered the whole country, a larger land mass than the US, so I'm not convinced that the current population distribution is relevant. More than 50% of the American population lives within a relatively short drive from the coastline, so by your argument that minimizes the impact of exploration and settlement in the middle.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Dispute over untied shoelace led to Walmart gunfire. A man is in custody after he fired a handgun inside Walmart following a confrontation with a store customer Monday night, police said.
The shooting incident didn’t seriously injure anyone, police said, but a woman who witnessed the fracas suffered a medical problem and died in the parking lot outside.
Too busy a work day planned to get into any detail. Maybe TBU will have the time, or failing that maybe I will later.
Certainly the population of Canada is smaller, but aside from that the essential factors of expansion and colonization into what became this country were the same. The same harsh conditions, the same conflicts with First Nations, the same injuries and epidemics and starvation and wars and death. Exploration and settlement covered the whole country, a larger land mass than the US, so I'm not convinced that the current population distribution is relevant. More than 50% of the American population lives within a relatively short drive from the coastline, so by your argument that minimizes the impact of exploration and settlement in the middle.
But that last statement you made is actually one of the main reasons it is so different. The expansion from the east to the west coast is what drove that "western" image. For 100 years there was this expansion with almost no government in many places. People settling in all of the midwest states, and Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and much of California were not part of major cities with police. New England was entirely different that the expanding US. If the US just stayed on the east coast I doubt there'd even be a gun culture in this country. That's really what started it all. I've always believe the Indian population was much larger in the US, and therefore a much larger threat. The civil war certainly influenced a lot of violence and promoted guns. Many of the late 1800 outlaws were civil war veterans. Every mining town was just a pot of violence and crime that slowly spread. Canada of course had mining, but nearly every territory or state had some sort of gold rush/mining attraction at one point. Much of western Canada wasn't settled until the railroad was available. Just a few decades makes a huge difference in settling by covered wagon or by train. There are many small differences in the expansion of our two countries, and I don't think it has anything to do with pride or anything else. Its just different and there's nothing good or bad about it. I dont understand why it is such a negative to think there is. Seems very reasonable to me that could be part of the culture. The states that were already established and weren't involved in that western expansion are pretty much anti-gun today. Pretty much the rest that did expand west are the big pro-gun states. There was obviously some cultural influence from the life those had moving west. Like I said, maybe they just teach it wrong, but the impression I always get is Canada's history may be similar, just a much smaller scale. Therefore the impact it would have would not be the same. The impression I always got is much of settled Canada was closer to New England culture than the expanding wild west.
The reason I found the idea of a stag at a gun range disturbing is because I find the implied relationship with guns disturbing. Guns were invented for one purpose, to kill people. If you want to have fun hitting targets with an implement, why not do archery or even paintballing? Why do you need to use a lethal weapon? I know that you seem to be able to see guns differently but that doesn't change the fact that they are designed for killing and always carry that risk, a risk that is not associated with a paintball gun. Can you (Mace I guess) explain to me why it would be so much more enjoyable to you to use a lethal weapon than, say, a paintball gun? Is it actually the thrill of it and the knowledge that it is a lethal weapon? If so, then what disturbs me should be patently obvious
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The 'other countries don't know US history' comment... hilarious. Double hilarious because... even if that was true... that would imply the citizens need to be armed for a day's notice war. Based on the country's history, the only people that might need assault rifles in the US are those people who are black.
Stag at the gun range? Oh my gawd. Well... that tells you all you need to know right there.
The 1000 rounds seems excessive, but I really couldn't care about that. Large capacity magazines, semi automatic weapons, and handguns grind my gears. The urban cowboy has no need for such weaponry. None. Period. If someone can prove through vocation they need a sidearm (like a rancher)... they should be able to have one for their work site (not their glove compartment). If someone wants one because it gives them a boner... sorry... no. There are pills for that- just don't get those pills stuck in your throat (you'll get a stiff neck).
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Men are easy targets I guess.
Your point is well taken though- women might just have a legitimate need for a sidearm if they spend any time in the vicinity of males. I need to rethink my position on that one.
I think some people are picturing a bunch of rednecks in military vests shooting their guns in the air yelling "yee haw" with straw in their teeth, when it was most likely a harmless fun day out with friends.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
That's definitely what I was picturing.
Just not for me. I mean... I can see paintballing- where you are on teams and competing, but I just don't see the range as a lot of fun. It seems like an opportunity to get together... and then spend time alone with your ear muffs and your paper target in the distance (getting together afterwards to talk about how they blasted the shit out of a paper target).
I think it was Mace who's stag it was? For the record and differences aside... he seems like a decent guy (thought I should put that out there).
Unless gun ranges in general are disturbing to you, then I don't know why this would bother anyone. And if that's the case, don't blame it on the party, just say you don;t like gun ranges.
It also suggests that the poster thinks the US is the only country that was formed in conflict and rebellion. It really more points out the flaws in the teaching of history in the US, not in other countries.
This part isn't the hilarious part. It's the sad part.
I don't think many countries have experienced the much growth as rapidly, in a territory that was as dangerous without any real established government and laws. That was still going on just a little over 100 years ago. The states where those conditions did not exist (New England), guns are not nearly as popular today.
Other countries born out of violence and rebellion didn't increase in size into a mostly vacant, but hostile territory 20 times its original size, essentially without any government control. Or it was hundreds, even thousands of years before guns.
I don't know how much of that influences gun culture today, but I do think this country is unique in terms of how and when it was developed. And probably plays at least some role. My dad's generation grew up watching The Rifleman and Roy Rogers.and shows like that, and kids grew up with cap guns that were made to look as real as possible. That was a direct influence from just a couple generations. just 50 years earlier. Its hard for me to believe that influence had a sudden stop with my dad's generation.
It wasn't the same in terms of the number of settlers covering a huge amount of land mass, defending themselves from natives and other pioneers.
I honestly don't know much about Canada's history, but I have never heard of the ruthless stories about Canada that you hear from American pioneers. Something like 1/3 of the people died on the Oregon trail just traveling out west.
I dont think the Native American culture threat was the same, they were much more of a threat to the midwest Americans than up north. There was far more pioneers expanding, there wasn't the same movement that was equally dangerous, I've never heard of the Vancouver trail for pioneers with bodies buried every few hundred feet.
Or am I completely wrong and they just don't teach any of that? Serious question.
Americans seems to have a very strong need to believe themselves to be unique when there's really no evidence of that. I'm beginning to think that explains the gun culture - they know it's out step with virtually every other country and it doesn't make sense, and they're kind of proud of that.
You have yet to tell me how one country with a population of 32 million that almost entirely lives within an hour drive from the American boarder is the same as developing a country of 320 million that covers almost all of something like 3 million square miles that takes 24 hours to drive across (the short way).
The population growth isn't the same, the land isn't the same, the territory covered isn't the same. So what is exactly the same about it then?
And aside from all that, my only point was that pioneer/cowboy culture had a major influence well into the 20th century. Only makes sense that some of it still lingers around. I didn't say its the only reason for our gun culture, but it has to be at least a contributing factor.
http://www.centralmaine.com/2017/11/07/augusta-man-under-arrest-following-shot-fired-incident-at-walmart/
when all you have is a hammer, every thing looks like a nail
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Certainly the population of Canada is smaller, but aside from that the essential factors of expansion and colonization into what became this country were the same. The same harsh conditions, the same conflicts with First Nations, the same injuries and epidemics and starvation and wars and death. Exploration and settlement covered the whole country, a larger land mass than the US, so I'm not convinced that the current population distribution is relevant. More than 50% of the American population lives within a relatively short drive from the coastline, so by your argument that minimizes the impact of exploration and settlement in the middle.
www.headstonesband.com
Every mining town was just a pot of violence and crime that slowly spread. Canada of course had mining, but nearly every territory or state had some sort of gold rush/mining attraction at one point. Much of western Canada wasn't settled until the railroad was available. Just a few decades makes a huge difference in settling by covered wagon or by train. There are many small differences in the expansion of our two countries, and I don't think it has anything to do with pride or anything else. Its just different and there's nothing good or bad about it. I dont understand why it is such a negative to think there is.
Seems very reasonable to me that could be part of the culture. The states that were already established and weren't involved in that western expansion are pretty much anti-gun today. Pretty much the rest that did expand west are the big pro-gun states. There was obviously some cultural influence from the life those had moving west.
Like I said, maybe they just teach it wrong, but the impression I always get is Canada's history may be similar, just a much smaller scale. Therefore the impact it would have would not be the same. The impression I always got is much of settled Canada was closer to New England culture than the expanding wild west.