While I am not a gun owner, I still find it interesting that guns remain today the most common weapon used by military and civilians alike. During their long history, no one has come up with a suitable and as-popular alternative (such as a ray gun). This list looks at ten of the greatest firearms in history – and in the bonus section poses a question.
“Hitler’s Buzzsaw,” invented in 1942, is infamous around the world as the weapon used at Omaha Beach to mow Americans down, but it was used in Russia to much more brutal effect. It fired 1,200 rounds of 8mm rifle ammunition per minute, which is sufficient to cut a man in half. It was air-cooled, and could melt its barrel if fired non-stop for 5 minutes.
That’s why the Germans had several barrel at hand, and could change to a new one in only 60 seconds.
The Glock is the ultimate in modern reliability. You can pour sand down the barrel and it will shoot. It will shoot underwater. It is commonly used in 9mm, but is chambered for .40 Sig and .45 ACP among others. It is the standard law enforcement sidearm today and will continue to be for a long time. It almost never jams, is waterproof, mostly plastic.
The British equivalent of the German Mauser has one trump on it, a 10 round magazine, compared to 8. The British adopted it into the army in 1895 and used it exclusively until 1957. Soldiers were drilled until they could perform “the mad minute,” firing 30 rounds in 60 seconds and hitting 30 targets. This required reloading twice, and working the bolt back and forth in less than half a second.
The rifle is accurate to 1,000 yards with open sights, and served in India (notoriously used against unarmed civilians), the Boer War, both World Wars, and many others.
The Browning Machine Gun is chambered for the most awe-inspiring shoulder-fired cartridge to date. It is designed with one thing in mind: power tends to corrupt; absolute power is kinda sweet. The 800 grain powder load has 14,895 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle, which is enough to put a full metal jacketed round through three approaching vehicles. It has shot down helicopters with one round.
Now imagine a belt-fed machine gun spewing a curtain of these rounds at you at 1,200 rounds per minute. Special Sabot rounds can go clean through tanks.
Made famous by Dirty Harry in 1971, it was invented in 1955, and is still thought of as one of the most powerful handguns in the world, though it has been eclipsed by the .500 magnum, the Desert Eagle .50 AE, the .454 Casull and a few others.
But what those other hand cannons lack is controlability and comparatively low cost. The .44 Magnum will still run you at least $800 new, which is a lot for a revolver, but very cheap compared to other magnums. You will not break your wrist shooting it, and yet it can drop Cape Buffaloes and Polar Bears. If I may be afforded one bad joke, it will make your day. Provided that you feel lucky. Punk.
The bolt action had been kicking around since at least 1824, when Paul Mauser and Co. patented the 1893 version in 7mm. It has become the benchmark, on which all bolt action rifles are based, and against which all are compared. There are three primary bolt action systems: the Lee-Enfield, the Mauser, and the Mosin-Nagant.
Of the three, the Mauser system is by far the most widespread, the most reliable, and the most battle-proven rifle mechanism the world has ever seen. The 1893 Mauser was the first, and original models still operate perfectly.
The icon of the Old West, the Colt .45 revolver was invented in 1873 and immediately caught on as extraordinarily accurate at close range, compared to the ball and cap conversions popular at the time. Its caliber was sufficient to flip a charging man backward off his feet. It can be used today to hunt deer and black bears. The larger powder loads can take down grizzly bears.
It’s as famous as the gun of Wyatt Earp, among other Old West celebrities.
The granddaddy of all lever-action firearms. Benjamin Tyler Henry invented it in 1860, but neither the Union nor Confederacy wanted much to do with it, as they were afraid their soldiers would fire too quickly and waste ammunition. If I may use a cliched joke, “military intelligence.” Thank you.
It fired a revolutionary, self-contained cartridge in .44 caliber, with 568 foot-pounds of stopping power, more than enough to put a man down. It held 16 rounds in a tube magazine, and a good man could fire 28 rounds per minute, so much better than 3 per minute with a muzzle-loading percussion cap musket, that if either side had adopted the rifle as standard for infantry, that side would certainly have won.
Accurate enough to do the job out to about 400 yards, which is all anyone usually needs in a battle, the AK-47 is the ultimate pinnacle in rugged reliability. It will not break down under fire unless something catastrophic happens to it. You can drive a tank over it, throw it against a wall, submerge it in sand, water, mud, and every time it will go right on firing when you pull the trigger.
I know a Vietnam veteran who was walking through triple canopy jungle one day in 1966, came across an abandoned AK-47, and couldn’t get the bolt to slide back. It was too corroded from the rain and weather. The wood was rotting off. But he put it butt first on the ground, stomped the action open, and it chambered a round, which he fired accurately at a tree 50 yards away. He stomped the action open again, and it chambered another round, which he fired accurately.
Every bit as rugged and reliable as the AK-47, this handgun was invented by John Browning for the Colt Company, in 1911, as a sidearm for American soldiers. It immediately proved itself a world beater in WWI, again in WWII, and has been a cornerstone of the American military ever since.
But its most impressive feat has been the ease with which even untrained civilians can fire it accurately, keep it in working order, and defend themselves ably with it. 7 + 1 rounds of fat, man-stopping power perfect for close-range self-defense. Soldiers have dragged it through swamps in the Pacific Theater of WWII, with their fingers on the trigger, then whipped it out of the muck and fired all 8 rounds accurately.
The only way to improve on it would be to make it cheaper. You’ll spend $1,000 on one.
In the United States, everyone has the right to bear arms. As a non-American my question is: is this a fundamental human right which should be extended to all people in the world? Should all Iraqi’s have the right to bear arms? If all Chinese people had the right, would they be living under an oppressive regime today or would they have risen up and put it down?
Okay, about these 500 baggillion comment saying guns are bad, think about it this way. You think they are bad because they kill people, but what about knives, cars, chairs, bats, bricks, animals, GRAVITY FOR *****S SAKE. I don’t suppose you pansies are planning on outlawing those now are you. Its not the Claws that kill you, its the lion. That translates awfully well to guns and humans. And until you take your hand off your dick and go shoot a real one, shut your *****ing mouth because you don’t have a *****ing clue about what guns are like outside of your movies and games. The best part about this, is that I’m 16 years old, I play Call of Duty, I’ve seen Saving Private Ryan, and I own a gun (its not legally mine yet, due to age, but you get the idea), and I am a goddam american. We have a right to bear arms 100% of the time. And also, where the hell are the guns going to come from if the need for a militia does arise? I rest my case.
You are right – It IS people who kill rather than the instrument of choice – However, the idea of someone designing and creating these killing machines turns my stomach. Guns are an instrument of torture. How can any person feel comfortable carrying such a thing? A person is far more likely to be shot dead when armed themselves. If England legalised weaponry to the extent as in America, I would move.
Molly, firearms aren’t an instrument of torture, per se. They’re a weapon that can be used to protect you or your children from animals of all species. Firearms are a lot like lawyers: no one wants them around until they need one, and when you need one, there’s no substitute for having a good one.
I can understand you being fearful of a society where almost anyone can go and buy a firearm. What that tells me is that, deep down, you don’t trust people because you don’t want everyone to be a threat. Fair enough. The only problem with prohibiting firearms from the lawful is that you only do JUST THAT . . . prohibit them from the lawful. What you end up with is a large group of “good” people who are basically helpless along with a small group of criminals who may operate as they please. Criminals don’t, by nature, follow the law so prohibitions on firearms ownership is rather pointless if you want to control criminals.
I’m assuming you’re a woman given your name. If you hear a kick at your door one night, what are your options? You basically have the option of fight or flight. Would you be able to fight 2 or 3 bigger men who have intentions on stealing whatever you have . . . or worse? With a firearm, you have a MUCH better chance of survival. Also, when the criminals KNOW you have a good chance of being armed, they tend to move along to greener pastures.
As to the old wive’s tale of “you’re more likely to be shot with your own gun”, well, that’s a myth that’s been debunked (in the United States) so often that even our anti-gun groups don’t even say it, anymore. While it SOUNDS wonderful to an anti-gunner, it’s not true. Firearms legally protect people successfully every day.
Guns don’t make people bad. They allow bad people to do what they will. Firearms in the hands of good people deter the bad people from operating as they will. An armed SOCIETY prevents a government from doing whatever it wants, as well. In all honesty, that’s what the US Founding Fathers had in mind. They weren’t so much worried about the thief in the night as much as a government out of control. So far, so good.
Hi Ed,
When I referred to a gun being used as an instrument of torture, I was referring to when it is used to bring fear rather than to be employed.
As for your response, I must say whilst we are very much not in agreement – I appreciate your detailed and lengthy answer which was eloquently done. Too often, I find people far too easily spouting negative rubbish to one another, like a game of Ping Pong. Ie. I’m right – you are wrong so shall insult you and condemn your family to die of cancer etc etc…..
I don’t think we’ll ever agree, but I have respect for you my friend. So thank you for your response and for your very much appreciated polite reply.
No problem, Molly. It’s a touchy subject.
I agree with you that weapons of any kind can be used to instill fear. That’s possibly their best use because it works on the good and bad alike. A weapon can be used to rob an elderly person. A weapon can also be used by an elderly person to ward off such attempts. Criminals aren’t generally looking for a challenge or to make money the hard way. If so, they probably wouldn’t be criminals.
There are some fallacies that many people adopt as truth with regards to safety or weapons. One is that if we get rid of weapons, no one will get hurt. That’s not true. What it means is that the strong will rule over the weak. If you’re born 300 pounds and 6’5”, you’re probably in favor of this system. Most women and children probably will hate it. Weapons don’t make people violent. They help people be violent more effectively. Violence is used by both the good and bad.
Another fallacy is “I don’t feel I need a weapon, and therefore no one else needs one”. I never needed a lawyer nor did I see much use for one for 35 years of my life. Thirty seconds after I got handed some papers at work, getting a great one suddenly became the most important thing in my life. LOL! The same goes for a weapon. You may NEVER have a use for one, BUT, when you DO need one, you NEED one NOW! An additional facet of this argument is that you may NOT need a weapon if you are around people WITH weapons. My mother never worried about carrying a firearm (although she was a crack shot) because typically I was carrying one as were most of my friends (and my wife, who is a crack shot!). An armed society is typically safer because criminals are always taking the chance that if their victim doesn’t have a weapon, they could also be thwarted by someone nearby.
I think the reason so many people get mad at the argument is that all anger spawns from fear. There are fears on both sides. People who don’t like weapons are in fear that if more people have weapons, they’ll be attacked. People WITH weapons don’t want theirs taken away because they fear they’ll be weak enough to attack. What’s COMICAL is that the first group’s argument relies on the fact that people are bad by nature i.e. “arm more people, and they’ll start attacking”. The people who want to keep weapons available are betting on the better nature of man i.e. “if we arm people, the good people outnumber the bad and be a deterrent.” Ironic, no? As a rule, neither side is bad. The people I fear most is the people WITH weapons who don’t want anyone ELSE to have weapons. Fear them.
I’m glad you appreciate the civility. I appreciate yours, as well. I hope you never need a weapon, honestly, and I hope you live a long life holding onto your belief happily. That being said, I hope I never need a weapon (again), and die happily in my sleep. I’ll be leaving my firearms to my kids and grandkids, though.
Exactly, wether we like it or not guns do exist and bad people use them to do bad things, but good people use them to defend. Why should all the power be taken out the the good’s hands to defend themselves and their loved ones and given all to the bad? Because I guranantee they will find away to get guns or any other types of weapons to use.
Most people can saftely own and operate firearms, thats not to say some unfortunate incidents might happen. (ussually because someone failed to do things safetly) But, you dont take the power of self-defense out of the hands of the masses because a few people acted irresponsively.
Molly, I carry every day. I am perfectly comfortable having a Colt 1911 on my hip. In fact, I am far *more* comfortable with it, than without it.
There are a ton of cliches regarding firearms – on both sides of the issue. But the simple fact is, a firearm in the hands of a well-trained, competent citizen is a great equalizer. I do not fear the thug in the darkness, nor the politician in his office. As long as I am capable of defending myself, or protecting those who cannot protect themselves, I am perfectly comfortable.
That said, if you don’t feel comfortable owning or carrying a firearm. That is your choice. If push-comes-to-shove, I will use mine to defend you, should the situation arise.
But, if the situation should arise where one of the “all guns are evil, people should be disarmed” types are in need of my defending them with my firearm, I might think twice. I mean I shouldn’t push my beliefs onto them, should I? They wouldn’t want an evil gun to be used to protect their life, or the lives of their loved ones, would they?
Sarcasm aside – yes, I’d even use my weapon to defend Sarah Brady and her disarm-the-people ilk. They can thank me or condemn me later, because they’d be alive to do so.
if a robber come up to you with a gun or anything else like a knife you with no gun are helpless with one you can defend yourself thats why dumbass
Molly,
Guns were devolped to penetrate improving armour and also they require little training to be effective in defense. With that being said, there are sheep, wolves and sheep dogs….In this day and age the number of wolves is growing. We need our sheep dogs, and they need to be armed better than the wolves. For those of us who are warriors, they are a tool, we hope not to have to use them but we are trained well in their use. Take Care and Hope this helps
The responsibility does belong to the posessor, but having someone wishing to kill you with a weapon is more dangerous than someone without a weapon. If someone comes at me with a knife, I might be able to run for it, or if appropriate, grab the nearest solid object and fight it out. Against a gun there’s very little recourse. Gun also do not protect oneself against other guns, because the first person to shoot has much greater odds of being the victor.
The responsibility does belong to the posessor, but having someone wishing to kill you with a weapon is more dangerous than someone without a weapon. If someone comes at me with a knife, I might be able to run for it, or if appropriate, grab the nearest solid object and fight it out. Against a gun there’s very little recourse. Gun also do not protect oneself against other guns, because the first person to shoot has much greater odds of being the victor.
Someone who TRULY wishes to kill you is dangerous regardless of what weapons are legal or not. For someone who wishes to commit murder, the threat of a firearms charge on top of a murder charge isn’t much of a deterrent. In the US where getting a firearm is relatively easy, strangulation, poisoning, and stabbing are still used rather frequently. Anyone who truly wishes you dead and has little or no regard for their own safety is most likely going to be successful. They have a higher rate of success if their target has no access to effective protection. If you and I are alone in a room, unarmed, and I want you dead, shoelaces make a wonderful weapon.
As for your assertion that guns are no protection against guns, I offer up almost any armed conflict since the implementation of gunpowder. Anyone who shot BACK at their opponent and hit them refutes your assertion. I would also offer up a couple of hundred years of pistol dueling as evidence, as well. Many times one participant rushed a shot and missed while the other aimed more carefully and came out alive. Also, if ANY pistol duel went more than one round, obviously there wasn’t that big of an advantage to shooting first.
Short of explosives, firearms ARE the best defense against other firearms. More importantly they are a deterrent against gun crime. Criminals typically don’t want a challenge or danger. If they were that ambitious or daring, odds are they either wouldn’t be criminals, or they wouldn’t be street criminals. A thug with a knife or even a gun most likely is going to shy away from targets that they either know or strongly suspect are armed and, even worse, trained. For example, the local city near me many years ago had a rash of carjackings, and in many cases, the people were beaten, stabbed, and a few shot. We changed the law to state that carjacking in any form can be considered a lethal threat, and therefore lethal force in defense was legal. Three or four dead carjackers later, and the criminals went back to stealing empty cars. Criminals don’t respect the law, but they DO fear for their lives. Sometimes you must speak in their language.
I understand the point you’re making i.e. a gun makes killing someone easier. That works both ways i.e. offense and defense. What you might overlook is that it also allows for a weaker person to defend themselves. You say if someone has a knife you might be able to run and find an improvised weapon. Fine enough. Let’s say the thug misses you, you grab a rock, and face your opponent. He’s 6’6” and 300 pounds. You’re female, 105 pounds, and 63 years old. Would you rather have that rock or would you rather have a firearm that you’ve been shooting for years? Firearms, better than any other tool, equalize physical traits in a fight.
You’re an idiot. Try walking into the whitehouse with your gun. See how far you get. 100% of the time my ass.
What is routinely side-stepped by the NRA and others regarding the second amendment of the U.S. constitution, in my mind, is the phrase, "A well regulated militia". Defense of country and state are fine, unlimited and un-regulated has severe drawbacks.
"militia" at the time referred to any man between the ages of 17 and 40something ( I forgot the exact age). These people were encouraged to have their own firearms because they would not be provided to them by any government (federal, state, or otherwise) unless they enlisted and therefore would no longer be a militia. The modern day National Guard is not equivalent to a militia and the framers of the constitution would not have wanted it to be so.
"Militia" STILL refers to all able-bodies males between the ages of 17 and 45:
(From United States Code)
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Regarding the question (How Current is This) that creeped in to my copy-and-paste:
"Title 10 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Feb.1, 2010, and it is this version that is published here."
Source: Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute (website)
The US Constitution states that the entire population is automatically in the militia.
It is regulated
About the question: WE don't need guns…
where would america be if we didnt need guns. we would not be america. If i was shooting at you, id bet you would feel pretty *****ing needy for a gun then. *****ing Retard
If nobody had guns, you wouldn’t be able to shoot at him, you *****ing retard. The only reason you have guns is to protect yourself from other people with guns. If nobody had guns, there wouldn’t be a problem. And if you’re gonna claim there isn’t a problem, then explain to me why the United States has the highest fatal incidents involving a gun in the world. And to ProChoice, yes the law abiders would be at a disadvantage against people with guns. But one look at the rest of the world would teach you that in countries where guns are illegal, criminals aren’t heavily armed either. For example, I’m not an american, and the only place I have ever seen a gun is on a police officer’s belt.
excuse me *****, but what if 50% of Americans not only owned guns, but were open carriers? Crime would fall like a *****ing rock, because when you walk into that store with your stupid 9mm Beretta, there is a 50% chance that someone is going to shoot you in your *****ing face with a much larger gun, which is why you stayed home that day and didn’t rob that quickie mart. Nuff said.
I have guns to protect myself, or my family, from anything, that is armed or unarmed, that is trying to harm anything I didn’t want it to do harm to. I hope you trust your police enough to use their gun wisely. I do not.
Hey Bob how many people are knifed to death beaten to death run down. People are the killing factor in all of this. A weapon is a tool just like a hammer. You can build habitat for humanity with a hammer or bash in a persons skull. There is this web site called listverse, if you go there you will see many examples of killers not needing guns to kill. Just their hands and the determination to kill their victims which are usually weaker than the perp such as women or children. ( I will be summarily crucified by NOW because I said women were weaker!) If men did not have *****s wouldtheir still be rape? Yes! By instrumentation stick bottle what have you because the crime is not about the ***** it is about the control. Criminals are unarmed in prisons yet they stil shank, beat and abuse each other. You really need to wrap your head around what it means to be armed and unarmed. Why does the UK have the highest incidence of traffic accidents invoving cars being driven on the left hand side of the road? That was my stupid question question to counter yours. Being as you are not American you may not ever be able to understand. I mean I dont understand Austrailians but I like them and I dont get mad at the laws they govern themselves by. I have lived in other countries and I happen to like my home country the best. So take care Bob where ever you are and hopefully if you do come to the US you will move to Chicago where they dont like guns either. Noboby has guns there according to the laws of Illinois. Especially the gang members.
Bob, here’s the issue. In America, gun ownership is in our Constitution. It would be like going to a Christian and saying “it would be a lovely religion if you could just get rid of a few of the commandments . . . and drop the need to worship”. Gun ownership and all the personal responsibility that comes with it is part of being an American.
On a practical level, you couldn’t get rid of the guns Americans have even if you could legally come up with a way. You’re talking MILLIONS of guns, and the minute you ban them, South America will start tossing them across the border.
On a personal level, yes, if NO ONE had guns, no one would get shot. Logically, that’s 100% correct. However, the statement “if NO ONE had guns, NO ONE would break the law or hurt anyone else” is not logical. Guns are fairly new to humanity, and we were killing each other LONG before guns were around.
What you do when you take away firearms is that you tell the weaker people that they must hope and pray that the government can protect them 24/7 from predators. If someone bigger or tougher comes along, you have no effective way of defending yourself. Kung-fu and pepper spray are not that effective. If they worked well, our military would have them on the front line. Instead, they have guns.
My wife is small and 120 pounds. She stands no chance with a 200 pound man. She stands ZERO chance with a 150 pound man with a club or a knife. Put a gun in her hand, and she has a fighting chance (actually, better than that as she’s highly trained and, being a woman, has no issues with killing . . . LOL!).
What people DON’T see is that firearms in the hands of the people STOP crime. Criminals, by nature, are lazy and really don’t like to risk life and limb. They prey on the weak. Arm the “weak”, and the criminals are deterred.
I ask you to read “More Guns, Less Crime”. It’s an international study by a statistician who set out to prove that gun control will help curb criminal behavior. It’s a REALLY good read, and it’s NOT written by a gun owner or gun pundit. Quite the opposite.
If you’re not American, I don’t expect you to understand. However, if you’re European, I ask you to do this. Look at the crime statistics (violent crime) between England and France. England, at last look, was much higher. They ban gun ownership by private citizens almost entirely. They even ban the ability to defend oneself in ones home. France, however, allows private ownership without much issue. They have a much lower crime rate. Both countries are VERY similar in many ways. Why so much less crime?
There’s an old saying a friend of mine from Africa told me. Teach a gazelle to shoot a rifle, and the lions will learn to eat grass.
Your African friend is awesome LOL
Okay, without getting into the name calling, let me point out an inaccuracy in what you’ve assumed. The reason a person carries a weapon for self-defense is because they believe they may have the need to defend themselves against something. It could be against a criminal with a gun, knife, pipe, or someone who is simply bigger and stronger. While I would hate to be attacked by someone with a gun, I would be no less threatened by someone with a knife or other weapon. Even more so, a small person or woman is probably in even more need for significant ability to defend themselves as they are physically at a disadvantage from a would be attacker. Maybe a 300 pound sumo wrestler carries a gun in case the other guy has a gun, but my 120 pound wife needs a gun to defend herself in almost ANY situation that would most likely happen.
If you take guns away from EVERYONE, we go back to survival of the fittest or, more to the point, the biggest and strongest.
As far as America being more violent or dangerous because we can own firearms, if you TRULY look at the statistics, the majority of violent gun crime happens in places where guns are prohibited i.e. many large cities including Washington. They happen where people can’t legally arm themselves but criminals don’t have to follow such laws.
I’m glad that you feel safe because only the police have guns there. On the other hand, what would you do IF 2 or 3 large people broke into your house with the intent of hurting you. Do you have any options better than HOPING the police can be notified and can arrive BEFORE they hurt you? To me, I want a better option.
One of my shooting buddies said it pretty well. The only thing more frightening than everyone having a gun is everyone ELSE having a gun.
sorry to tell you but people that would use a gun on you don’t give a damn about what your philosophy is, also if we didn’t have gun, every one would own lots and lots of knifes
I just spotted the question; from the UK the US model seems jolly odd. We had a school shooting where 16 children were shot by one man with a legally held gun. It seemed obvious to simply ban privately held guns, which is largely what happened in the UK. The alternative was to love our guns more than our children.
And, with all due respect, I'm pretty sure handgun crimes went UP after the ban.
Love your children enough to defend them.
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0
Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.
Frightening stats – I think the issues is that with guns so readily available you should think about protecting your children from themselves.
If that’s what’s happening JPG, the united states must really *****ing hate their children.
Worth noting someone went on a stabbing rampage in a UK infants school about the same time. Not as many deaths, obviously. Of course its PEOPLE that cause these things, with whatever they can get hold of, but what if he had got hold of an assault rifle, 2 day cooling off period then no questions asked? He’dve done the whole frikkin town.
Note in Switzerland each male of age has a government issued assault rifle.
The "right" to bear arms is a foolish one that would be abolished already if not for the NRA. The US Constitution says that we have the right to bear arms ONLY because of the need of a militia. That's what the National Guard is. Only them and and law enforcement should have guns, and both only during active duty.
It would be a bad thing for this "right" to be spread about. Look at how many people are killed every day by guns in the US. If China's population had a similar percentage of gun ownership, it's likely there would be tens of thousands of gun deaths a day. Sure it would be good for relieving overpopulation, but I don't think many people advocate such action. It's moronic and should be done away with.
the nat. guard is in no way a militia
Mumbai, India, Nov. 2008. At least 44 people killed and 150 injured. Although India has very strict gun ownership laws, that didn't stop people from being shot like fish in a barrel.
You can keep your foolish belief that outlawing guns means noone will have them – in fact, use that belief to protect yourself should the need ever arise.
ask yourself, how many of those people would have died, if even a quarter of them had been lawfully armed themselves, and capable of defending themselves against the gunmen doing the slaying?
Well for a start, it depends on whether a quarter of those bystanders could actually shoot straight… Esp. while being shot at themselves,
guys, about mumbai, in 2008, that was a terrorist attack….not a civilian using guns….
The constitution clearly states, "the right of the PEOPLE"…..
The standing army and the national guard are and will always be under the control of the government. If the people are unable to defend themselves, the people in government who would LIKE to be in total control will become bolder and just might become dictatorial. Just look at the arrogance of people in government now and imagine how overbearing they might be if they had no reason to fear the public. As a former soldier, I hate what guns can do to people but I also know what governments do to an unarmed population. Besides, criminals never turn their guns in if they are banned. They prefer an unarmed victim.
When seconds count? Police are only minutes away.
That line about militia has been bantered about and misinterpreted since the document was written. To the Founding Fathers every able bodied American male was the militia, and the intent was to keep power in the hands of the people.
To quote the constitution “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” that means for those of you who failed 6th grade that anyone who is a citizen of the U.S can own and carry any wepon.
And on the subject of minor (also for those who failed 6th grade minor means anyone under 18) suicide if they want to kill them selves they will find another way. The only way to stop gun violence would to destroy every gun in the world kill everyone who knows how to make one destroy all blueprints of them and after all that every one that has a basic under standing of physics (me included) would be dead and in ten years the 12 year olds that grew up without parents would figure out how to make guns.
Also a armed population makes a nation stronger no one could invade the Midwest there would be a militia in every town.
P.S I am 15 years old I have shot many guns (shotguns handguns rifles battle rifles) I am also American. And if you tried to take my gun you would have to dig up 80 acres of land.
The only answer to the question… try invading America and see how far you get! If everyone in Iraq had a gun maybe there wouldn't be 150,000 American soldiers there!
Everyone in Iraq DID have guns. Saddam handed them out FOC so the Americans would feel right at home..
It would be interesting to see if those armed citizens don’t turn out useless in a war
it would be great if we didnt need guns. however the simple fact is–we do. if civilians arnt allowed to get guns, it wont stop criminals from getting them, and using them on the now-defenseless.
Any people aneryhwe, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable a most sacred right a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.We are asking the nations of Europe between whom rivers of blood have flowed to forget the feuds of a thousand years.
good one …
quite interesting too
what about the tommy gun?
Not sure “great” is a good description for firearms.
Even if you don't like guns, the word "great" has no moral connotations, you could describe something as being "great and terrible." You can't deny that there are a lot of weapons out there that are very impressive and this is where their greatness lies.
what about shotgun?
Why no M4 Carbine?
awesome list !!!
guns are bad mmkay, theres no need for them, why cant battles go back to ‘the best survive’? now a spotty little freak can go into a school and mow down 20+ people without breaking a sweat, replace that gun with a sword and see how far they get.
saying that, i am going shooting at the end of the month, should be fun
If they banned guns in wars, people would still use them anyway, and putting the "law-abiders" at a disadvantage. Plus people would probably just use more chemical and biological weapons… But I guess that is going to happen sooner or later anyway.
I don’t think people need the ‘right’ to bear arms, most people don’t have a need for it, it makes no difference if they have the right to a gun or not, they just don’t want, need or would use one. I’m from Australia and we don’t have that right here, it’s not even an issue, it’s never really thought about. Introducing a right like that into a country where most of the people are uneducated about and have no need for guns would just create more problems than it’s worth.
The definitive information I have found says that since Australia (and Scotland) took away the right of law-abiding persons to have guns, the gun related crimes and overall crime rate in those nations caused by persons who do not care about the restrictions on guns or most other laws has skyrocketed.
Remember when seconds count and your life or your families lives are in danger the cops are only minutes away! Personally I'll stick to my keeping my Ar15 by my bed loaded with a 30 round clip that way I wont have to worry about getting a busy signal when I call the cops.
This was a very interesting list i myself own a Glock and i am suprised it made the list.
wouldn’t* (use one)
This list has to include the Garand M1 rifle, the extraordinary weapon of GI’s in WWII. Talk about taking a beating and keeping on ticking. Also, given its global application to match that of the AK47, you have to mention the M16A1. Lastly, the most influencial special ops weapon for decades, the Heckler and Koch MP5, absolutely deserves inclusion.
The reason I think any of the M16 variants made the list is because it's basically a pretty bad firearm, over-complicated mechanism and maintinence high. Take only the lever to push in the mechanism properly, something that shouldn't be needed on a modern firearm but exists on the m16a2 to use when grime and gunpowder residue builds up within that delicate and complicated mechanism.
I don’t like guns.
This is my kind of list. I believe gaitling should be included though.
I was under the impression that the “right” to bear arms in the US is debatable and depends on how you interpret the wording of the consitution.
Speaking as a resident of the UK, I think frankly that the American system is insane and I would hate to live in a country where so many people are armed. It’s certainly no coincidence that murder rates are so much higher in the US than here. And aren’t you much more likely to accidentally shoot yourself or a member of your family than an intruder? Personally I’d rather be burgled and have all my stuff stolen (which is only stuff at the end of the day) than take even an infinitesimally small chance of shooting myself or someone I love.
So no I don’t think it is a fundamental right and, as your question seems to imply, Americans seem much keener on arming themselves than extending that so called right to other people. I think the right not to be shot trumps the right to bear arms every time.
The UK is the size and population of my home state of Illinois and, according to the World Health Organization, the UK has twice the robbery rate and twice the violent crime (battery resulting in hospitalization) rate of my whole country. Also according to the WHO, US isn't even in the top 10 of murder rates per 1,000. Russia has no guns and twice the total US murder rate, Japan has the record for largest mass murder. The US is only allowed guns based on the state laws and only then after to rebel against our own government.
Guns dont kill people. People kill people. What if someone broke into your house not to rob you but to rape plunder and pillage your children and wife bet you would wish you had a gun then. So yeah lets ban the legeal law abiding citizens from the right to bear arms so the only people left with guns are criminals and peace officers
rape and plunder? we have vikings now? goddamit!
Lol
One would think not to aim a gun at one of their family members or their own head. Plus guns are better used as a bluff than a weapon in a crime situation
You seem to forget that America is the most diverse nation in the world. All different kinds of people, different beliefs, different personalities. If you consider the violent nature of man, it’s obvious that the reason homicide rates in the US are so high isn’t because we have guns, but because we all *****ing hate each other.
Nice list, but I think AK-47 should be number 1. It change modern warfare forever.
Although I love my 1911's, both of them, I have to agree with you. The AK-47 is super cheap, dependable, and so easy to shoot and maintain that the most undeducated, ignorant, tribal farmer in any third world cesspool can do it. (And I mean "ignorant" in the strict literal sense, not in a derogatory way.) That gun has revolutionized warfare modern more than any other, IMO.
But if it DID have to be #2, I'm glad it was bumped by the 1911. And BTW, brand new 1911's can be had for around $500 – Springfield, Rock Island, etc. Kimbers are around $1,000, though.
I think that the design was inspired by a German assault rifle that was never put into mass production though, so you may say that the German's changed warfare forever…
You are very right the German made the wunderweapon the STG-44 and it was not mass produced because of the end of the war. If it mass produced at the beginning of the war it could of changed drastically. The Russians and Mikhail Kalashnikov pretty much just copied the design and made it their own.
Great list! Next list, please add the M-16, M-82 and CZ-75 and/or the Desert Eagle.
Right to arms? Where does it stop? I’ll have a nuclear missile then please – covered by my right to arms. The american policy is rubbish.
This list totally reminded me one of the reason I got hooked on this site, besides the great and random lists.
One commenter always got me laughin, but he has been absent for a while.
So, in honor of JAJDUDE, I will finish my comment in this style …
Straight guns on the list g. people with guns are the only reason I get any exercise walking down dimly lit streets yo.
jajdude… we miss you.
Fairly well written list. Although has somebody has already pointed out i’m not sure we should rate guns on their ‘greatness’.
When it comes to the question, i really don’t think it needs discussion. Of course people shouldn’t have the right to ‘bear arms’. It’s a ludicrous notion and you guys across the water really need to give it up as soon as possible.
And while we’re at it, it’s 2009 people, can you please do away with the death penalty.
so if some one murders another person what would you rather have happen
personally if you murder someone i think you deserve to be killed
and anyway to understand the right to keep and bear arms you need to understand the early history and constitution of America
to quote Talanic :
"The right to bear arms was made a part of law in a time when there were three primary concerns.
The first was self-defense; after all, America just wasn't safe for the common person at the time.
The second was defense of the country. The USA was never actually supposed to have a standing army; citizens were supposed to be trained with guns and capable of forming a militia in a few scant months – as soon as we heard of an invasion force coming overseas. Times change; I have to say a standing army seems pretty essential today, if only for cleanup of our own messes 8(
The third is only implied, but it's a doozy. It's so that, if the US government started going entirely bad and oppressing the populace, they would be capable of overthrowing a despot. It's really debatable about whether or not that was officially part of the reason why we have the right to bear arms, but it's so obvious that it'd be hard to argue that the founding fathers never thought of it."
today militia has been replaced by the National Guard
personally i would rather have a gun and never need it than need a gun and not have one
remember guns dont kill people, people kill people; we did it long before guns
i’m a chinese (hong kong) and i wouldn’t want chinese civilians to bear arms. mostly because the average morale and conduct level in china is pretty low, who knows what people will do when they have guns…
i hate the chinese government anyhow
Guns are never “great” they are fuggn deadly.
The right to bear arms was made a part of law in a time when there were three primary concerns.
The first was self-defense; after all, America just wasn’t safe for the common person at the time.
The second was defense of the country. The USA was never actually supposed to have a standing army; citizens were supposed to be trained with guns and capable of forming a militia in a few scant months – as soon as we heard of an invasion force coming overseas. Times change; I have to say a standing army seems pretty essential today, if only for cleanup of our own messes 8(
The third is only implied, but it’s a doozy. It’s so that, if the US government started going entirely bad and oppressing the populace, they would be capable of overthrowing a despot. It’s really debatable about whether or not that was officially part of the reason why we have the right to bear arms, but it’s so obvious that it’d be hard to argue that the founding fathers never thought of it.
As far as, should other people? During a pacification, I’d have to say that certain limits should be imposed on people who haven’t proven themselves to be friendly or neutral, but I’m darned if I know what that would really entail. After an area is considered to be free of active hostiles, it’d be awfully hypocritical of us to mandate the area as a gun-free zone with our own soldiers flaunting their arms – but those same soldiers are going to be a lot more likely to fire if they know that everyone in the area is likely to be packing. In short, I have no good answer for you; I’d prefer that we be able to clean out those who are an active threat such that the people of Iraq and other occupied territories don’t NEED guns, but I know how naive that kind of thinking is.
So you want to make it so that people in Iraq don't need guns, while pointing out how important it is for the populace to own firearms for the three reasons given, particularly 2 and 3, which are about preventing a country from being occupied by an invading force.
- “I still find it interesting that guns remain today the most common weapon used by military and civilians alike.”
As opposed to what, bow and arrows?
I don’t own guns. I don’t hunt or target shoot, and I don’t live in an area where I feel I need a firearm to defend myself. And yet I must disagree about the abolishment of guns.
The militia that the constitution speaks of is not necessarily one under the control of the government itself, as the National Guard is.
Jorick (27), all you say is that it should be abolished, but nothing of WHY. I know many people die in gun accidents, and guns are used in crimes. Does someone else’s accident give a second person the right to restrict a third person from responsibly owning the object that the first person was hurt or killed by? It is a very dangerous precedent to set.
Guns don’t cause crime. They may cause crime to be more severe but they do not, in and of themselves, cause crime. Instead, discontent is what causes crime. People break the law when there are things that they want that they can’t get. The worst thing, the thing that causes crime to be widespread, is lack of opportunity for personal improvement.
Want to see crime drop? Fund the police more and spend more on education.
no to guns…
Great list, could have been better with 20 items.
I myself use an H&K USP 9mm Compact, 13 rounds(one extra in camber). And for tactical operations i use the H&K MP5A3 9mm.
The MP5 is unbelievable easy to shot well. It simply hits what you point it at, and there is almost no recoil.
+1 for HK. I understand the inclusion of the Glock, simply because it’s in that middle ground between high quality and universal distribution. At the extreme ends of that scale, though, I’d say the Beretta M92F has had more effect, do to its extensive use in the military, and the HK USP (or the SOCOM spec Mk23 Mod 0) is more noteworthy because it’s superior to both in every way, though this comes with a slightly steeper price tag (still less than a 1911). Those lines about the Glock performing admirably with sand in the barrel or underwater sound like they were lifted right from Tommy Lee Jones in US Marshals – just do a quick google search on how much testing was done on the USP and shooting underwater sounds like child’s play…
Great list! I have been regularly using all of these. And i have also died 583 times using them… and still counting…right now its war in call of duty 5! yaaaaah!
My M16, what about the M16?
I always prefer the Thompson fully automatic to blow off nazi heads. Great gun,great looks too…
Guns don’t kill people..
It’s the bullets!!
Doesn’t ‘nyone play games in here???gnaaaah!
Well have to admit that i hadn’t heard of any except the
Ak-47 …and i came to know about many others only after playing counter strike..heh heh
@Schmick, its neither the guns ,nor the bullets,man. Its man,man.
Moron.
As for the question about the right to bear firearms,that right should be rightaway abolished from everyone..else people’ll start shooting each other on the frivolous of matters..and as for rebelling against a particular oppressive regime,i don’t think there will be an equality of firepower between the people and the government..so there you are
@ buclism, lighten up..
or i’ll shoot ya!!
Which is the most popular gun in the history of fps,third person shooters etc etc?? the shotgun! It shoulda been mentioned as pseudo-honorary
with a bullet
Good list, that is badly spoiled by putting the AK as number 2.
No single gun has had the impact on this planet. For better or Worse.
What about the M1 or M14, or the Maxim Gun? The Glock, really? Two many pistols in the list. Rifles and machine guns are much more historically significant
i forsaw the future…that’s why i wrote ‘man,man’!
Actually, the right to bear arms was included in the Iraqi constitution.
As far as the “Militia” part of our own Second Amendment goes, I signed up for Selective Service when I turned 18, as did millions of other men in the US. That means I have been part of a national militia since then, so where’s my selective-fire weapon & free ammo?
The right to defend oneself from harm should be a Universal Human Right, guns just make it easy for a 100 pound woman to defend herself against a 200 pound man. And here in America, civilian-owned firearms are used to prevent some hundreds of thousands of violent crimes every year, according to the FBI. The only reason you never hear about them is they never make the “news.”
All you folks in the UK & Australia did have the right to own firearms at one time, but according to the W.H.O., violent crime has increased in your countries, and your per-capita murder rate is actually higher than the US.
I would rather die as a wolf than live as a sheep.
They won't listen, don't waste your breath.
Interpol, the FBI, every major law enforcement agency in the world has released studies that all support the same thing. In areas where it is legal for citizens to own guns, violent crime levels have dropped.
Period.
What people CAN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND, or REFUSE to understand, despite reams and reams of data and anecdotal evidence to the contrary, is that when you make citizen gun ownership illegal, law-abiding citizens turn in their guns. The criminals retain theirs. You have successfully disarmed all law-abiding/good people, and made them completely defenseless.
Fun fact, the vast majority of gun-related mass deaths are in "Gun Free Zones".(I.E. Schools, shopping malls, government facilities, etc.) Psychologists and experts have postulated that this is because the criminal KNOWS that no one there will be able to defend themselves, and they will be much more effective.
An Armed society is a polite society.
Look at ACTUAL crime statistics from the American West. Don't watch the movies or believe the hype, look at the real numbers. The majority of citizens carried guns, and crime was insanely low. I'm talking less than 10 murders in 10 years for most towns/cities.
Now look at Chicago and Washington D.C., The two largest cities in the United States that have outlawed guns. (Recently fixed I know)
Gun crime, violent crime, rape, murder. All through the roof in these cities. Again, because no one can defend themselves.
The numbers show the truth. The experts support the truth. Experienced Law Enforcement Officers will tell you the exact same thing.
Private Gun Ownership SAVES lives.
There exists no decision as to whether or not being able to protect yourself and your family is a right.
There is no decision in regards to whether guns in law-abiding citizens hands prevents crime.
Simple Fact: It does.
The question is whether people want to admit it, or whether they will continue to believe the indoctrination their media, government, and coddling culture has forced on them.
Unfortunately, most people would rather dismiss the truth than step out of their safety bubble…
Funny, but the chinese don’t see their regime as oppressive. Not now. Only the Americans do. Time to move on and accept that a powerful communist nation still exists…
they dont see regime oppesive because they cant!
ohh, and about the list. It was ok, but what about the BAR? once you where out of ammo you could beat the crap out of anyone you meet and still use the gun when you got more ammo. and it is far more reliable then the AK! all around the best combat riffle ever made, next would be the British 303, which was on the list.
I agree with Talanic, mainly on the third point. The implication in our Constitution of the right to bear arms is not necessarily a means of overthrowing a despot, but of depending ourselves against a despot who did raise a standing army and tried to use said military to seize the property of American citizens.
On a personal level I hate guns. I have no interest in owning one. However, I am proficient enough in the use of a rifle that if necessary I could defend myself. I also don’t think any one else should have guns taken away from them. Sure there are higher murder rates here, but making guns illegal isn’t going to stop that, it just means that the guns used to kill people will be unregistered and harder to trace.
Guns dont kill people rappers do
It’s probably a good thing we Americans can still bear arms… everyone else hates us. I really don’t like guns, and there are some people in this country that should not have the right to them.
keep your *****ing red neck guns
Good list. I personally own 5 (yes 5 dont ask long story) of the number one gun on your list. I have a concealed firearms permit and carry a 1911 variant all the time. You can get one for less than 1,000 dollars, actually there are several variants of the 1911 for between 500 and 750 dollars. As far as the right to keep and bear arms, yes that should be something that all people should have the right to. Whether it would have changed things in oppressed countries, one will never know. As for all of you that commented on this list that guns kill people, get over it people kill people. I leave a S&W Model 66 loaded in my desk drawer all the time and it has never killed anyone, and never will kill anyone WITHOUT direct human interaction. Oh and Jeremy, Ive been to Iraq twice and if you only knew how many people there do own guns(legally or not)you would be amazed. As for the comments on the M4/M16 variant, yeah right, they arent that that good of a gun. No where near as capable of a battle rifle as say the AK47, G36, L85(SA80), the FN FAL, or the Tavor TAR21.
Anderi: “Funny, but the chinese don’t see their regime as oppressive. Not now. Only the Americans do. Time to move on and accept that a powerful communist nation still exists…”
A nation whose government slaughters hundreds of thousands of people a year, which sanctions torture and which holds public executions. Wonderful stuff.
Over 35,000 people are shot dead in America each year and this figure just keeps on rising. Yet the spoilt children refuse to give up their toys. Most ***** themselves if you even mention increased regulation.
I’m happy to live in a country where I can walk down any street and know I’m not going to get shot by some redneck.
P.S. to all the people saying “what about the shotgun”… y’alls are *****ing retarded.
!) Yes, it is a human right. Why? Self defense is a human right, and the decision to bear arms in ones defense is covered by that right.
@) You forgot the M1 Garand.
so why did this list turn into a bunch of people talking about the right to arms lol
if you dont like them dont own one, its that simple, its not a religion so dont preach it and yea that goes on both sides gun owners and anti-gun people.
M-60