Blood pitting/suicide guns

[AnthonyG 36]

To be honest I would buy any gun regardless of the history, as long as it was something I wanted and got it for the right price.

[Shane45 807]

Kaiser, if you dont see the difference, Im not sure I could explain it to you......

[Shane45 807]

Let me list a few I would wants and wouldnt wants to try and illustrate. But of course these are based on my sensebilities.

 

I would want:

Hitlers suicide gun

Any battlefield weapon regardless of condition. In particuler I would like one that even has shrapnel embedded in it.

Zietsev's sniper rifle or any historical sniper for that matter

Pattons pistols

 

 

I would NOT want

Kurt Cobains suck start attempt

a weapon used to execute POW's or refugees

a weapon used in the killing of children

a weapon used to facilitate a rapeetc etc

 

Evil is not magically transfered to the inanimate object. However, I still dont want it. it has nothing to do with superstition. Its simply that it was part of something bad and I dont care to have the association to save a few bucks.....

[robot_hell 72]

Evil is not magically transfered to the inanimate object. However, I still dont want it. it has nothing to do with superstition. Its simply that it was part of something bad and I dont care to have the association to save a few bucks.....

 

+1 to that, I think that about sums up how I feel about it

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Let me list a few I would wants and wouldnt wants to try and illustrate. But of course these are based on my sensebilities.

 

I would want:

Hitlers suicide gun

Any battlefield weapon regardless of condition. In particuler I would like one that even has shrapnel embedded in it.

Zietsev's sniper rifle or any historical sniper for that matter

Pattons pistols

 

 

I would NOT want

Kurt Cobains suck start attempt

a weapon used to execute POW's or refugees

a weapon used in the killing of children

a weapon used to facilitate a rapeetc etc

 

Evil is not magically transfered to the inanimate object. However, I still dont want it. it has nothing to do with superstition. Its simply that it was part of something bad and I dont care to have the association to save a few bucks.....

 

 

:good:

[GRIZ 3,369]

 

 

I suppose "History" was the wrong word. I couldn't think of what to say. Let's say, hypothetically, that I were looking at a gun I REALLY wanted. We have two that are exactly the same, same wear and tear, stocks, sights, whatever. If the suicide gun is cheaper, I'll take it. I mean, to me at least, unless there's visible, obvious signs that it was used in a suicide, I don't think I'd really care. A gun is a tool, there's no reason to attach some sort of significance to the fact it was a suicide gun.

 

Think of it this way. How many of you out there love surplus rifles? With regards to surplus rifles, condition is king, however, one that's in good condition, that was used in a historic battle, let's say D-Day, may be worth more to a collector with the proper proofs. YET, we can safely assume that a rifle used in war may very well have been used to take someone's life. What then, is the difference between buying a weapon used in a suicide, and a military weapon that may have saw combat? Yes, a suicide gun doesn't have collector's value (except if it were like, Kurt Cobaine's) but it's the same premise. Both could have been used to take a life, yet one is considered "creepy" and the other is not.

 

Let us first address this often repeated "gun is a tool" phrase. Guns were not invented to cut wood or drill holes although they have been used for those purposes. Guns were invented and developed to increase the efficiency of warfare. Guns were invented to kill. Used the right way there is nothing wrong with that. Man has had valid need for weapons since he had to pick up a rock and a stick. Their use for hunting evolved from their availability due to warfare. Paperpunching and other forms of competition came about as a way of developing and demonstrating skill. Nothing wrong with that. Cars were developed for transportation and are used for racing. When someone claims guns are dangerous I quote Jeff Cooper who said "of course they are they would be useless if they weren't". Cars still kill a lot more people than guns worldwide. Cars are necessary to have and so are guns.

 

Guns used in battle are a very different thing than suicide guns. Its nearly impossible to find a milsurp used in battle in pristine condition. Let's say a M1 used in Normandy was dragged through the salt water, dropped, and generally banged around a lot. Any availabile time spent maintaining it was spent on functioning not appearance. Documenting a specific gun was used in a specific battle is also close to impossible as such records were not kept.

 

As far as being used to kill reread irishpeteswife post #20. Still don't understand? I'll go a bit further. If you are in combat trading shots with the enemy, your cause is not flag and country. Its keeping you and your buddies alive. To many who have not done so they can't understand why someone would jump on a grenade. That's commitment to keeping your buddies alive. A firearm that was used by a soldier to keep him or her and their buddies alive by killing the enemy is a totally different thing than a suicide weapon. I can understand and deal with what a milsurp was used for whether it was used by us, an ally, or an enemy.

 

If you don't understand the difference between a milsurp and a suicide weapon I don't know how else I can describe it.

 

To me saying a gun is "badass" because someone used it for a suicide is kind of sick.

 

Just my opinion.