DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: bosk1 on February 22, 2012, 12:57:49 PM
-
Although there is definitely a potential political aspect to the discuss, my goal is to try to keep it more neutral and avoid an extreme political bent, if possible. So, post your thoughts, but please keep it civil. Do you own? For hunting, self-defense, something else? Should they be banned? Whatever.
-
I say let people buy guns, just with four conditions:
1) Don´t sell AK47´s, AA12´s, Grenade Launchers, etc. You won´t need them unless you plan on taking on an army of bears in your backyard. Sell reasonable weapons and only for hunting.
2) Don´t sell silencers or 50 round clip magazines, etc. Doubtful your taking on an army of bears, again.
3) Sell all the guns you want, but keep the supply of ammo extremely scarce or reasonably expensive.
4) Background checks and psycho-analysis for any prospective gun buyer
-
My dad has a couple, but he doesn't use them. He inherited them from his dad. I will likely inherit them from my dad, and never use them. Not because I am against them. I don't hunt, but will likely keep the handgun handy for defense. Guess I should learn how to use it at some point. He has always been very good about keeping them locked up. I don't know how these 8 year olds are getting in to their parents' guns. I am 35 and would have a damn hard time getting at my dad's guns.
-
I of course approve of hunting uses, and for home protection. Just because we have a moral platform against gun violence doesn't mean everyone does, and if someone feels the need to own one to protect themselves and their family, that is their right.
Coincedentally, I have two friends who are huge into guns. Between the two of them, they probably have fifty guns, including a couple AK47s, at least a dozen AR15s, and many others. I shoot with them often, and fined it a relaxing and very centering outing. I personally don't own any, and have no plans on buying any.
-
3) Sell all the guns you want, but keep the supply of ammo extremely scarce or reasonably expensive.
I can see why you would say that, and I'm guessing the motivation behind it is restricting how much someone has the ability to stock up ammo and go on a shooting spree, which is a decent, common-sense rationale. But I would counter it with this: I am much more comfortable being around someone with a gun IF I know they are very proficient with it. The more you use any tool, the more comfortable and familiar you are with it, including its safety features. If you jack up the price on ammo, you decrease the amount of time gun owners can afford to practice at the range and gain that kind of familiarity with their gun(s), which increases the likelihood of accidents. To me, that would be counterproductive. I see where you are coming from, but I don't think it is the best idea.
-
3) Sell all the guns you want, but keep the supply of ammo extremely scarce or reasonably expensive.
I can see why you would say that, and I'm guessing the motivation behind it is restricting how much someone has the ability to stock up ammo and go on a shooting spree, which is a decent, common-sense rationale. But I would counter it with this: I am much more comfortable being around someone with a gun IF I know they are very proficient with it. The more you use any tool, the more comfortable and familiar you are with it, including its safety features. If you jack up the price on ammo, you decrease the amount of time gun owners can afford to practice at the range and gain that kind of familiarity with their gun(s), which increases the likelihood of accidents. To me, that would be counterproductive. I see where you are coming from, but I don't think it is the best idea.
Then simply sell ammo cheaply at shooting ranges to allow gun owners to practice and shoot at targets to their heart´s content, but don´t allow any of the ammo purchased there to be taken out of the shooting range; make a policy that states that all ammo bought in shooting ranges must be either completely used or forfeited before exiting the range and set a reasonable limit of how much ammo would be allowed to be bought.
Also, just wanted to state that I´m not one of those who despises all guns and gun owners. Shooting guns gives me a boner, too, but there are problems to owning guns that must be adressed.
-
I think gun ownership is fine with the right background checks and precautions taken and adhered to. I shot guns really for the first time over Thanksgiving break and I had a great time. I got to shoot a whole bunch of military grade assault rifles and I loved it. Shooting targets and marksmanship, I think is a really fun sport.
I don't think I will ever own a gun, but who knows. I will definitely be going to ranged to shoot them again though!
People get really worked up over gun violence which is natural but how big of a problem is it really? I don't think lawful gun owners are a big problem. I think it's people who get guns illegally and are already involved in other illegal activities are the big problem.
Getting all worked up and demonizing guns doesn't really solve the root issues as to what causes gun violence in the first place, be it a drug deal gone bad, a robbery, or a school shooting. All these things have better ways of being stopped than banning gun ownership.
Also, I feel like a good rule for assault weapons is that they have to be packed up a certain way and held at a gun range. I say this because if I ever did buy a gun, I would want it to be an AR-15 or something like that.
Anyways, that's my 2 cents.
-
I did get a chance a couple of years ago to shoot with a guy who is a sniper for the Marines. Shooting his .30 sniper rifle with that scope was an awesome experience. I swear I could castrate a deer at half a mile with that thing.
-
I am not in favor of people being able to have a gun mostly because I think people can snap and miss use it. Now I don't want to put everyone in the same bag so I think people should be allowed to buy a gun but prior to that they should go through at least some evaluations including a psychiatric one. I know this is not 100% percent accurate but if someone is considering committing a mass murder that includes guns, having to go through these will probably discourage them.
-
I have never owned one or really even fired one, accept for a 22 in camp as a kid. I am not against the right to bear arms. Someday I may want to own one and I want to be able to if I do.
-
I am not in favor of people being able to have a gun mostly because I think people can snap and miss use it. Now I don't want to put everyone in the same bag so I think people should be allowed to buy a gun but prior to that they should go through at least some evaluations including a psychiatric one. I know this is not 100% percent accurate but if someone is considering committing a mass murder that includes guns, having to go through these will probably discourage them.
Sounds reasonable to me.
-
I am fine with my countrymen owning guns.
However I don't think American's need guns.
-
I bought an awesome gun that makes me feel like God, but I hope I never have to use it. (https://www.theonion.com/articles/i-bought-an-awesome-gun-that-makes-me-feel-like-go,11527/)
-
If I ever bought a gun I would only use it for recreation at a shooting range. I wouldn't even want it for home defense.
-
I was fairly anti-gun ownship until relatively recently (2 years ago). I own a .45, and while I live somewhere now where I would feel completely safe leaving my house unlocked at all times (not that I do, that would just be really dumb), I might not always be in that position. Still, I know realistically that even if my house is ever broken into, it will mos likely be going to be at a time when no one is home, which really weakens my own position of "protection". So why own? 1) like bosk said, with practice comes proficiency. The place I live next may not be the safest place in the world. 2) Going to the range is, quite frankly, fun. It can also be challenging - which only increases the fun factor.
I still think limiting what guns are available and who purchases them is a good idea. I personally wouldn't own 50 of them, but I have a friend who owns near 100 and its always fun to go to the range with him and whichever guns he chooses to take that day (shooting 10 different guns is more fun than shooting the same one 10 times).
So Guns: Yay.
-
Yay. I want to shoot my future kid's laptop with it.
-
I'm pretty anti-guns all around.
-
My view is pretty simple. I think assault weapons should not be permitted for rank and file citizens. Law enforcement and military only. In my opinion, no one outside of law enforcement or the military really needs an assault weapon like an AK47, and the more of these you put in circulation, the more likely they are going to end up in the wrong hands.
With that said, I having absolutely no problem whatsoever with responsible gun ownership. But I think anyone purchasing one should pass the requisite checks (background / psychological) that everyone else is mentioning, PLUS, I think everyone who buys a handgun or rifle for the first time should be required to pass a gun safety / competency test before they can get their permit.
Other than that, if you want to own guns, have at it.
Personally, I prefer something closer to non-leathal home protection which is why I may or may not have a stun gun in my night stand. ;)
-
I'm fine with hunting rifles or shotguns. I'm less fine with handguns, but understand why some think they're necessary. I'm not at all OK with automatic weapons.
I will likely never own or shoot a gun. I just don't see why an average person would want one.
-
I think anyone purchasing one should pass the requisite checks (background / psychological) that everyone else is mentioning, PLUS, I think everyone who buys a handgun or rifle for the first time should be required to pass a gun safety / competency test before they can get their permit.
Here in CA, the rules are pretty stringent for handguns. Much less so for rifles, but I get the rationale: People just don't twist off and go on shooting sprees with rifles. :lol For handguns, you have to pass a certification test that demonstrates that you know not only the relevant laws, but also common sense gun safety. Then for any handgun you buy, you have to have a background check and have to wait 10 days before you can take it home. And then when you pick it up, you have to go through a hand-on safety demo with the dealer to demonstrate that you know how to operate it safely before the dealer can sign it over to you. Overall, while it puts on a lot of limits that are somewhat artificial on some levels and annoy a lot of handgun purchasers, I think the process that is in place mostly makes good sense.
I just don't see why an average person would want one.
I hear you, but you might be surprised at how many "average persons" have one. I started asking around recently, and I was amazed at how many people that I never would have thought would own guns actually do. And it was like a huge expanding chain where I would ask somebody a question, and they would say, "Oh, yeah, well here's what I have, but if you want to know more about such and such, you should talk to either Joe or Dave because..." and I never even knew "Joe" or "Dave" would have guns.
-
I don't like guns. I don't like people having guns. I would never argue that people should be allowed to have them, but in my eyes, a gun's sole purpose is to kill or harm someone or something. Proficient users of guns still routinely fuck up and kill people by accident. A gun will never be a safe thing to be around, regardless of the proficiency of the owner/user.
Then you've got CCW people who insist on having their gun on them wherever they go. Why? A typical answer I've gotten is "to be prepared". Prepared for what?? God forbid you should ever suggest to this person that maybe their need to constantly be secretly armed to the teeth in public stems from some sort of paranoia or fear of something. They really don't like that at all and turn it around to insist that you just don't get it. However, never when I have had this conversation have I gotten a decent explanation as to what a CCW person intends to be prepared for.
-
Then you've got CCW people who insist on having their gun on them wherever they go. Why? A typical answer I've gotten is "to be prepared". Prepared for what?? God forbid you should ever suggest to this person that maybe their need to constantly be secretly armed to the teeth in public stems from some sort of paranoia or fear of something. They really don't like that at all and turn it around to insist that you just don't get it. However, never when I have had this conversation have I gotten a decent explanation as to what a CCW person intends to be prepared for.
They want to be prepared for their recurring wet-dream of single handedly saving the diner from armed robbers.
-
we have a gun in our home simply because my wife feels safer with it. she has seen some horrific stuff growing up and having a gun allows her to feel safer. my assumption is that if someone were breaking in, simply shooting it into the ceiling would deter any criminal. if they continued toward her still, then I would be especially thankful she had a gun.
-
I own quite a few rifles (an AR-15, SKS, AK-47, and a Remington 308), but no handguns due to my age. I enjoy hunting and target shooting with my close and extended family. When I do turn 21, I hope to get a nice handgun or two to shoot and keep for easy home defense (and possibly a concealed carry license in the future after that). I'm a firm believer of the 2nd amendment and mostly use my firearms for sport, although I can think of several disaster or civil unrest situations that having firearms would allow to protect my family and close friends.
-
I just don't see why an average person would want one.
I hear you, but you might be surprised at how many "average persons" have one. I started asking around recently, and I was amazed at how many people that I never would have thought would own guns actually do. And it was like a huge expanding chain where I would ask somebody a question, and they would say, "Oh, yeah, well here's what I have, but if you want to know more about such and such, you should talk to either Joe or Dave because..." and I never even knew "Joe" or "Dave" would have guns.
Yeah, I've known some surprising people who've owned guns too. Doesn't change the fact that I still don't understand why they'd want one though. :)
-
I don't like guns. I don't like people having guns. I would never argue that people should be allowed to have them, but in my eyes, a gun's sole purpose is to kill or harm someone or something.
(https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y280/bosk1/DTF/e-11lego1.jpg)
:orly: Care to modify your answer?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
Pretty interesting chart there.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
Pretty interesting chart there.
Interesting. If that is accurate, I wonder what the spike in the early '90s is attributable to. I also can't help but wonder how different the chart would look if the "handguns" portion was split into legally-obtained vs. illegally-obtained.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
Pretty interesting chart there.
Interesting. If that is accurate, I wonder what the spike in the early '90s is attributable to. I also can't help but wonder how different the chart would look if the "handguns" portion was split into legally-obtained vs. illegally-obtained.
Right, and then look into it on how many were because of gang activity or drug deals or used in some other already illegal act.
I personally would like to get into shooting guns more. I just don't have the time or the proximity to a good range. Shooting historical and military guns is pretty awesome too because it's like a history lesson in your hands and gives you a great perspective on what people in the armed forces get exposed to.
After shooting an AK, AR-15, SCAR-H, and AR-30, I have even more respect for our men and women in uniform for volunteering to be on the receiving end of these guns.
-
My view is pretty simple. I think assault weapons should not be permitted for rank and file citizens. Law enforcement and military only. In my opinion, no one outside of law enforcement or the military really needs an assault weapon like an AK47, and the more of these you put in circulation, the more likely they are going to end up in the wrong hands.
With that said, I having absolutely no problem whatsoever with responsible gun ownership. But I think anyone purchasing one should pass the requisite checks (background / psychological) that everyone else is mentioning, PLUS, I think everyone who buys a handgun or rifle for the first time should be required to pass a gun safety / competency test before they can get their permit.
Other than that, if you want to own guns, have at it.
Personally, I prefer something closer to non-leathal home protection which is why I may or may not have a stun gun in my night stand. ;)
I'm with this. Except for the assault rifle part. I think you should end up on a heavily monitored list if you own one. Mostly because I want to own authentic WWII weapons. Some of them are fully automatic weapons.
Barry, a buddy of mine has a shotgun that he sawed off the barrel on. He doesn't even have ammo for it. But, he keeps it for home defense. Someone has broken into his home and he merely pumped it and the guy left. :lol
-
I own multiple guns. Handguns, rifles and shotguns. I completed a Conceal Carry course 5 years ago and ALWAYS have a .45 cal. handgun on me. Chances are I will NEVER have to use it...but I carry it for that one time that I would have to. I fully agree that those who are purchasing weapons/guns should have to be evaluated both mentally and pass a shooting class. It makes sense. But the bottom line is that criminals and the 'bad guys' who are going to use guns for the murdering and holding up stores and what not WILL ALWAYS find a way to attain weapons. ALWAYS, no matter the amount of tough gun laws passed.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
Pretty interesting chart there.
Interesting. If that is accurate, I wonder what the spike in the early '90s is attributable to. I also can't help but wonder how different the chart would look if the "handguns" portion was split into legally-obtained vs. illegally-obtained.
Probably the same, I figure almost all homicides are commited with illegally obtained guns.
-
My personal opinion on guns is that people should be subjected to a painful screening process before being able to get one. You want a gun? Then tell us about your life in detail so we can make sure you don't go postal next week.
rumborak
-
My personal opinion on guns is that people should be subjected to a painful screening process before being able to get one. You want a gun? Then tell us about your life in detail so we can make sure you don't go postal next week.
rumborak
Again, so much wisdom in this post.
-
My personal opinion on guns is that people should be subjected to a painful screening process before being able to get one. You want a gun? Then tell us about your life in detail so we can make sure you don't go postal next week.
rumborak
I'd be down for that.
-
My personal opinion on guns is that people should be subjected to a painful screening process before being able to get one. You want a gun? Then tell us about your life in detail so we can make sure you don't go postal next week.
rumborak
I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that in your state, it is even tougher than out here, and we have pretty strict requirements.
-
I don't own one.
I have shot them before. (22 Shotgun & 357)
I like the screening process and I'm ok with people owning them.
-
Everyone in Georgia owns guns :lol
-
My personal opinion on guns is that people should be subjected to a painful screening process before being able to get one. You want a gun? Then tell us about your life in detail so we can make sure you don't go postal next week.
rumborak
The process is already fairly strict. I don't know what more you want. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the people who 'go postal' and/or the criminals who murder and hold up people with the guns will get those guns NO MATTER WHAT. You trying to tell me that a guy who's life is falling apart...divorcing...kids being taken away....got fired by his dickhead boss...etc. etc....and decides he's going to just shoot everyone is going to stop because he couldn't pass a pscy. exam or background check? Your fooling yourself if you think that. The FACT of the matter is if/when a criminal or madman wants a gun he's going to get it NO MATTER the ridiculous laws put in place.
Any further laws enacted only harm law abiding citizens such as myself. Plenty of laws in place already...they just need to be enforced.
-
Give everybody a gun. Crime would stop instantly.
-
Give everybody a gun. Crime would stop instantly.
...
-
Just popping in to say Finland is consistently a top country in the Happiness Index, has low murder rates, and half of the population owns at least 1 gun. Fuck yeah Finland :hat If only I could live their.
But I go hunting with my uncle in the winter sometimes, I find it fun.
-
The process is already fairly strict. I don't know what more you want.
Not really. From what I understand you can still go to gun shows and just buy there.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of the people who 'go postal' and/or the criminals who murder and hold up people with the guns will get those guns NO MATTER WHAT. You trying to tell me that a guy who's life is falling apart...divorcing...kids being taken away....got fired by his dickhead boss...etc. etc....and decides he's going to just shoot everyone is going to stop because he couldn't pass a pscy. exam or background check? Your fooling yourself if you think that. The FACT of the matter is if/when a criminal or madman wants a gun he's going to get it NO MATTER the ridiculous laws put in place.
Any further laws enacted only harm law abiding citizens such as myself. Plenty of laws in place already...they just need to be enforced.
Come on, dude, you're distorting the facts here. There's constantly news about people having shot others, being proper owners of a gun despite having been locked away in prison for years beforehand. Will it stop criminals from getting firearms? Of course not, but I don't think throwing your arms in the air and saying "all is lost anyway, everybody for themselves!!" is the answer.
Another thing that IMHO that should be instated is something that Switzerland does. In Switzerland most people have a gun because they get it through their army service. However, there's the law that a crime committed with their gun is partially their fault, even if they didn't use the gun themselves. What it does is force people to invest into proper safe closets for their guns. For example, from what I understand the Columbine kid just went to his father's closet, picked up a gun and started shooting.
rumborak
-
I don't think anyone should own anything more dangerous than BB/paintball guns.
-
Texan here. 'Nuff said.
I am way cool with some common sense restrictions, though. I also think that most people who insist on carrying one at all times is fooling himself.
Can't stand gun ranges, but fortunately they're pretty unnecessary down here.
-
Apparently it's normal in the US to own a gun - def not the case in britain (but its alot easier to obtain one in america). But no, don't see the point in owning one, for protection or whatever.
-
I think you need to try shooting a gun in order to realize why people would want to. It is a fun sport. At least I find it to be. So I guess you just need to try it out to know why, much like any other activity. I have no idea why some people skydive, yet people love it.
-
Not really. From what I understand you can still go to gun shows and just buy there.
Not sure about other states. But how it works here is, yes, you can buy at a gun show. But the transaction still must be processed through a registered dealer who is required to run the background check and perform all the other steps that would be performed if you bought in a shop, and the transfer still cannot be completed without passing the background check and waiting the 10-day waiting period.
There's constantly news about people having shot others, being proper owners of a gun despite having been locked away in prison for years beforehand.
Again, not sure what other state laws are, but out here, if you've committed a felony, you can NEVER own.
Another thing that IMHO that should be instated is something that Switzerland does. In Switzerland most people have a gun because they get it through their army service. However, there's the law that a crime committed with their gun is partially their fault, even if they didn't use the gun themselves. What it does is force people to invest into proper safe closets for their guns.
Similar law here, in many respects. If you have not taken certain precautions to keep the gun locked up in a secured location, with ammo stores in a separate secured location, you are generally responsible if someone commits a crime with your gun.
-
Meanwhile, in Seattle (Bremerton, actually)
A third-grade student has been airlifted to Seattle's Harborview Medical Center after being shot in the abdomen Wednesday at a Bremerton elementary school.
The girl, 8, was reportedly shot by another third-grade student just before school let out at 1:30 p.m.,
Again, not sure what other state laws are, but out here, if you've committed a felony, you can NEVER own.
Sounds familiar, WA has some law like that.
A friend's sister has guns for defense (good thing too because he coincidentally lives in Bremerton), but I don't know why he needs 15 of them. Can't you get by with one, maybe two, for defense? At some point, you should just say you like owning guns and quit trying to claim they are for defense.
-
I love guns. I think anyone has the right to have whatever kind of firearm they wish. I just like shooting shit. I have no desire to hunt, and even skeet shooting bores me, but I could shoot paint cans all day.
-
As a red-blooded southerner, I think it should be illegal to NOT own guns.
-
I find it amazing just the difference in perception or cultural whatever on the views on guns. I guess because the 'right to bear arms' is embedded in to the fabric of American society and history I suppose. Not sure. What I do know is that I have never once thought of the need or desire to own, let alone touch or fire, a gun of any type. Paintball is the closest I've come. I agree with comments like psycho people are going to find guns no matter what if they really want them... criminals too. But I think it's a cultural thing. Gun ownership is just so much more accepted in the US vs most other nations. And if legal gun ownership is so acceptable, taking that extra step for illegal ownership ain't much of a stretch.
Here's another stat - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Guns per 100 citizens. US = 88.8.
I don't mean to be rude or offensive with this comment, but that's not necessarily the stat I would want to be #1 in the world with.
-
Being opinionated, I am going to post and then read the thread...
Guns should be illegal except for hunting, and if someone wants to go hunting, they need to pick up their gone for a government building for an allotted amount of time and if they don't return it, they get punished. I truly despise American gun culture and refuse to buy/play with/ etc. anything that has them in it.
-
We never wanna learn from our mistakes and we never wanna take the blame!
I must say nay!
-
Being opinionated, I am going to post and then read the thread...
Guns should be illegal except for hunting, and if someone wants to go hunting, they need to pick up their gone for a government building for an allotted amount of time and if they don't return it, they get punished. I truly despise American gun culture and refuse to buy/play with/ etc. anything that has them in it.
One word why people, not just in America should be allowed to own guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4
I realize he was in the Finnish Military, but he became an accomplished moose hunter and hunted with the Finnish President Urho Kekkonen and his nickname was The White Death. That equals radular^2.
Just reading through that gave me a bigger hard on for Finland.
-
Some dude from Finland killed over 500 people in a war. That is cool how?
-
Some dude from Finland killed over 500 people in a war. That is cool how?
It majorly helped Russia from Conquering Finland, and the methods he used are frackin incredible. And like I said he became a radular moose hunter afterwards :hat
-
Being opinionated, I am going to post and then read the thread...
Guns should be illegal except for hunting, and if someone wants to go hunting, they need to pick up their gone for a government building for an allotted amount of time and if they don't return it, they get punished. I truly despise American gun culture and refuse to buy/play with/ etc. anything that has them in it.
What do you have against people into skeet shooting or marksmanship? Typically the people who want guns openly are not the problem.
-
I truly despise American gun culture and refuse to buy/play with/ etc. anything that has them in it.
Some general, unsolicited advice: It is often a LOT more productive to attempt to understand why some people may think differently than you and to try to find something in those differences that you can appreciate rather than simply despising those who think differently. That obviously has a much larger general application than just this topic, of course.
-
Some dude from Finland killed over 500 people in a war. That is cool how?
It majorly helped Russia from Conquering Finland, and the methods he used are frackin incredible. And like I said he became a radular moose hunter afterwards :hat
To be honest, I don't really care about the first reason and I really really don't care about the second and third.
Being opinionated, I am going to post and then read the thread...
Guns should be illegal except for hunting, and if someone wants to go hunting, they need to pick up their gone for a government building for an allotted amount of time and if they don't return it, they get punished. I truly despise American gun culture and refuse to buy/play with/ etc. anything that has them in it.
What do you have against people into skeet shooting or marksmanship? Typically the people who want guns openly are not the problem.
It's the mentality of it all. Guns are dangerous and should only be in the hands of those that need them (cops.) I don't care if its "fun" to shoot shit. It's sending the wrong message to the people. My belief coincides with my refusal to play a game with a gun in it.
I truly despise American gun culture and refuse to buy/play with/ etc. anything that has them in it.
Some general, unsolicited advice: It is often a LOT more productive to attempt to understand why some people may think differently than you and to try to find something in those differences that you can appreciate rather than simply despising those who think differently. That obviously has a much larger general application than just this topic, of course.
I appreciate that Joe-Shmoe wants to have some fun. If his fun comes from shooting at clay saucers, cool. I just think that it sends a bad message to everyone. Basically, it glorifies shooting stuff, and I have a problem with that, and like you said, I hope you can appreciate my reasoning.
-
Being opinionated, I am going to post and then read the thread...
Guns should be illegal except for hunting, and if someone wants to go hunting, they need to pick up their gone for a government building for an allotted amount of time and if they don't return it, they get punished. I truly despise American gun culture and refuse to buy/play with/ etc. anything that has them in it.
Why only for hunting? What if I get as much of a thrill shooting glass bottles as a hunter does shooting deer in the face? I shouldn't get the pleasure of shooting a weapon just because I don't like killing wild animals?
-
If that is accurate, I wonder what the spike in the early '90s is attributable to.
Grunge music and gangsta rap.
-
Being opinionated, I am going to post and then read the thread...
Guns should be illegal except for hunting, and if someone wants to go hunting, they need to pick up their gone for a government building for an allotted amount of time and if they don't return it, they get punished. I truly despise American gun culture and refuse to buy/play with/ etc. anything that has them in it.
Why only for hunting? What if I get as much of a thrill shooting glass bottles as a hunter does shooting deer in the face? I shouldn't get the pleasure of shooting a weapon just because I don't like killing wild animals?
Completely understandable question.
I should correct myself...
I'd say they should only use it for hunting if they are going to use the kill for something. It would be hard to implement that though. The thing is, those people hunting for food are doing it for food. They might do it for fun and then eat it, or they are doing it because they really need to do it. Either way, they are making use of the gun, you (the royal you) aren't.
-
I should mention that I'm incredibly anti-hunting as well. I just don't want to deny someone the right to go get their food.
-
Some dude from Finland killed over 500 people in a war. That is cool how?
It majorly helped Russia from Conquering Finland, and the methods he used are frackin incredible. And like I said he became a radular moose hunter afterwards :hat
To be honest, I don't really care about the first reason and I really really don't care about the second and third.
Being opinionated, I am going to post and then read the thread...
Guns should be illegal except for hunting, and if someone wants to go hunting, they need to pick up their gone for a government building for an allotted amount of time and if they don't return it, they get punished. I truly despise American gun culture and refuse to buy/play with/ etc. anything that has them in it.
What do you have against people into skeet shooting or marksmanship? Typically the people who want guns openly are not the problem.
It's the mentality of it all. Guns are dangerous and should only be in the hands of those that need them (cops.) I don't care if its "fun" to shoot shit. It's sending the wrong message to the people. My belief coincides with my refusal to play a game with a gun in it.
I truly despise American gun culture and refuse to buy/play with/ etc. anything that has them in it.
Some general, unsolicited advice: It is often a LOT more productive to attempt to understand why some people may think differently than you and to try to find something in those differences that you can appreciate rather than simply despising those who think differently. That obviously has a much larger general application than just this topic, of course.
I appreciate that Joe-Shmoe wants to have some fun. If his fun comes from shooting at clay saucers, cool. I just think that it sends a bad message to everyone. Basically, it glorifies shooting stuff, and I have a problem with that, and like you said, I hope you can appreciate my reasoning.
Shooting clay discs, I don't see how that glorifies shooting stuff, and since you said you don't play/participate in anything that has American gun culture in it, does that include games like Vanquish, Mass Effect, Battlefield, and Call of Duty? Because yeah those games are gun violent, but you're a hero in those games, and unless you're an idiot, no one leaves those games thinking "Heck, I should get a gun and go shoot everything, yeah everything"
And how can you be anti hunting considering it's been done since the beginning of Earth, it's just a part of life, most hunters might keep a trophy of their kill if it's considerable enough but most hunters I know at the very least eat the meat if it's fit for eating. Of course that last point doesn't validate anything since I know only a selective group of hunters.
-
You are correct. I do not play any of those games. And the thing is, while it isn't true that people play CoD and think "Heck, I should get a gun and go shoot everything, yeah everything," it does give people a high to virtually kill other people. That is why I'm anti-gun.
-
I just think that it sends a bad message to everyone. Basically, it glorifies shooting stuff, and I have a problem with that, and like you said, I hope you can appreciate my reasoning.
Oh, sure. I'm not reacting to your position in and of itself. Just pointing out that it's not really very productive to "despise" those who hold a different position, whatever that position happens to be.
I'd say they should only use it for hunting if they are going to use the kill for something. It would be hard to implement that though. The thing is, those people hunting for food are doing it for food. They might do it for fun and then eat it, or they are doing it because they really need to do it. Either way, they are making use of the gun, you (the royal you) aren't.
This is where I do have to disagree, however. If your position is that people should be allowed to use a gun to hunt, then I think it stands to reason that it is dangerous to restrict gun use to hunting only. You have to let hunters engage in recreational shooting at the range or some other place and be able to spend time taking the gun apart, cleaning it, reassembling it, and doing other things gun owners typically do. One fact that I don't think anyone can dispute is that guns are dangerous. But here's the thing: they are exponentially more dangerous in the hands of someone who is not intimately familiar with how they operate and who is not skilled at using them and well versed in how to use them in a safe manner. Accidents happen much more frequently with those who only have a casual or passing familiarity with their gun, or who have no experience at all. And that goes for hunters as well. Most experienced hunters (Dick Cheney excluded) do not accidentally shoot others, do not injure themselves with their guns, and do not have other unfortunate mishaps--at least not nearly as frequently. So while I understand and respect your position, I don't think what you have proposed is a workable option.
-
Ok, points taken, and I have to respond to both points.
1. I don't hate gun owners. I hate American gun culture, ie. Guns and Ammo, little kids playing CoD, Texan's screaming "Second Amendment!!!!!", etc.
2. Ok, I understand that the hunter would need training and for that I would propose a mandatory however many hours of lessons with a professional hunter (I can't decide at the moment whether it should be on location or at a range) before someone can go hunt, and as I said, they should only be able to "check out" their guns the same way one would a library book.
-
I'm fine with people owning guns. I don't have any interest though. I was out in the country side with a few friends a couple years ago and shot guns for the first time but I think that will probably be only time I do.
Now if I Zombie Apocalypse happens I will go to the gun shop and grab as many as I can and bullets!
-
Ok, points taken, and I have to respond to both points.
1. I don't hate gun owners. I hate American gun culture, ie. Guns and Ammo, little kids playing CoD, Texan's screaming "Second Amendment!!!!!", etc.
2. Ok, I understand that the hunter would need training and for that I would propose a mandatory however many hours of lessons with a professional hunter (I can't decide at the moment whether it should be on location or at a range) before someone can go hunt, and as I said, they should only be able to "check out" their guns the same way one would a library book.
So you're opposed to the 2nd amendment as it relates to gun ownership?
-
Correct.
-
Numbers, I appreciate that you don't want anything to do with guns, but... Skiing is dangerous. People kill others skiing. Should skiing not be allowed? I kind of agree with you on gun culture, but I think it's mostly people who don't have respect for weapons that get all gung ho about it.
As someone who just started, I have to say this. I used to be afraid of guns, I used to think they were pointless. Then I started getting interested in marksmanship and then I wanted to go try it myself. So I went to a gun range and got to shoot a whole mess of awesome guns. I had EXTREME amounts of respect for the weapon I was handling and everyone around me. I listened to my instructor extremely intently. No one was hurt, no one was close to being hurt. We had a fantastic time that day, and honestly it is a day I won't forget because I got to spend it with my dad and brother, and we never get to do stuff like that together. But it was an interest we all shared and it turned out fantastic. Sure an accident could happen and someone could get killed, but that could have happened in the car ride to the range. I didn't feel unsafe in the slightest.
-
Skiing isn't a sport designed to kill.
-
I like to shoot things that exploded in a million pieces or into a cloud of dust. Its a great stress reliever as well a great day out with my buddies. We are at gun ranges where safety is heavily enforced. Everyone stays safe and has a good time. As a kid I had cap guns. As a young teen I had paintball guns. As a young adult I got into pellet guns an rifles. Now, as an adult, I am getting into real guns. I have never pointed any of them at anything living, and am pretty confident I'm not going to go on a shooting rampage anytime soon.
Everyone has recreational activities. Some drag race, some go boating, some play sports, and some like to shoot guns. Yes a gun can be used to kill, that was there original intention. But so were bow and arrows, and no one ever has a problem with those. People can kill with a car, knives, chemicals, and many other ways. When handled responsibly they are not dangerous. I feel safer around 3 friends loading guns than I do on the highway. I see absolutely nothing wrong with getting enjoyment out of shooting targets.
Wow, some serious irony here. As I was typing this post, my mom just told me here was a shooting at a hospital near my school. The building is on lockdown. One of the people shot (not blood related) was my uncle's sister's husband. He's currently being rushed to another hospital for surgery.
I still stand on my position though.
-
Skiing isn't a sport designed to kill.
Either is marksmanship??
-
Skiing isn't a sport designed to kill.
Either is marksmanship??
But no skier has lost their temper and killed someone with their skis.
-
I understand where you are coming from but you make my point. You say guns are a great stress reliever and therein lies my exact problem. People should not be "relieving stress" with weapons. That sends the wrong message to the people, in my opinion.
Skiing isn't a sport designed to kill.
Either is marksmanship??
But the "medium" of the sport is. A ski is not designed to kill people. :lol That would be somewhat funny though.
-
I'm fine with people owning guns. I don't have any interest though. I was out in the country side with a few friends a couple years ago and shot guns for the first time but I think that will probably be only time I do.
Now if I Zombie Apocalypse happens I will go to the gun shop and grab as many as I can and bullets!
I'm very happy to be set if the Zombie Apocalypse does happen. I'm ready for Dec. 21, 2012. Bring it!
:neverusethis:
-
Skiing isn't a sport designed to kill.
Either is marksmanship??
But no skier has lost their temper and killed someone with their skis.
Never say never. There are over 6 billion people in the world. I've learned to accept almost anything. :lol
-
Skiing isn't a sport designed to kill.
Either is marksmanship??
But no skier has lost their temper and killed someone with their skis.
Ski poles originally doubled as spears.
-
Skiing isn't a sport designed to kill.
Either is marksmanship??
But no skier has lost their temper and killed someone with their skis.
Ok but if you don't like it, don't go. Don't stop other people from enjoying it. I felt safer at the gun range than I did while snowboarding, and I was a good snowboarder.
Yes guns can be lethal, but so can a lot of things. I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who would use them for harming other people.
EDIT: Also, lets get real. How often do you hear about a marksman going insane at a gun range or at a shooting event and killing people. No. Most shootings are done by gang members or during some other crime related activity.
-
The solution to this is simple. Electrically fired guns with a built in GPS. They can only be fired in specific locations.
That's actually a terrible idea, but it's a thought.
-
The solution to this is simple. Electrically fired guns with a built in GPS. They can only be fired in specific locations.
That's actually a terrible idea, but it's a thought.
too easy to mod
-
The solution to this is simple. Electrically fired guns with a built in GPS. They can only be fired in specific locations.
That's actually a terrible idea, but it's a thought.
That still leaves people having guns "for protection." I don't like that.
-
The solution to this is simple. Electrically fired guns with a built in GPS. They can only be fired in specific locations.
That's actually a terrible idea, but it's a thought.
That still leaves people having guns "for protection." I don't like that.
What am I supposed to defend myself with if someone's breaks into my house with a gun?
-
That's the situation many people think will happen. While it is true that people who want guns will still get their hands on them, it will make it MUCH more difficult, so odds are, that guy isn't walking in on you in the first place.
Also, odds say that you are just as likely to do something stupid with that gun than fire it at someone coming into your house.
-
The solution to this is simple. Electrically fired guns with a built in GPS. They can only be fired in specific locations.
That's actually a terrible idea, but it's a thought.
That still leaves people having guns "for protection." I don't like that.
I am good friends with people in the ghetto. They all have guns. I know full well they are never leaving their apartments. They have them because you never know what kind of asshole is going to bust your door in.
-
Guns in your home is another debate as far as I am concerned. Numbers here is also trying to say no one should be allowed to go to the shooting range on a Saturday afternoon.
-
Oh, I forgot to mention that if you have a gun and he has a gun...someone is getting shot. And it might not be the robber. Think about it. You're getting robbed and you pull a gun, don't you think the other dude with the gun would have some sense to shoot you?
Guns in your home is another debate as far as I am concerned. Numbers here is also trying to say no one should be allowed to go to the shooting range on a Saturday afternoon.
Yes I am.
-
That's the situation many people think will happen. While it is true that people who want guns will still get their hands on them, it will make it MUCH more difficult, so odds are, that guy isn't walking in on you in the first place.
Also, odds say that you are just as likely to do something stupid with that gun than fire it at someone coming into your house.
You can't reduce breaking-and-enterings down and explain them in an 'odds are...' kind of way. If someone breaks into my house with a gun and I don't have my guns, I'm fucked. But, I have a few rifles to shoot for sport and self-defense in my home. (They either stay in my home or I'm shooting them at the range since I'm not old enough to obtain a concealed carry permit or purchase a handgun in my state.) I've also taken formal shooting and safety courses for the last two years and have received over 10 years of firearm training and handling from my parents, uncles, grandparents, other family, etc.
I think the 'odds are' that I will do something stupid is incredibly low to begin with. I know the proper way to handle a gun and could do it blindfolded.
-
Oh, I forgot to mention that if you have a gun and he has a gun...someone is getting shot. And it might not be the robber. Think about it. You're getting robbed and you pull a gun, don't you think the other dude with the gun would have some sense to shoot you?
Guns in your home is another debate as far as I am concerned. Numbers here is also trying to say no one should be allowed to go to the shooting range on a Saturday afternoon.
Yes I am.
But what is the basis? Other than that you are scared of guns and you don't like them. I went. I'm fine. A lot of people went, they are all fine. Just don't go, and you won't have to worry about it. I really don't see your rationale on that one. Shooting guns on a range, does not make me want to shoot people. It gave me respect and knowledge regarding firearms. It also gave me insight into just how hard it is to aim and successfully hit something with one.
-
Oh, I forgot to mention that if you have a gun and he has a gun...someone is getting shot. And it might not be the robber. Think about it. You're getting robbed and you pull a gun, don't you think the other dude with the gun would have some sense to shoot you?
But people get shot for no good reason all the time. If I'm going to get shot by a robber anyway, I'd rather have a gun and have a fighting chance.
-
Guns in your home is another debate as far as I am concerned. Numbers here is also trying to say no one should be allowed to go to the shooting range on a Saturday afternoon.
Ah alright, I was misunderstanding you.
-
Oh, I forgot to mention that if you have a gun and he has a gun...someone is getting shot. And it might not be the robber. Think about it. You're getting robbed and you pull a gun, don't you think the other dude with the gun would have some sense to shoot you?
Yes, but I know various tactics and techniques to avoid putting my frame out there to be shot at. i.e. the pie technique for moving around corners in an unknown threat situation, etc. I have training that I can put to use in a situation like that. I also have the advantage of knowing my own home's layout very well. And it doesn't take that much brainpower to calculate angles of fire after that.
-
Oh, I forgot to mention that if you have a gun and he has a gun...someone is getting shot. And it might not be the robber. Think about it. You're getting robbed and you pull a gun, don't you think the other dude with the gun would have some sense to shoot you?
Yes, but I know various tactics and techniques to avoid putting my frame out there to be shot at. i.e. the pie technique for moving around corners in an unknown threat situation, etc. I have training that I can put to use in a situation like that. I also have the advantage of knowing my own home's layout very well. And it doesn't take that much brainpower to calculate angles of fire after that.
Not to mention if the home owner draws a gun,NAND the robber doesn't have one, he's gonna back the fuck down and leave.
-
A. I'm not afraid of guns.
B. The robber most likely won't shoot you. He will threaten, take your shit, and leave. Someone will, on the other hand, get shot once a gun comes into play.
C. If the robber doesn't have a gun, a baseball bat would work just the same.
I'm reading a NY Times article now...will post some shit soon.
-
C. If the robber doesn't have a gun, a baseball bat would work just the same.
You don't know if a robber is armed or not in most situations, so having a firearm on your side gives you at least a fighting chance, if not the upper hand in the situation.
-
I go back to B. What's worse, a bullet wound or some stolen shit?
-
C. If the robber doesn't have a gun, a baseball bat would work just the same.
You don't know if a robber is armed or not in most situations, so having a firearm on your side gives you at least a fighting chance, if not the upper hand in the situation.
Right. It either levels the playing field or gives you an unfair advantage. It's a win win. I've been trying to convince my parents to keep a gun in the house and know how to use it. Not for protection from bad human beings, but from scary wildlife. Bears have been taking a liking to the area we live, old farmland with a lot of woods. I have seen 3 in the last year in my back yard, and one on the golf course twice. I don't hike anymore because of it. God for bid a bear attacked a member of the family, someone needs to pump a few rounds in it.
-
I go back to B. What's worse, a bullet wound or some stolen shit?
Scars impress the ladies :hat
I rest my case.
-
I go back to B. What's worse, a bullet wound or some stolen shit?
In the ghetto, more often then not, stollen ahit. For many it's all the have, and are more protecting of their possessions than their own lives. I'm not saying this as a stereotype, I've seen this first hand time and time again.
-
I have to chalk that up to bad priorities. If a robber came into my house and demanded shit at gun point, I'd ask him if he would like it gift wrapped.
-
I have to chalk that up to bad priorities. If a robber came into my house and demanded shit at gun point, I'd ask him if he would like it gift wrapped.
You have a different mind set than those in the ghetto.
-
I have to chalk that up to bad priorities. If a robber came into my house and demanded shit at gun point, I'd ask him if he would like it gift wrapped.
Why assume that the robber storms up on you unprepared, unless it's my dorm room, where I hang out, I'm not usually in the room with the entrance to the outside world.
-
I never did. But I am saying that if both people have guns, someone is getting shot, and with all due respect to any who have a gun, but I would rather have a robber steal your shit and get away with it than you shoot them.
My opinion of it all is this, more guns leads to more violence. Note how I did not say crime, but violence. Whether it be through crime, TV, video games, movies, etc.
-
I never did. But I am saying that if both people have guns, someone is getting shot, and with all due respect to any who have a gun, but I would rather have a robber steal your shit and get away with it than you shoot them.
My opinion of it all is this, more guns leads to more violence. Note how I did not say crime, but violence. Whether it be through crime, TV, video games, movies, etc.
I don't think you're putting yourself into the situation at hand here. If someone is robbing you and you don't have a gun, they have the opportunity to do whatever the hell they want. This includes anything from scary the hell out of you, to stealing your stuff, to killing you and you can't do shit about it. If you have a gun, they can't do whatever the hell they want without having to go through you first. And since most gun owners shoot enough to have a very good understanding and respect for their weapon, they will have a greater likelihood of coming out on top in the case of a shoot-out. If you have a gun and someone is trying to rob you, you have a chance to be in control of the situation.
-
That doesn't stop me from not liking the outcome of it all.
What I would be interested in seeing, and I'll search for these stats soon would be the number of armed robberies and the number of armed robberies with murder. There's a legal name for it, but I forget what it is.
What I mean is that, yes, if someone has a gone, they can very well shoot you, but they most likely won't, but if you have a gun and they have gun, as I've said before, someone is gettin' a cap in theya' as'!
-
I see your point, but I'd rather have the opportunity to defend myself. I don't want to be at the mercy of some crazy mother fucker.
-
This has been a pretty good discussion. Anyway, I feel similarly to Bosk and Kirk. I don't own any guns, nor have I ever fired one. I think going to a range would be a blast (lol) though. 7SB, have you been to any in the NYC area?
-
This has been a pretty good discussion. Anyway, I feel similarly to Bosk and Kirk. I don't own any guns, nor have I ever fired one. I think going to a range would be a blast (lol) though. 7SB, have you been to any in the NYC area?
The firing of a sniper rifle is one of the greatest feelingS. You can stick a round through a quarter 250+ feet away. There is something really gratifying about being able to do something like that, it's pretty amazing. Firing two hand guns at a time is the manliest thing I've ever done.
-
I don't understand the appeal of shooting to be honest.
-
I don't understand the appeal of shooting to be honest.
Have you ever done it?
-
Yeah. I mean, skeet shooting was entertaining, but beyond that it wasn't particularly fun.
-
Regarding the guns at home in case of armed robbery, suppose the robber decides to shoot you regardless of whether you fork over your stuff or not; you'd probably want to have a gun on you. I mean, I realize that robbers are not synonymous with murderers, but they're not guaranteed to have to decency to care about whether or not the victim lives or not.
As for sport shooting, I'm not particularly interested and don't know how to use a gun, even. If that's what one enjoys doing, let them do it; they're not messing anyone up. I do intend to learn how to use a gun at some point, though; not expecting to need to use one, but if the need comes, might as well have one on hand and know how to use it.
-
I say nay. I'm generally a pretty pacifistic person and something of a treehugger, so that oughta leave little enough for the imagination to fill in.
-
I have to chalk that up to bad priorities. If a robber came into my house and demanded shit at gun point, I'd ask him if he would like it gift wrapped.
And if he asks if you want him to fuck you or your mother first? Not every burglary is about theft. There's also the possibility that he wasn't expecting to find anybody there, and isn't so keen on the idea of leaving behind witnesses.
Also, confrontation with a less than lethal weapon can seriously bite you in the ass. You could ask Sean Taylor about that (if he weren't dead).
-
I have an old bolt-action .22 rifle that my dad gave me when I was 13, which was given to him when HE was 13. Shooting is fun. Keeping a gun locked away by your bedside for self-defense is fine. If you're going to own a gun, a hunting rifle, or even a small armory, keep the damn things locked up.
I also agree that heavy-duty weapons shouldn't be sold to the public, though. That's just asking for trouble.
-
This has been a pretty good discussion. Anyway, I feel similarly to Bosk and Kirk. I don't own any guns, nor have I ever fired one. I think going to a range would be a blast (lol) though. 7SB, have you been to any in the NYC area?
No I haven't yet. I've been wanting to, but the one on the west side only has like .22s and its 50 bucks or something for 50 rounds. I went to a range in PA and got to shoot awesome stuff.
NYC is tough. You need to have a background check done on you before you even go, and you can't shoot pistols at the range without having a license for handguns first.
https://sunsethill.slvrcreek.com/home.htm
-
I have an old bolt-action .22 rifle that my dad gave me when I was 13, which was given to him when HE was 13. Shooting is fun. Keeping a gun locked away by your bedside for self-defense is fine. If you're going to own a gun, a hunting rifle, or even a small armory, keep the damn things locked up.
I also agree that heavy-duty weapons shouldn't be sold to the public, though. That's just asking for trouble.
Is it though? According to that graph I posted earlier, most gun deaths come from handguns. People who get ahold of assault rifles legally aren't the ones killing people with assault rifles. I'm sure that's more of a gang's thing that got them illegally.
This might be a double post, if so I'm sorry. It is late.
-
Yes. I dont hunt, but I own a couple of shotguns, some handguns, and some rifles. I do like to target shoot, and I have them for protection. Mrs. Vox knows how to use them too. :biggrin:
(https://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f182/udubm/LMTDefender2000.jpg)
-
I'm fine with guns for home protection and hunting, but I'm against hunting for sport. I really see it as a waste of animals (and ammunition). Of course, if I decided to be a hunter, for sport or meat, I'd use a bow and arrow.
-
I think everyone has the right to own a gun for personal home protection, in case someone ever breaks in or whatever. The problem, of course, is there's no way to be sure that a person wouldn't use it irresponsibly outside of the home.
As for hunting, I see nothing wrong with it as long as the hunter eats whatever he kills.
-
I also agree that heavy-duty weapons shouldn't be sold to the public, though. That's just asking for trouble.
I can't fully agree with this. I don't know the statistics, but I bet far more people die from handguns under .44 calliber than they do large weapons. They are much easier to hide and sneak into places.
-
Skiing isn't a sport designed to kill.
Either is marksmanship??
But no skier has lost their temper and killed someone with their skis.
Ok but if you don't like it, don't go. Don't stop other people from enjoying it. I felt safer at the gun range than I did while snowboarding, and I was a good snowboarder.
Yes guns can be lethal, but so can a lot of things. I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who would use them for harming other people.
EDIT: Also, lets get real. How often do you hear about a marksman going insane at a gun range or at a shooting event and killing people. No. Most shootings are done by gang members or during some other crime related activity.
If all guns were used for was marksmanship and other sport, that would be fine with me.
-
Skiing isn't a sport designed to kill.
Either is marksmanship??
But no skier has lost their temper and killed someone with their skis.
Ok but if you don't like it, don't go. Don't stop other people from enjoying it. I felt safer at the gun range than I did while snowboarding, and I was a good snowboarder.
Yes guns can be lethal, but so can a lot of things. I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who would use them for harming other people.
EDIT: Also, lets get real. How often do you hear about a marksman going insane at a gun range or at a shooting event and killing people. No. Most shootings are done by gang members or during some other crime related activity.
If all guns were used for was marksmanship and other sport, that would be fine with me.
Should we ban steak knives and tire irons too?
-
No. Why would you ban those?
-
Because you say you would have no problem with gun as long as they are all used 100% only for sport. Steak knives aren't used only for assisting in the eating of delicious meats, and tire irons are not only used for changing a flat.
-
Proportions
-
So you honestly can't see the difference?
I mean, for a start, some lunatic can't exactly go around killing a whole bunch of people with a tire iron.
-
So you honestly can't see the difference?
I mean, for a start, some lunatic can't exactly go around killing a whole bunch of people with a tire iron.
That's not the point. What I'm saying is that a gun is just as safe as a knife or tire iron when used properly. Just because some people use them for harm doesn't mean everyone should suffer the conciseness.
-
I am Canadian.
That should be answer enough for the handgun stuff.
Though we're alowed to own them, it is so restrictive it's not really worth it.
My father was a huge hunter but sold all of his rifles when I was born and completely kept that part of his life from me during my up bringing.
I have fired a revolver and a rifle in my life, but consider myself completely "gun stupid".
They do not interest me.
Nor do I see the value in owning one or keeping one around the home.
-
So you honestly can't see the difference?
I mean, for a start, some lunatic can't exactly go around killing a whole bunch of people with a tire iron.
That's not the point. What I'm saying is that a gun is just as safe as a knife or tire iron when used properly. Just because some people use them for harm doesn't mean everyone should suffer the conciseness.
Yes but people don't stock up tire irons at their house.
A kid I went to school with had his brains blown out because a gun was left lying around his uncle's house.
-
In a perfect world:
guns would be sold to everyone but I get to keep all the ammo. because honestly, I don't trust any of you yahoos with so much as a spool of yarn
-
In a perfect world:
guns would be sold to everyone but I get to keep all the ammo. because honestly, I don't trust any of you yahoos with so much as a spool of yarn
And you're right not to. I'd just use that shit as garrotte wire anyway.
-
I personally do not own, but I have no problem with other people owning for protection (as long as they are trained) or recreational purposes (again training required/gun safety classes and so forth)
-
So you honestly can't see the difference?
I mean, for a start, some lunatic can't exactly go around killing a whole bunch of people with a tire iron.
That's not the point. What I'm saying is that a gun is just as safe as a knife or tire iron when used properly. Just because some people use them for harm doesn't mean everyone should suffer the conciseness.
Again, a gun's one sole purpose is to hurt, maim, kill, or otherwise injure someone or something. Its function is the destruction of something. A steak knife or a tire iron cannot be used for any sort of accurate apples to apples comparison.
(https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y280/bosk1/DTF/e-11lego1.jpg)
:orly: Care to modify your answer?
Glorious.
-
So you honestly can't see the difference?
I mean, for a start, some lunatic can't exactly go around killing a whole bunch of people with a tire iron.
That's not the point. What I'm saying is that a gun is just as safe as a knife or tire iron when used properly. Just because some people use them for harm doesn't mean everyone should suffer the conciseness.
Again, a gun's one sole purpose is to hurt, maim, kill, or otherwise injure someone or something. Its function is the destruction of something. A steak knife or a tire iron cannot be used for any sort of accurate apples to apples comparison.
I consider them linked. The knife was originally a killing tool. I'm not talking about crued stone tools for cutting that were then used to kill. I mean the first metal forged knives were a weapon. Today they are used for many non lethal things. Many knives are clearly not for eating food with, but some people like to collect them or throw them at things. Gun power was originally used for mass destruction and killing, but can be used to provide great entertainment through fireworks. Midevil weapons were some of the scariest killing devices ever. People today recreate them, hold get togethers, and shoot them for the hell of it.
I understand where you are coming from, and am not denying that guns are much easier to kill with than knives or gunpowder. However, just because they are more common does not defeat the underlying principle. A good friend of mine makes his own throwing stars and is scary accurate with them. He could stick one in your jugular from 100 feet away. He just likes them for display and throwing at balloons and what not. No one would have a problem with him doing this because it's looked upon as a hobby, not the wielding of a deadly weapon. In my mind, his throwing stars are no different than my guns. They are both deadly, neither of us use them for harm, we both get enjoyment out of their use, and we are SAFE.
-
My view is pretty simple. I think assault weapons should not be permitted for rank and file citizens. Law enforcement and military only. In my opinion, no one outside of law enforcement or the military really needs an assault weapon like an AK47, and the more of these you put in circulation, the more likely they are going to end up in the wrong hands.
With that said, I having absolutely no problem whatsoever with responsible gun ownership. But I think anyone purchasing one should pass the requisite checks (background / psychological) that everyone else is mentioning, PLUS, I think everyone who buys a handgun or rifle for the first time should be required to pass a gun safety / competency test before they can get their permit.
Other than that, if you want to own guns, have at it.
Personally, I prefer something closer to non-leathal home protection which is why I may or may not have a stun gun in my night stand. ;)
I'm with this. Except for the assault rifle part. I think you should end up on a heavily monitored list if you own one. Mostly because I want to own authentic WWII weapons. Some of them are fully automatic weapons.
Barry, a buddy of mine has a shotgun that he sawed off the barrel on. He doesn't even have ammo for it. But, he keeps it for home defense. Someone has broken into his home and he merely pumped it and the guy left. :lol
I hope he doesn't live in my state. Here's the penal code (https://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter269/Section10) for possession of a sawed off shotgun in Massachusetts:
(c) Whoever, except as provided by law, possesses a machine gun, as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, without permission under section one hundred and thirty-one of said chapter one hundred and forty; or whoever owns, possesses or carries on his person, or carries on his person or under his control in a vehicle, a sawed-off shotgun, as defined in said section one hundred and twenty-one of said chapter one hundred and forty, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life, or for any term of years provided that any sentence imposed under the provisions of this paragraph shall be subject to the minimum requirements of paragraph (a).
They rarely hand out the actual life sentences for them, but I know at least 3 guys doing multiple decades for getting caught with one (among other stuff)
-
I was raised around guns. I was taught how to respect, care for, clean, and fire guns at a young age. My dad was in the military, and firearms continued to be a part of his life. He had a shitload of guns. He didn't hunt much; his guns were mostly for sport/target shooting, self-defense, collecting. Most of them are now with my brother, who is really into them. I don't shoot very often, but I have one or two at the home for self-defense reasons. And I am a very good shot with most handguns.
I agree that the background screening should be extensive. But other than that, go guns!
-
I legitimately don't understand why people are afraid of guns. Don't get me wrong, a gun in the hands of someone who might do something stupid is one of the scariest things in the world. But otherwise it's a tool. Statistically speaking, virtually everything else in the world is more dangerous than a gun when it comes to accident risk. If you have a swimming pool in your back yard, you're putting your child in more danger.
And what's the point of background checks? If someone is crazy enough and driven enough to shoot up a school, it's going to happen. If I want to buy a handgun at Wal-Mart right now, I should be able to do it. What reason do any of you have to restrict this process except to placate your fears in a manner that does nothing to actually make people safer?
-
I can´t understand americans fascination of guns and why you all take it so lightly?!?
When i look at this i kind of get a little scared that now one seems to respect their weapons more than a toy! It just feels wrong to me! ???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqShRDJh470
-
So you honestly can't see the difference?
I mean, for a start, some lunatic can't exactly go around killing a whole bunch of people with a tire iron.
That's not the point. What I'm saying is that a gun is just as safe as a knife or tire iron when used properly. Just because some people use them for harm doesn't mean everyone should suffer the conciseness.
OK so by that rationale there is no problem in handing out atomic bombs to everyone.
-
And what's the point of background checks? If someone is crazy enough and driven enough to shoot up a school, it's going to happen. If I want to buy a handgun at Wal-Mart right now, I should be able to do it. What reason do any of you have to restrict this process except to placate your fears in a manner that does nothing to actually make people safer?
I've actually been trying to consider that in relation to Rumbo's post that the alternative is throwing our hands up in the air and declaring it a lost cause. I'm leaning towards the notion that you're right, it actually is a lost cause, and we probably shouldn't worry so much about trying to keep guns from being sold to maniacs. It seems to me that 50 or 75 years ago, perhaps we might have been able to stave off the lost cause that we're faced with now. We didn't, and now we have enough guns floating around this country to keep the criminals well armed for generations. The only thing stricter gun laws do is get in the way of the honest folk who buy their weapons legally.
What give me pause is that maybe we actually could improve the situation 50-75 years from now. That might actually be a worthy endeavor, but I doubt we really would. For one thing, guns last a very long time. Your great grandfather's 1911 is not only a valuable collectors item, but also a perfectly good weapon still capable of shooting burglars, cops or Virginia Tech students. Add to that, not only is there ample supply here, but if you shake a tree in Asia there's about a one in three chance a Kalashnikov will fall out of it. You have Mexican criminals purchasing military hardware by the truckload (and not all of it is from us). It's really not a matter of supply, as that's already well established. Even if no more guns were produced in this country, if the only decrease in the supply comes from confiscations, there's not really going to be much drop off in the overall supply fifty years from now. Only a distinct change in the balance of power.
-
I can´t understand americans fascination of guns and why you all take it so lightly?!?
When i look at this i kind of get a little scared that now one seems to respect their weapons more than a toy! It just feels wrong to me! ???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqShRDJh470
I'm an American and I completely agree with you. Gun are designed to kill things, particularly people. I just don't see the appeal.
-
I can´t understand americans fascination of guns and why you all take it so lightly?!?
I'm not even sure what this means, but it isn't really productive to discussion to make sweeping generalizations. I don't think Americans as a group have a "fascination with guns," whatever that means, or that Americans, as a whole, take things lightly. What do you mean by that? But the problem with your post is that it seems to be making overbroad generalizations and passing judgments, which is exactly what people need to stay away from in this discussion. Personally, I don't understand why some people like to watch car races. Or why some like to cram into a soccer stadium and blow on plastic horns for hours at a time. Or why some like to spend time in casinos gambling away their money. Or why some like to do any number of other things that don't interest me. I don't identify with those cultures or subcultures, and I personally don't see the appeal. But it's not really productive for me to pass judgment and make sweeping generalizations about those that do enjoy them or find them appealing, is it?
As far as the video, while I don't see the need for military-grade weapons like many of those to be available to the public, and I don't really identify with the culture that seems to be shared by many in that video, I see nothing in that video that gives me the impression that any of those people took what they were doing "lightly" or viewed their guns as "toys." Were they having fun, laughing, and smiling while they were doing what they did? Yeah, they were. Probably because they were having fun and enjoying themselves. Nothing wrong with that. But one thing I did notice from that video that may not be obvious to someone who has never been taught gun safety and has never been around a firing range is that they were behaving in a VERY safe manner, were obviously trained, and were obviously taking their safety training seriously even while having fun and being able to laugh. A few if those indicators are: They were in a remote, safe location; This was a professionally set up range with a clearly-marked firing line that nobody crossed during times when live fire was going on; There were range/safety officials and/or instructors close at hand at all times to monitor what was going on and making sure that people were acting in a safe manner; Shooters are following the range officials' instructions; Without exception, even when they stopped to laugh and smile, guns were always pointed down range in a safe direction, and when not being fired, fingers were off the triggers; Proper safety glasses, hearing protection, and other proper safety equipment are used. I didn't see anything that looked like they were treating guns like "toys."
-
This thread is weird. Seems like if someone speaks up to say they're not into guns they get a bunch of "but why? here's why you're wrong" responses. I know he's a goofy kid but I thought you guys were never going to let up on ol' numbers guy. But whatever.
I think we've had discussions similar to this in P/R and I've given my opinions there. This thread kind of re-affirms my feeling that this "gun culture" or whatever you want to call it is definitely a regional American thing. I am an American but part of a region where the gun culture is not really prevalent so I am obviously not a part of that culture. Unlike a lot of people though I don't feel the need to have everybody else get in line with my opinions and beliefs. Guns are here to stay in this country, and I don't have any plans to move anywhere else anytime soon so it is what is. I accept it and move on.
Pro gun people- please don't jump all over me now or ask for more explanation of why I feel the way I do or explain to me why my opinion is wrong or whatever. I have a stupid opinion that's different from yours because I'm an idiot. Please don't shoot me. :P
-
I can´t understand americans fascination of guns and why you all take it so lightly?!?
When i look at this i kind of get a little scared that now one seems to respect their weapons more than a toy! It just feels wrong to me! ???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqShRDJh470
I don't see any issue with what those people are doing. Every person in that video is respecting their weapon. Just because they are laughing and joking doesn't mean they don't respect their power, they are all just having a great time doing what they love. Every shooter in that video had eye and ear protection, as well as appear to be following all codes of conduct as to keeping everyone around them out of harms way.
This guy is a perfect example. He jokes and has all the fun in the world with guns, or treating them as toys as you say, but you can tell he knows the ins and outs of every weapon in every video he has ever made.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_1PfqGVSg0&feature=related
-
I can´t understand americans fascination of guns and why you all take it so lightly?!?
I'm not even sure what this means, but it isn't really productive to discussion to make sweeping generalizations. I don't think Americans as a group have a "fascination with guns"
I think that they do. As I've said before (not in this thread) over here you don't see guns anywhere. Except for on a police official or in a museum or something I have never seen a gun. I have also never heard of any kind of firing range here in Belgium. Surely there is at least one but I'd have no idea. I tried to look it up but I don't even know the dutch word for "firing range".
-
Honestly I think whether or not anyone thinks people should have guns or not is a bit irrelevent when it comes to the USA. You almost have as many guns as people in the US (88 per 100 people). So getting them back isnt an option at this point. Personally I would never introduce them to the general populace as I think they do more harm than good most of the time, but given that isn't an option for the US the question becomes what safeguards can be put in place to minimise the risk of guns that do exist.
-
Guns ? Nah..
Guns 'N' Roses ? Nah.
-
I can´t understand americans fascination of guns and why you all take it so lightly?!?
I'm not even sure what this means, but it isn't really productive to discussion to make sweeping generalizations. I don't think Americans as a group have a "fascination with guns"
I think that they do. As I've said before (not in this thread) over here you don't see guns anywhere. Except for on a police official or in a museum or something I have never seen a gun. I have also never heard of any kind of firing range here in Belgium. Surely there is at least one but I'd have no idea. I tried to look it up but I don't even know the dutch word for "firing range".
I can't tell you the last time I've sen a gun. not everybody in America is packing.
-
Right, there are only 88 guns for every 100 citizens, so yeah, not everyone is packing....just almost everyone.
-
Actually, no. That is a fallacy. I think surveys will actually show that a minority of U.S. citizens owns a gun, but those that do often own several, which raises the per capita rate. For example, if it is assumed accurate that there are 88 guns per 100 citizens, of those 88, 20 may be owned by 1 individual, 4 individuals may have 10 each, 3 may have 5 each, and the remaining 13 owned by 13 people. So that's only 21 people out of 100 who own.
-
Actually, no. That is a fallacy. I think surveys will actually show that a minority of U.S. citizens owns a gun, but those that do often own several, which raises the per capita rate. For example, if it is assumed accurate that there are 88 guns per 100 citizens, of those 88, 20 may be owned by 1 individual, 4 individuals may have 10 each, 3 may have 5 each, and the remaining 13 owned by 13 people. So that's only 21 people out of 100 who own.
This. There are more guns per capita in the US, but more Canadians own guns than Americans do, per capita. So while more people in Canada actually own a gun, people in the US own more of them.
-
I just want to say, I don't think pro gun people are jumping all over anti gun people for not being into guns. I don't care if someone likes to shoot or not. I just don't think there are good reasons to take them away and I don't believe people should be wanting to take away others rights just because they don't like it.
-
This thread is weird. Seems like if someone speaks up to say they're not into guns they get a bunch of "but why? here's why you're wrong" responses. I know he's a goofy kid but I thought you guys were never going to let up on ol' numbers guy. But whatever.
I think we've had discussions similar to this in P/R and I've given my opinions there. This thread kind of re-affirms my feeling that this "gun culture" or whatever you want to call it is definitely a regional American thing. I am an American but part of a region where the gun culture is not really prevalent so I am obviously not a part of that culture. Unlike a lot of people though I don't feel the need to have everybody else get in line with my opinions and beliefs. Guns are here to stay in this country, and I don't have any plans to move anywhere else anytime soon so it is what is. I accept it and move on.
Pro gun people- please don't jump all over me now or ask for more explanation of why I feel the way I do or explain to me why my opinion is wrong or whatever. I have a stupid opinion that's different from yours because I'm an idiot. Please don't shoot me. :P
Are you talking to me? Well i´m 30 years old and not considered a kid atleast not what i think. :)
My english my not be the best but it is what it is. It probably is a cultural thing and i don´t know if i ever will understand it.
Not every american is the same of course, i didn´t mean to generalize. And trust me there are some gun nuts in Sweden too, you just don´t see them that much not me anyway.
-
I can´t understand americans fascination of guns and why you all take it so lightly?!?
I'm not even sure what this means, but it isn't really productive to discussion to make sweeping generalizations. I don't think Americans as a group have a "fascination with guns," whatever that means, or that Americans, as a whole, take things lightly. What do you mean by that? But the problem with your post is that it seems to be making overbroad generalizations and passing judgments, which is exactly what people need to stay away from in this discussion. Personally, I don't understand why some people like to watch car races. Or why some like to cram into a soccer stadium and blow on plastic horns for hours at a time. Or why some like to spend time in casinos gambling away their money. Or why some like to do any number of other things that don't interest me. I don't identify with those cultures or subcultures, and I personally don't see the appeal. But it's not really productive for me to pass judgment and make sweeping generalizations about those that do enjoy them or find them appealing, is it?
As far as the video, while I don't see the need for military-grade weapons like many of those to be available to the public, and I don't really identify with the culture that seems to be shared by many in that video, I see nothing in that video that gives me the impression that any of those people took what they were doing "lightly" or viewed their guns as "toys." Were they having fun, laughing, and smiling while they were doing what they did? Yeah, they were. Probably because they were having fun and enjoying themselves. Nothing wrong with that. But one thing I did notice from that video that may not be obvious to someone who has never been taught gun safety and has never been around a firing range is that they were behaving in a VERY safe manner, were obviously trained, and were obviously taking their safety training seriously even while having fun and being able to laugh. A few if those indicators are: They were in a remote, safe location; This was a professionally set up range with a clearly-marked firing line that nobody crossed during times when live fire was going on; There were range/safety officials and/or instructors close at hand at all times to monitor what was going on and making sure that people were acting in a safe manner; Shooters are following the range officials' instructions; Without exception, even when they stopped to laugh and smile, guns were always pointed down range in a safe direction, and when not being fired, fingers were off the triggers; Proper safety glasses, hearing protection, and other proper safety equipment are used. I didn't see anything that looked like they were treating guns like "toys."
I didn´t mean to generalize of course, sorry for that. As i said in another post, it probably is a cultural thing. It´s OK but i don´t know if i ever will understand it.
-
This thread is weird. Seems like if someone speaks up to say they're not into guns they get a bunch of "but why? here's why you're wrong" responses. I know he's a goofy kid but I thought you guys were never going to let up on ol' numbers guy. But whatever.
I think we've had discussions similar to this in P/R and I've given my opinions there. This thread kind of re-affirms my feeling that this "gun culture" or whatever you want to call it is definitely a regional American thing. I am an American but part of a region where the gun culture is not really prevalent so I am obviously not a part of that culture. Unlike a lot of people though I don't feel the need to have everybody else get in line with my opinions and beliefs. Guns are here to stay in this country, and I don't have any plans to move anywhere else anytime soon so it is what is. I accept it and move on.
Pro gun people- please don't jump all over me now or ask for more explanation of why I feel the way I do or explain to me why my opinion is wrong or whatever. I have a stupid opinion that's different from yours because I'm an idiot. Please don't shoot me. :P
Are you talking to me? Well i´m 30 years old and not considered a kid atleast not what i think. :)
My english my not be the best but it is what it is. It probably is a cultural thing and i don´t know if i ever will understand it.
Not every american is the same of course, i didn´t mean to generalize. And trust me there are some gun nuts in Sweden too, you just don´t see them that much not me anyway.
Are you talking to me? They call me- Mister Pig!!!!!! /pumba
No I wasn't talking to you. I was addressing the congregation as a whole.
-
I can´t understand americans fascination of guns and why you all take it so lightly?!?
I'd put it down to different cultures. When you're raised in a culture where guns are more common, I guess it just becomes normal, and you'd see it in reasonable contexts a lot more than you'd see it being used for criminal activity.
Coming from a culture with much tighter gun laws, the thought of guns being that common scares me, no matter how reasonable the arguments are.
-
^That. Although "normal" is very relative, even in terms of this specific discussion. In more rural areas around the country, people probably know a fair number of people who own guns and are fairly open about it. In most urban areas, few people own guns and those that do often do not talk about it, so it's more likely to not even know someone who owns guns and have never seen one, other than carried by the police. And there is a whole spectrum in between. And even in places where guns are more common, that video posted by MrBoom_shack-a-lack is not a representation of "normal" gun culture in this country at all. That is a very small minority that even most gun owners will not encounter.
It's kind of interesting. Until recently, I could only name a small handful of people I personally knew who owned firearms. But when I recently started asking around and asking questions, I learned that quite a few people owned guns and just never talked about it openly before, or at least, not around me, so I never knew. But even then, it looks like it is still a relatively small minority of people I know who own any.
-
Actually, no. That is a fallacy. I think surveys will actually show that a minority of U.S. citizens owns a gun, but those that do often own several, which raises the per capita rate. For example, if it is assumed accurate that there are 88 guns per 100 citizens, of those 88, 20 may be owned by 1 individual, 4 individuals may have 10 each, 3 may have 5 each, and the remaining 13 owned by 13 people. So that's only 21 people out of 100 who own.
Maybe, but everywhere I look I find stuff like this (https://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828) which suggests that the US is the most heavily armed country on earth. I get what you're saying, though.
-
Let's not forget the deadliest shooting spree ever just happened in norway. Go figure it wasn't the us
-
YES BUT YOU PUT A GUN IN THE HANDS OF VIKINGS AND SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS BOUND TO HAPPEN! THEY'RE VIKINGS FOR GOODNESS SAKE! :leaveseyes:
-
@Barry
Oh, it is very illegal. He knows it, too. He's been in jail a few times (petty shit). The surprise for me that he has never bought a round for the shotgun.
Once or twice a summer some buddies and I go shooting. Usually fire between 900-1000 rounds. Depends on the guns we have. I used to own a glock, but I sold it so I could buy my laptop. In Boy Scouts we discovered I was a really good shot, so I got a glock and did a bunch of competitive shooting. Was a lot of fun. My friends love it when I can "double-tap" and still get both shots in a good area :lol
also, hipfiring shotguns has to be one of the most liberating feelings in the world. Shit, feeling ANY sort of fire-power at YOUR hands is amazing. It's incredible. It's a release. There is a primal urge in all of us (at least men). That feeling that we need to be in control of something. And, those afternoons when we go shooting, it satisfies that urge. Knowing that what I am holding is so powerful, but I am controlling what happens with it. Again, it's liberating.
edit: I also get to hear a lot of Ted Nugent interviews on the local radio stations because he hunts where I live all the time. Even bumped into him a couple times where I work. He is truly a wonderful guy. The stuff you guys see on TV is an act. The guy is as nice and humble as they come in real life.
-
This thread is weird. Seems like if someone speaks up to say they're not into guns they get a bunch of "but why? here's why you're wrong" responses. I know he's a goofy kid but I thought you guys were never going to let up on ol' numbers guy. But whatever.
I think we've had discussions similar to this in P/R and I've given my opinions there. This thread kind of re-affirms my feeling that this "gun culture" or whatever you want to call it is definitely a regional American thing. I am an American but part of a region where the gun culture is not really prevalent so I am obviously not a part of that culture. Unlike a lot of people though I don't feel the need to have everybody else get in line with my opinions and beliefs. Guns are here to stay in this country, and I don't have any plans to move anywhere else anytime soon so it is what is. I accept it and move on.
Pro gun people- please don't jump all over me now or ask for more explanation of why I feel the way I do or explain to me why my opinion is wrong or whatever. I have a stupid opinion that's different from yours because I'm an idiot. Please don't shoot me. :P
Are you talking to me? Well i´m 30 years old and not considered a kid atleast not what i think. :)
My english my not be the best but it is what it is. It probably is a cultural thing and i don´t know if i ever will understand it.
Not every american is the same of course, i didn´t mean to generalize. And trust me there are some gun nuts in Sweden too, you just don´t see them that much not me anyway.
Are you talking to me? They call me- Mister Pig!!!!!! /pumba
No I wasn't talking to you. I was addressing the congregation as a whole.
Ahh i see, sorry! :)
-
Oh, I forgot to mention that if you have a gun and he has a gun...someone is getting shot.
If you have nukes and so do the Russians... some country is getting nuked.
Ergo the Cold War didn't happen.
-
YOU CAN HAVE MY NUKES WHEN YOU PRY THEM FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS
-
Relevant
https://youtu.be/-8QeDMUS_U0
-
Oh, I forgot to mention that if you have a gun and he has a gun...someone is getting shot.
If you have nukes and so do the Russians... some country is getting nuked.
Ergo the Cold War didn't happen.
Oh come on, a confrontation during a home invasion/burglary is hardly comparable to the cold war.
-
Actually, no. That is a fallacy. I think surveys will actually show that a minority of U.S. citizens owns a gun, but those that do often own several, which raises the per capita rate. For example, if it is assumed accurate that there are 88 guns per 100 citizens, of those 88, 20 may be owned by 1 individual, 4 individuals may have 10 each, 3 may have 5 each, and the remaining 13 owned by 13 people. So that's only 21 people out of 100 who own.
I'm more worried by the one person who's stockpiling weapons
-
Oh, I forgot to mention that if you have a gun and he has a gun...someone is getting shot.
If you have nukes and so do the Russians... some country is getting nuked.
Ergo the Cold War didn't happen.
Oh come on, a confrontation during a home invasion/burglary is hardly comparable to the cold war.
Yeah, that was a horrid analogy, my dear.
-
But no one got nuked. Analogy stands.
-
Oh, I forgot to mention that if you have a gun and he has a gun...someone is getting shot.
If you have nukes and so do the Russians... some country is getting nuked.
Ergo the Cold War didn't happen.
Oh come on, a confrontation during a home invasion/burglary is hardly comparable to the cold war.
The comparison is stating that two entities (no matter if they are individuals, governments, militias, etc) both having weapons in and of itself doesn't tell you that the weapons will be used.
And even if you add the provision that one of the weapons was held by a guy trying to break into a house... lots of home invaders are scared little shits who would run if they found the other guy had a gun in front of him. And concluding that someone will get shot assumes that everyone involved are good shots.
-
I don't have a problem with guns. I don't own one myself, but I do frequent the pistol range with my friend about once a week or so. I'll probably get one reasonably soon, but I'm in no rush.
-
Actually, no. That is a fallacy. I think surveys will actually show that a minority of U.S. citizens owns a gun, but those that do often own several, which raises the per capita rate. For example, if it is assumed accurate that there are 88 guns per 100 citizens, of those 88, 20 may be owned by 1 individual, 4 individuals may have 10 each, 3 may have 5 each, and the remaining 13 owned by 13 people. So that's only 21 people out of 100 who own.
I'm more worried by the one person who's stockpiling weapons
Which you are entitled to. However, "stockpiling" and "collecting" are not necessarily the same thing. And while admittedly I am reading certain assumptions into your post, my assumption is that "stockpiling" refers more to, for example, the paramilitary types who have a bunker in their backyard and have a stash of military weapons versus, for example, the avid collector who merely has a collection of guns because that is just the particular thing that has caught his fancy as being something fun to collect. These are two very different mindsets, and the former is definitely the minority.
But personally, I find it silly to be "worried" by either group. Both the "collector" and the "stockpiler" are likely to understand and practice proper gun safety, which is why you typically do NOT hear about either of these groups being involved in gun-related violence. It is typically the person who has a gun or two and is not careful with them that you have to worry about.
Oh, I forgot to mention that if you have a gun and he has a gun...someone is getting shot.
If you have nukes and so do the Russians... some country is getting nuked.
Ergo the Cold War didn't happen.
Oh come on, a confrontation during a home invasion/burglary is hardly comparable to the cold war.
The comparison is stating that two entities (no matter if they are individuals, governments, militias, etc) both having weapons in and of itself doesn't tell you that the weapons will be used.
And even if you add the provision that one of the weapons was held by a guy trying to break into a house... lots of home invaders are scared little shits who would run if they found the other guy had a gun in front of him. And concluding that someone will get shot assumes that everyone involved are good shots.
That was what I understood your analogy to mean, which is a valid comparison. And the reality is that, yes, these kinds of confrontations do in fact occur and, more often than not, do NOT result in anyone being shot.
-
I know this thread is ancient. My bad if there was a more recent one.
Yesterday I registered at a gun shop in town to take the NRA Basic Pistol Shooting Course in order to obtain my CC permit. Earliest available was September 6th though. I spoke to the instructor and he said between having to cancel classes for a while because of Covid and the events of the last week or so, demand is crazy high right now. I'd like to get both a revolver and a semi-auto pistol. I've gone out shooting with friends many times, but don't have anything of my own other than a couple of CO2 pellet pistols and a couple break-barrel rifles.
-
Do you have any particular semi autos in mind Chino?
Like brand wise and caliber. There's tons of different models and I tried a whole bunch before deciding on a Glock 19 (which is 9mm)
-
Certainly been a big run on guns and gun parts the last month or so. This is happening at the same time manufacturers are having to shut down, obviously. I was in the middle of configuring an upper receiver for an AR platform rifle online when half the parts I was going to be using up and sold out on me. While there are still parts available I'd kind of sold myself on a specific manufacturer. No telling when they'll be back.
-
Like brand wise and caliber. There's tons of different models and I tried a whole bunch before deciding on a Glock 19 (which is 9mm)
I've fired a friend's G19 plenty of times. Good weapon and I understand the appeal. Myself, I have a mental opposition to striker fired weapons. I want the visual and tactile clues of an actual hammer. I suppose it's probably irrational, but comfort and familiarity are important.
-
Do you have any particular semi autos in mind Chino?
Like brand wise and caliber. There's tons of different models and I tried a whole bunch before deciding on a Glock 19 (which is 9mm)
I really like the Beretta 92X, but I don't know how that one would work with my state's new laws regarding magazine size. I used one years ago and really liked it.
As for the revolver, I've been looking at a few from Smith & Wesson. I like the 586 L-comp, but I'm still up in the air.
It's kind of overwhelming actually trying to shop around. Normally what I shoot is dictated by whatever my buddies aren't shooting.
-
I do not own a gun and have no desire to own a gun. The only shooting I do is on my PS4 and I'm damn good at it. :hat
-
Prior to starting a family I didn't think much about this, but ever since I have considered emigration many times, as I have some support in other countries where I could reside with the help of close friends who would help me settle smoothly. The reason has nothing to do with the usual ones of disagreeing with a country's politics (and while I do disagree with a lot of US politics, I could suck it up and bear it). Rather, it is more driven by fears related to raising children in a country with so much gun violence. So no, I do not support gun ownership as it exists in the US, if only we weren't already so down the path that something could be done about it...
As for my own self-defense, I don't think it's necessary. If someone is coming to rob my place, they can have whatever they want. I'm no hero, and me being armed is not going to make the situation any better. I have no material possessions worth defending at the expense of another's life.
-
I really like the Beretta 92X, but I don't know how that one would work with my state's new laws regarding magazine size. I used one years ago and really liked it.
As for the revolver, I've been looking at a few from Smith & Wesson. I like the 586 L-comp, but I'm still up in the air.
It's kind of overwhelming actually trying to shop around. Normally what I shoot is dictated by whatever my buddies aren't shooting.
Very cool. My first gun was a Beretta 92 FS, which is very similar. I liked it a lot, the safety was nice and it was a decent shooter. It ended up being a little too big for concealed carry so I traded it for the smaller glock.
I'll admit I'm not as experienced with revolvers as much as semi auto but the 586 L-comp looks pretty decent. And its both single and double action which is very nice. I've shot .357 magnum rounds in the S & W 686 which was a lot of fun.
-
Do you have any particular semi autos in mind Chino?
Like brand wise and caliber. There's tons of different models and I tried a whole bunch before deciding on a Glock 19 (which is 9mm)
I really like the Beretta 92X,
Was just looking at the specs on this one......looks like a nice gun. What I will say is that if you're planning to carry all the time.....keep comfort in mind. Full size guns can be annoying when concealing just as a comfort level. I personally carry all the time so I went with a more compact gun for my main carry as comfort is a factor as well....the Springfield Armory XDS, 9mm. There is a .45 option as well but I've found that compact .45's can be brutal to shoot depending on the company.
There are a lot of great compact handguns out there.....Sig Sauer has a few.....Kimber, even the Glocks. It's obviously personal preference and what you're confident with and what you're looking to accomplish.
https://www.springfield-armory.com/xd-series-handguns/xd-s-mod-2-handguns/
-
Do you have any particular semi autos in mind Chino?
Like brand wise and caliber. There's tons of different models and I tried a whole bunch before deciding on a Glock 19 (which is 9mm)
I really like the Beretta 92X,
Was just looking at the specs on this one......looks like a nice gun. What I will say is that if you're planning to carry all the time.....keep comfort in mind. Full size guns can be annoying when concealing just as a comfort level. I personally carry all the time so I went with a more compact gun for my main carry as comfort is a factor as well....the Springfield Armory XDS, 9mm. There is a .45 option as well but I've found that compact .45's can be brutal to shoot depending on the company.
There are a lot of great compact handguns out there.....Sig Sauer has a few.....Kimber, even the Glocks. It's obviously personal preference and what you're confident with and what you're looking to accomplish.
https://www.springfield-armory.com/xd-series-handguns/xd-s-mod-2-handguns/
Cool. Thanks for sharing. I'm still up in the air with carrying. I'd like one for home/defense (Beretta), and the revolver is mainly because I like the mechanical/aesthetics and I'd like it for the range. I wouldn't be oppose to using that as my carry should I choose to do so. I've looked at number of 5-shooters that look pretty compact. I don't envision myself leaving the house strapped unless there's some serious shit in the neighborhood going down or something.
-
Nay
Guns are an illusion of safety that do more harm than good.
No other developed nation comes close to the level of gun violence in the US and it’s pretty clear on the reason for that; more guns = more gun violence. If you want a musket or one hunting rifle, fine- ban the rest.
Disarm police officers as well. Cops don’t need to carry a handgun everywhere as a routine.
At this point the only reason we keep guns is because it’s been ingrained in American culture and we like them as a hobby. That’s fine, but we need to stop pretending that they are some sort of net positive for society.
-
Do you have any particular semi autos in mind Chino?
Like brand wise and caliber. There's tons of different models and I tried a whole bunch before deciding on a Glock 19 (which is 9mm)
I really like the Beretta 92X,
Was just looking at the specs on this one......looks like a nice gun. What I will say is that if you're planning to carry all the time.....keep comfort in mind. Full size guns can be annoying when concealing just as a comfort level. I personally carry all the time so I went with a more compact gun for my main carry as comfort is a factor as well....the Springfield Armory XDS, 9mm. There is a .45 option as well but I've found that compact .45's can be brutal to shoot depending on the company.
There are a lot of great compact handguns out there.....Sig Sauer has a few.....Kimber, even the Glocks. It's obviously personal preference and what you're confident with and what you're looking to accomplish.
https://www.springfield-armory.com/xd-series-handguns/xd-s-mod-2-handguns/
Cool. Thanks for sharing. I'm still up in the air with carrying. I'd like one for home/defense (Beretta), and the revolver is mainly because I like the mechanical/aesthetics and I'd like it for the range. I wouldn't be oppose to using that as my carry should I choose to do so. I've looked at number of 5-shooters that look pretty compact. I don't envision myself leaving the house strapped unless there's some serious shit in the neighborhood going down or something.
Yeah, if that's the case given your familiarity and comfort level with that Beretta.....it seems like it'd be the leading contender. And you're right....if you chose to Conceal those revolvers are pretty easily concealed.
At this point being....well shoot....it's 14 years now I've had my conceal permit...wow....I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.
Shoot....even when we plan our family vacations I won't go to a State that doesn't have reciprocity carry with Missouri's permits.
-
Nay
Guns are an illusion of safety that do more harm than good.
No other developed nation comes close to the level of gun violence in the US and it’s pretty clear on the reason for that; more guns = more gun violence. If you want a musket or one hunting rifle, fine- ban the rest.
Disarm police officers as well. Cops don’t need to carry a handgun everywhere as a routine.
At this point the only reason we keep guns is because it’s been ingrained in American culture and we like them as a hobby. That’s fine, but we need to stop pretending that they are some sort of net positive for society.
Cool and all but I don't think that post is the 'spirit' of this thread. That's more of a P/R post.....to which I'd push back on pretty hard. but won't in this one as to not get it locked or moved.
-
Nay
Guns are an illusion of safety that do more harm than good.
No other developed nation comes close to the level of gun violence in the US and it’s pretty clear on the reason for that; more guns = more gun violence. If you want a musket or one hunting rifle, fine- ban the rest.
Disarm police officers as well. Cops don’t need to carry a handgun everywhere as a routine.
At this point the only reason we keep guns is because it’s been ingrained in American culture and we like them as a hobby. That’s fine, but we need to stop pretending that they are some sort of net positive for society.
Please take it to P/R. I've written EXTENSIVELY - with cites and statistics - that show that the association you make is not accurately reflected in reality. You're entitled to your opinion, but you ought to at least look at the numbers to see if your opinion is consistent with the data (and it's not). Owning guns is not in and of itself bad, or a direct cause of gun violence. There are other factors at work here, but this is not the particular thread to get into all that.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Gary. Sorry.
-
Guns? Yay.
Roses? Nay.
-
Guns? Yay.
Roses? Nay.
Please take it to P/R.
-
Guns? Yay.
Roses? Nay.
Why not both? Funny how everything was roses when we held on to the guns :biggrin: :hat
-
Guns? Yay.
Roses? Nay.
Are you saying that only half the band members were good? Hmmm, I'd agree with that :biggrin:
On topic: I wish I could give a recommendation on which gun you should buy Chino. I only own a pellet rifle. Being legally blind it's probably not a good idea for me ot own a gun. But, a former police officer coworker of mine got a Tp9sf and said it is a really great pistal that won't break the bank.
He's been trying to get me to buy one. But I'm not ready to pull the trigger yet :facepalm:
-
I'm from the UK and we don't have guns for the public - which to me makes sense. Because of that we pretty much have zero gun crime, and that's how prefer it personally.
-
No unless your utopia is a Mad Max dystopian future.
-
No unless your utopia is a Mad Max dystopian future.
What if it's your nightmare come true?
-
I'm probably in a unique situation where my wife has a gun permit and I don't.
-
I'm probably in a unique situation where my wife has a gun permit and I don't.
:omg:
The shame you've brought upon your family for a statement like that! :lol
-
I'm probably in a unique situation where my wife has a gun permit and I don't.
That's because your wife is not insane. ;D
-
I live in Oklahoma - we're a 'yee-haw' constitutional carry state. Nearly anyone can carry without a permit. So I do. Keep in mind that I've committed myself to the proper training, understanding, and safe-handling of firearms. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for everyone else.
Have I ever been in a situation where I needed to shoot someone? No. Will I never need to defend myself with deadly force in the future? Not likely, but not impossible. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
That being said, maaany months ago, I decided to purchase my first firearm. After many man-hours of Google Fu and extensive youtube research, I came to the conclusion that the Canik TP9SF was the best pistol in my price range. And boy howdy, do I love it.
Back before corona started, I was talking to a friend of mine. He's somewhat a gun enthusiast and brings up his weapons every now and then. He's one of those fellas that's a lot of talk. Before I got my gun, he talked about how we should go the range and he could teach me how to shoot.
I got my gun. We went to the range. This is... my fourth time at a range? I'm on the right, he's on the left. (right click -> view image, if you need to zoom)
(https://i.imgur.com/zX9v46Q.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/K3ZK4Yu.jpg)
A little bit of youtube and self-awareness combined with self-adjustment will do wonders. I analyzed myself, watched some vidoes, and then taught myself how to shoot with both eyes open. For comparison, this is from my first time at the range:
(https://i.imgur.com/Gp5rLJy.jpg)
-
Have I ever been in a situation where I needed to shoot someone? No. Will I never need to defend myself with deadly force in the future? Not likely, but not impossible. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Exactly... Just like the old saying, "You don't need one till you do". I'm a firm believer in the second amendment. Unfortunately I live in probably the most restrictive state in the US (California). I have an AR15 that I bought here in Cali about 7 years ago. That weapon can't leave my home because of new restrictions (without senseless modifications). We are retiring in 3 years, probably to Florida, and can't wait to lose the CA restrictions.
Yay on gun owning
Nay on Background checks
Nay on Gun registration
Nay on magazine size restrictions
-
Nay on background checks??? Holy jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
-
Nay on background checks??? Holy jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!
Yeah, that's a Jesus on a pogo stick for me too.
-
Is that a shock? Not to me really. Currently 29 states don't require background checks. And another 5-10 only require it for handguns. My issue with potential background checks has to do with criteria, and the fact that it's being done by a Govt. agency. Who let's face it aren't all that reliable.
-
Have I ever been in a situation where I needed to shoot someone? No. Will I never need to defend myself with deadly force in the future? Not likely, but not impossible. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Exactly... Just like the old saying, "You don't need one till you do". I'm a firm believer in the second amendment. Unfortunately I live in probably the most restrictive state in the US (California). I have an AR15 that I bought here in Cali about 7 years ago. That weapon can't leave my home because of new restrictions (without senseless modifications). We are retiring in 3 years, probably to Florida, and can't wait to lose the CA restrictions.
Yay on gun owning
Nay on Background checks
Nay on Gun registration
Nay on magazine size restrictions
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Yep, nay for background checks for me as well. Plus it's unconstitutional.
-
Is that a shock? Not to me really. Currently 29 states don't require background checks. And another 5-10 only require it for handguns. My issue with potential background checks has to do with criteria, and the fact that it's being done by a Govt. agency. Who let's face it aren't all that reliable.
I'd probably go with insane, rather than shocking. :lol
Look, I'm one of the pro-gun folks on this board. I sleep with a Sig next to my bead and I've got the upper for an AR platform rifle right next to me (the lower is on the way). I think most of the rules and regs people come up with are pretty fucking stupid. Background checks, though, are about the very least we can do to try and keep guns away from knuckleheads and scumbags, and I think every single one of us thinks that's a pretty good thing to do. It's a quick and painless process, mine took 15 minutes, and the lack of reliability tends to work the wrong way. That is, people slip through the cracks rather than honest folk getting denied. Even the NRA supports background checks, and those guys are fucking terrorists.
-
Is that a shock? Not to me really. Currently 29 states don't require background checks. And another 5-10 only require it for handguns. My issue with potential background checks has to do with criteria, and the fact that it's being done by a Govt. agency. Who let's face it aren't all that reliable.
I'd probably go with insane, rather than shocking. :lol
Look, I'm one of the pro-gun folks on this board. I sleep with a Sig next to my bead and I've got the upper for an AR platform rifle right next to me (the lower is on the way). I think most of the rules and regs people come up with are pretty fucking stupid. Background checks, though, are about the very least we can do to try and keep guns away from knuckleheads and scumbags, and I think every single one of us thinks that's a pretty good thing to do. It's a quick and painless process, mine took 15 minutes, and the lack of reliability tends to work the wrong way. That is, people slip through the cracks rather than honest folk getting denied. Even the NRA supports background checks, and those guys are fucking terrorists.
The NRA are terrorists?? :o Welp...like discussed earlier, not gonna go down the P/R road with this. We all have our opinions.
-
I'm OK with owning a gun. I think we have to adjust to the times. Look at the last 9 incidents with mass killings and all guns were bought by the killer. Not all are mentally stable enough to handle the responsibility of gun ownership. Also those who committed crimes need to have guidelines to prove they have been upstanding for a certain limit of time to be allowed to own a gun again.
Also, if you are a law abiding citizen who wants another gun, what is an extra week or 2 more to own multiple guns to make sure those unstable or with viscous tendencies are weeded out from purchasing them?
BTW El Barto, I live 20 minutes from the main Sig Sauer plant.
-
Is that a shock? Not to me really. Currently 29 states don't require background checks. And another 5-10 only require it for handguns. My issue with potential background checks has to do with criteria, and the fact that it's being done by a Govt. agency. Who let's face it aren't all that reliable.
I'd probably go with insane, rather than shocking. :lol
Look, I'm one of the pro-gun folks on this board. I sleep with a Sig next to my bead and I've got the upper for an AR platform rifle right next to me (the lower is on the way). I think most of the rules and regs people come up with are pretty fucking stupid. Background checks, though, are about the very least we can do to try and keep guns away from knuckleheads and scumbags, and I think every single one of us thinks that's a pretty good thing to do. It's a quick and painless process, mine took 15 minutes, and the lack of reliability tends to work the wrong way. That is, people slip through the cracks rather than honest folk getting denied. Even the NRA supports background checks, and those guys are fucking terrorists.
I bought my gun at Academy and it took maybe 5 minutes. Easy and painless.
-
Is that a shock? Not to me really. Currently 29 states don't require background checks. And another 5-10 only require it for handguns. My issue with potential background checks has to do with criteria, and the fact that it's being done by a Govt. agency. Who let's face it aren't all that reliable.
I'd probably go with insane, rather than shocking. :lol
Look, I'm one of the pro-gun folks on this board. I sleep with a Sig next to my bead and I've got the upper for an AR platform rifle right next to me (the lower is on the way). I think most of the rules and regs people come up with are pretty fucking stupid. Background checks, though, are about the very least we can do to try and keep guns away from knuckleheads and scumbags, and I think every single one of us thinks that's a pretty good thing to do. It's a quick and painless process, mine took 15 minutes, and the lack of reliability tends to work the wrong way. That is, people slip through the cracks rather than honest folk getting denied. Even the NRA supports background checks, and those guys are fucking terrorists.
Yeah, I'm with Barto. There isn't a good reason to NOT have background checks, and plenty of good reason FOR. And they have been expressly found to be Constitutional, so the statement that they are not is just flat out wrong.
-
I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.
What kind of country do you guys live in? ...
-
I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.
What kind of country do you guys live in? ...
A fucked up one, certainly!!!!!!!!
My politics have changed over the past few years (I'm 73109 and have since forgotten all my log in info), but I've actually come to agree with the 2nd Amendment folks that are often so very loud and present in gun discourse in America, though for VERY different reasons. ("Under no pretext" and what not...) But not gonna get into that here.
I've been in Alaska the past month and have fallen in love. Might move out here for a bit in a few years, and if I do, I'm definitely getting a gun for when I'm out in the wilderness. Might use it to hunt too, as that's the most ecological option as it stands, but I'm not sure I have it in me. Definitely for protection though—and not from home intruders (though maybe from Trump and his lackies, but again, this isn't P/R).
-
I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.
What kind of country do you guys live in? ...
A fucked up one, certainly!!!!!!!!
My politics have changed over the past few years (I'm 73109 and have since forgotten all my log in info), but I've actually come to agree with the 2nd Amendment folks that are often so very loud and present in gun discourse in America, though for VERY different reasons. ("Under no pretext" and what not...) But not gonna get into that here.
I've been in Alaska the past month and have fallen in love. Might move out here for a bit in a few years, and if I do, I'm definitely getting a gun for when I'm out in the wilderness. Might use it to hunt too, as that's the most ecological option as it stands, but I'm not sure I have it in me. Definitely for protection though—and not from home intruders (though maybe from Trump and his lackies, but again, this isn't P/R).
Wow. This oughtta be interesting.
-
I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.
What kind of country do you guys live in? ...
The United States, the country that grants people the right to bear arms and people who live in states with concealed carry laws. Nothing weird about it at all.
-
I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.
What kind of country do you guys live in? ...
A fucked up one, certainly!!!!!!!!
My politics have changed over the past few years (I'm 73109 and have since forgotten all my log in info), but I've actually come to agree with the 2nd Amendment folks that are often so very loud and present in gun discourse in America, though for VERY different reasons. ("Under no pretext" and what not...) But not gonna get into that here.
I've been in Alaska the past month and have fallen in love. Might move out here for a bit in a few years, and if I do, I'm definitely getting a gun for when I'm out in the wilderness. Might use it to hunt too, as that's the most ecological option as it stands, but I'm not sure I have it in me. Definitely for protection though—and not from home intruders (though maybe from Trump and his lackies, but again, this isn't P/R).
Wow. This oughtta be interesting.
I've missed you :P
And your supreme court interest, something I've developed myself over the past few years. My girlfriend is a law student, so she's forced to be interested in that too. Hopefully I'll get admitted into P/R and I can expand a bit.
-
I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.
What kind of country do you guys live in? ...
The United States, the country that grants people the right to bear arms and people who live in states with concealed carry laws. Nothing weird about it at all.
Oh there is PLENTY about the US gun culture that is weird, for lack of a better term.
-
I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.
What kind of country do you guys live in? ...
The United States, the country that grants people the right to bear arms and people who live in states with concealed carry laws. Nothing weird about it at all.
Oh there is PLENTY about the US gun culture that is weird, for lack of a better term.
Well, yeah. But there are lots of people out there who do carry their gun on them daily, and you'd never know it. Nothing really weird about that, there are laws to protect those people in a lot of places.
-
I mean, simply because the law allows you to do it, that doesn't mean it's right morally speaking. That should be obvious from the word go, but again, this isn't P/R.
-
“Weird” and even “right” can be a matter of perspective
-
At this point being....well shoot....it's 14 years now I've had my conceal permit...wow....I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.
Gary, you're my brother and if we were sitting in a pub, this is what I'd say. It isn't meant to insult you in any way.
But, from here, it seems like more a of a binky, no?
Shoot....even when we plan our family vacations I won't go to a State that doesn't have reciprocity carry with Missouri's permits.
Shoot? :lol
So when discussing a family vacation "Honey can I bring my gun?" is a major consideration??
And something else we talked about months ago. I wanted to let you know I thought of you on Christmas Day. We went to my stepson's for lunch, and when we gave them their gifts, his partner opened them with a pocket knife.
My son taps me on the arm and says, "Did he just pull a knife out of his pocket?" :lol
-
At this point being....well shoot....it's 14 years now I've had my conceal permit...wow....I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.
Gary, you're my brother and if we were sitting in a pub, this is what I'd say. It isn't meant to insult you in any way.
But, from here, it seems like more a of a binky, no?
No....not really. It's no different than if you're used to your keys being in your front right pocket or your wallet in your back left. When they're not there you can tell. Same thing. It just feels odd when I'm not carrying my gun because I'm so used to having it on me. Plus, binky's won't do :censored for you or your family if someone decides to car jack you or any of the 1,000 things that are not out of the realm of possibility in this day and age :lol
Shoot....even when we plan our family vacations I won't go to a State that doesn't have reciprocity carry with Missouri's permits.
Shoot? :lol
So when discussing a family vacation "Honey can I bring my gun?" is a major consideration??
Nope. There is no discussion. Not saying that to act like a hard a$$ or anything....but....my wife isn't charged with the protection and safety of our family...I am. She doesn't have much say in the matter and at this point she takes comfort in knowing that we have some level of protection....like I said.....in this day and age it's freaking insane in our country. I'll drive through states that don't recognize Missouri's CCW laws in accordance with the Federal 'Peaceable Journey' law
Peaceable Journey Law
Peaceable Journey refers to federal and state laws that address the transportation of firearms over state lines by firearm owners. The federal code 18 USC § 926A says that as long as the owner of the firearm can legally carry in the state they left and the state they are traveling to, the firearm is unloaded, and that the firearms any ammunition are not easily accessible that they can legally cross state lines.
but will not make one of those states my destination.
And a pocket knife is a must. You just never know when you'll need a pocket knife. Boy Scout motto: Be Prepared. :biggrin:
-
Cool, thanks Gary. I wasn't trying to be a dick. :)
-
I mean, simply because the law allows you to do it, that doesn't mean it's right morally speaking. That should be obvious from the word go, but again, this isn't P/R.
I'm trying to understand if this is meant to say that it's immoral to carry a gun? If it is, then.....carry on because there's no way we'd even be able to have a conversation about it because that stance is already loaded to the max.
-
I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.
What kind of country do you guys live in? ...
A fucked up one, certainly!!!!!!!!
My politics have changed over the past few years (I'm 73109 and have since forgotten all my log in info), but I've actually come to agree with the 2nd Amendment folks that are often so very loud and present in gun discourse in America, though for VERY different reasons. ("Under no pretext" and what not...) But not gonna get into that here.
I've been in Alaska the past month and have fallen in love. Might move out here for a bit in a few years, and if I do, I'm definitely getting a gun for when I'm out in the wilderness. Might use it to hunt too, as that's the most ecological option as it stands, but I'm not sure I have it in me. Definitely for protection though—and not from home intruders (though maybe from Trump and his lackies, but again, this isn't P/R).
Wow. This oughtta be interesting.
I've missed you :P
And your supreme court interest, something I've developed myself over the past few years. My girlfriend is a law student, so she's forced to be interested in that too. Hopefully I'll get admitted into P/R and I can expand a bit.
:tup
Look forward to seeing you there. And if they don't want to let you in lemme know and I'll bust a cap in they ass.
-
Cool, thanks Gary. I wasn't trying to be a dick. :)
I know you weren't :tup I was trying to make sure I worded my response well enough to give you an honest response without seeming like I took offense....which I didn't.
-
Cool, thanks Gary. I wasn't trying to be a dick. :)
I know you weren't :tup I was trying to make sure I worded my response well enough to give you an honest response without seeming like I took offense....which I didn't.
Mission accomplished.
Can't say we'll be holding back when discussing important matters like the Selke though! :lol
-
I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.
What kind of country do you guys live in? ...
The United States, the country that grants people the right to bear arms and people who live in states with concealed carry laws. Nothing weird about it at all.
Oh there is PLENTY about the US gun culture that is weird, for lack of a better term.
Well, yeah. But there are lots of people out there who do carry their gun on them daily, and you'd never know it. Nothing really weird about that, there are laws to protect those people in a lot of places.
I kind of have to side with the German on this one. I totally get what Garry meant. Carrying a weapon totally changes your mindset (or at least it fucking well should). That's the reason I'm not much for carrying, and it's the reason he feels naked without one. He and I have discussed this before. I've just never gotten the idea that it's a necessary hassle, which is what I gather Home was getting at. If I felt like I couldn't go about my daily life without carrying a gun everywhere I went I'd be looking to GTFO of Dodge.
-
I mean, simply because the law allows you to do it, that doesn't mean it's right morally speaking. That should be obvious from the word go, but again, this isn't P/R.
I'm trying to understand if this is meant to say that it's immoral to carry a gun? If it is, then.....carry on because there's no way we'd even be able to have a conversation about it because that stance is already loaded to the max.
That is, in fact, not what I was saying. I was simply saying that what is "right" (ethically, morally, what have you) does not correspond 100% with what is "legal." A bunch of stuff that's completely "legal" is not particularly "right," it seems to me. Gun ownership can fall in any number of locations on the right/wrong and illegal/legal axes.
-
Cool, thanks Gary. I wasn't trying to be a dick. :)
I know you weren't :tup I was trying to make sure I worded my response well enough to give you an honest response without seeming like I took offense....which I didn't.
Mission accomplished.
Can't say we'll be holding back when discussing important matters like the Selke though! :lol
It’s a no brainer. Back to back for O’Reily :lol
-
I mean, simply because the law allows you to do it, that doesn't mean it's right morally speaking. That should be obvious from the word go, but again, this isn't P/R.
I'm trying to understand if this is meant to say that it's immoral to carry a gun? If it is, then.....carry on because there's no way we'd even be able to have a conversation about it because that stance is already loaded to the max.
That is, in fact, not what I was saying. I was simply saying that what is "right" (ethically, morally, what have you) does not correspond 100% with what is "legal." A bunch of stuff that's completely "legal" is not particularly "right," it seems to me. Gun ownership can fall in any number of locations on the right/wrong and illegal/legal axes.
Gotcha :tup
-
Is that a shock? Not to me really. Currently 29 states don't require background checks. And another 5-10 only require it for handguns. My issue with potential background checks has to do with criteria, and the fact that it's being done by a Govt. agency. Who let's face it aren't all that reliable.
I'd probably go with insane, rather than shocking. :lol
Look, I'm one of the pro-gun folks on this board. I sleep with a Sig next to my bead and I've got the upper for an AR platform rifle right next to me (the lower is on the way). I think most of the rules and regs people come up with are pretty fucking stupid. Background checks, though, are about the very least we can do to try and keep guns away from knuckleheads and scumbags, and I think every single one of us thinks that's a pretty good thing to do. It's a quick and painless process, mine took 15 minutes, and the lack of reliability tends to work the wrong way. That is, people slip through the cracks rather than honest folk getting denied. Even the NRA supports background checks, and those guys are fucking terrorists.
Yeah, I'm with Barto. There isn't a good reason to NOT have background checks, and plenty of good reason FOR. And they have been expressly found to be Constitutional, so the statement that they are not is just flat out wrong.
I don't really have a problem with background checks. What I do have a problem with is paying the police to investigate me for six months in order to get a permit...for something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.
I've never been convicted of any crimes, nor have I ever been admitted to a mental hospital. It shouldn't take six months to figure out I'm not crazy. I don't own a pistol because I don't want to jump through all the hoops.
-
Is that a shock? Not to me really. Currently 29 states don't require background checks. And another 5-10 only require it for handguns. My issue with potential background checks has to do with criteria, and the fact that it's being done by a Govt. agency. Who let's face it aren't all that reliable.
I'd probably go with insane, rather than shocking. :lol
Look, I'm one of the pro-gun folks on this board. I sleep with a Sig next to my bead and I've got the upper for an AR platform rifle right next to me (the lower is on the way). I think most of the rules and regs people come up with are pretty fucking stupid. Background checks, though, are about the very least we can do to try and keep guns away from knuckleheads and scumbags, and I think every single one of us thinks that's a pretty good thing to do. It's a quick and painless process, mine took 15 minutes, and the lack of reliability tends to work the wrong way. That is, people slip through the cracks rather than honest folk getting denied. Even the NRA supports background checks, and those guys are fucking terrorists.
Yeah, I'm with Barto. There isn't a good reason to NOT have background checks, and plenty of good reason FOR. And they have been expressly found to be Constitutional, so the statement that they are not is just flat out wrong.
I don't really have a problem with background checks. What I do have a problem with is paying the police to investigate me for six months in order to get a permit...for something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.
And you should have a problem with that, though I'd leave the Constitution out of it. Don't know if you're in Cali or not, but I've definitely heard of the cops up there slow-rolling those things for as long as possible. Certainly more than six months. And it's something that should be pretty easy to fix, too. However, since that's only for a carry permit, it's not really the end of the world. More about the principle, I reckon.
-
I don't really have a problem with background checks. What I do have a problem with is paying the police to investigate me for six months in order to get a permit...for something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.
And you should have a problem with that, though I'd leave the Constitution out of it. Don't know if you're in Cali or not, but I've definitely heard of the cops up there slow-rolling those things for as long as possible. Certainly more than six months. And it's something that should be pretty easy to fix, too. However, since that's only for a carry permit, it's not really the end of the world. More about the principle, I reckon.
I'm in New York.
Agreed it's not the end of the world. If I really wanted a pistol, I'd have it by now. I kinda want one and eventually well...my dad is old and wants to leave his guns to Herrick. So I'll have to go through the process in NY eventually.
Why leave the constitution out of it? I don't look at it as a holy document and I'm far from an expert or even a laymang when it comes to the law. Butt having these weapons seems to be a basic right and I don't understand why I should have to pay for a six-month investigation/process for something that is supposed to be my right.
If they want to investigate me, then fine. I shouldn't have to pay them & provide fucking references proving myself to be a "good guy". I don't know. Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. You and others here are much more knowledgeable about this stuff.
-
I mean, simply because the law allows you to do it, that doesn't mean it's right morally speaking. That should be obvious from the word go, but again, this isn't P/R.
I'm trying to understand if this is meant to say that it's immoral to carry a gun? If it is, then.....carry on because there's no way we'd even be able to have a conversation about it because that stance is already loaded to the max.
That is, in fact, not what I was saying. I was simply saying that what is "right" (ethically, morally, what have you) does not correspond 100% with what is "legal." A bunch of stuff that's completely "legal" is not particularly "right," it seems to me. Gun ownership can fall in any number of locations on the right/wrong and illegal/legal axes.
The problem is in the use of the word "right", and applying it in this context. It's not apples to apples. As a lawyer, for me, the only "right" (as in correct) is "legal". The rest - morals, ethics - is in the eye of the beholder. I don't tell you what your morals/ethics should be, and you stay the hell away from mine, thanks. Each and every one of us can and should operate to the highest standard we hold. That's what we ASK. That's what the social contract is predicated on, and what the "tragedy of the commons" hopes to teach us to adopt. The law is the minimum, and all we can DEMAND. That's the difference.
-
I don't really have a problem with background checks. What I do have a problem with is paying the police to investigate me for six months in order to get a permit...for something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.
And you should have a problem with that, though I'd leave the Constitution out of it. Don't know if you're in Cali or not, but I've definitely heard of the cops up there slow-rolling those things for as long as possible. Certainly more than six months. And it's something that should be pretty easy to fix, too. However, since that's only for a carry permit, it's not really the end of the world. More about the principle, I reckon.
I'm in New York.
Agreed it's not the end of the world. If I really wanted a pistol, I'd have it by now. I kinda want one and eventually well...my dad is old and wants to leave his guns to Herrick. So I'll have to go through the process in NY eventually.
Why leave the constitution out of it? I don't look at it as a holy document and I'm far from an expert or even a laymang when it comes to the law. Butt having these weapons seems to be a basic right and I don't understand why I should have to pay for a six-month investigation/process for something that is supposed to be my right.
If they want to investigate me, then fine. I shouldn't have to pay them & provide fucking references proving myself to be a "good guy". I don't know. Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. You and others here are much more knowledgeable about this stuff.
Having to secure a permit simply to possess a handgun that won't even leave the house is a little rough.
I suggested leaving the Constitution out of it because it really doesn't effect your situation. Two hundred years of jurisprudence has allowed for the states and federal government to impose reasonable restrictions, just like there are reasonable restrictions to free speech (FIRE!!!!!). The Man can bar certain people from possessing guns, lest OJ Simpson be allowed to arm himself, and none of us want to see that happen. The state can prohibit people from possessing certain types of weapons. Machine guns and sawed off shotguns being the obvious ones. The state can impose restrictions on where guns can be allowed. Allowing guns on airplanes or in prisons seems like a rotten idea to me. Unless the belief is that the founding fathers were securing the rights of known killers and psychopaths to own any weapons they wanted and take them anyplace they wished then using the 2A as a blanket authority to do same just doesn't make much sense.
It sucks that good people get caught up in it, but the reality is that the Constitution doesn't preclude background checks or limits on where weapons can be possessed.
-
I don't really have a problem with background checks. What I do have a problem with is paying the police to investigate me for six months in order to get a permit...for something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.
And you should have a problem with that, though I'd leave the Constitution out of it. Don't know if you're in Cali or not, but I've definitely heard of the cops up there slow-rolling those things for as long as possible. Certainly more than six months. And it's something that should be pretty easy to fix, too. However, since that's only for a carry permit, it's not really the end of the world. More about the principle, I reckon.
I'm in New York.
Agreed it's not the end of the world. If I really wanted a pistol, I'd have it by now. I kinda want one and eventually well...my dad is old and wants to leave his guns to Herrick. So I'll have to go through the process in NY eventually.
Why leave the constitution out of it? I don't look at it as a holy document and I'm far from an expert or even a laymang when it comes to the law. Butt having these weapons seems to be a basic right and I don't understand why I should have to pay for a six-month investigation/process for something that is supposed to be my right.
If they want to investigate me, then fine. I shouldn't have to pay them & provide fucking references proving myself to be a "good guy". I don't know. Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. You and others here are much more knowledgeable about this stuff.
Having to secure a permit simply to possess a handgun that won't even leave the house is a little rough.
I suggested leaving the Constitution out of it because it really doesn't effect your situation. Two hundred years of jurisprudence has allowed for the states and federal government to impose reasonable restrictions, just like there are reasonable restrictions to free speech (FIRE!!!!!). The Man can bar certain people from possessing guns, lest OJ Simpson be allowed to arm himself, and none of us want to see that happen. The state can prohibit people from possessing certain types of weapons. Machine guns and sawed off shotguns being the obvious ones. The state can impose restrictions on where guns can be allowed. Allowing guns on airplanes or in prisons seems like a rotten idea to me. Unless the belief is that the founding fathers were securing the rights of known killers and psychopaths to own any weapons they wanted and take them anyplace they wished then using the 2A as a blanket authority to do same just doesn't make much sense.
It sucks that good people get caught up in it, but the reality is that the Constitution doesn't preclude background checks or limits on where weapons can be possessed.
Certainly not known killers and psychos but what about known herricks :biggrin:
-
Is that a shock? Not to me really. Currently 29 states don't require background checks. And another 5-10 only require it for handguns. My issue with potential background checks has to do with criteria, and the fact that it's being done by a Govt. agency. Who let's face it aren't all that reliable.
I'd probably go with insane, rather than shocking. :lol
Look, I'm one of the pro-gun folks on this board. I sleep with a Sig next to my bead and I've got the upper for an AR platform rifle right next to me (the lower is on the way). I think most of the rules and regs people come up with are pretty fucking stupid. Background checks, though, are about the very least we can do to try and keep guns away from knuckleheads and scumbags, and I think every single one of us thinks that's a pretty good thing to do. It's a quick and painless process, mine took 15 minutes, and the lack of reliability tends to work the wrong way. That is, people slip through the cracks rather than honest folk getting denied. Even the NRA supports background checks, and those guys are fucking terrorists.
Yeah, I'm with Barto. There isn't a good reason to NOT have background checks, and plenty of good reason FOR. And they have been expressly found to be Constitutional, so the statement that they are not is just flat out wrong.
I'll have to disagree a little with your statement. There are good reasons to not have background checks. Here are mine.
1. Background checks, to my understanding, are to keep guns out of the hands of violent and or mentally ill people. Sounds fine, until you factor in that this group contains a LOT of innocent people. People heal from mental illness all the time (I'm one of them) I should not have to prove this through the courts. It would be insanely expensive and I'd probably loose.
2. Also, many people are charged with violent crimes these days for protecting themselves, their property, and protecting others. These good guys should also not be deprived of haveing a firearm. But under background checks they would be.
3. Mistakes happen in our judicial system all the time which could cause many innocent people from being able to own a firearm to protect themselves, their family and their property. Background checks would prevent this.
4. Criminals reform all the time as well and become former criminals. Once they have paid their debt to society and they are able to stay away from that former life, there is no reason they should not be able to own a gun to protect themselves, their family and their property. Background checks would prevent this also.
-
Those are all facts. But none of them move the needle on the analysis. All of that has been taken into account, and background checks have still, without question, been found to be constitutional.
-
In Connecticut, you're not allowed to own a gun or get your CC permit if you have a license/card for medical weed (which shows up in the background check). You can be a raging alcoholic with an opioid prescription and still have as many guns in your house as you want though. It makes zero sense.
-
Those are all facts. But none of them move the needle on the analysis. All of that has been taken into account, and background checks have still, without question, been found to be constitutional.
Perhaps, but an inalienable right is... inalienable. Once a person has paid their debt to society, it is paid. Thus ALL their liberties should be restored, including the right own a gun. I understand what the courts have decided, but I don't believe the courts have rulled in conjunction with the constitution for a long time now. So, as I see it, background checks are completely unconstitutional and an "infringement" on that right for citizens.
Precedent rules the day in courts nowadays, not the constitution unfortunately.
Once the government finds reasons to take that right away from some folks, it becomes a slippery slope and it won't take long for them to keep expanding that list to include most folks.
All that being said, under the current social climate that exists in our country as well as the horrible mass shootings that have happened in the last several years, I can understand why most folks are in favor of background checks. And I don't blame anyone for feeling that way. I'm just not one of them. But I also know I'm standing in the wrong side of a loosing battle.
-
Is that a shock? Not to me really. Currently 29 states don't require background checks. And another 5-10 only require it for handguns. My issue with potential background checks has to do with criteria, and the fact that it's being done by a Govt. agency. Who let's face it aren't all that reliable.
I'd probably go with insane, rather than shocking. :lol
Look, I'm one of the pro-gun folks on this board. I sleep with a Sig next to my bead and I've got the upper for an AR platform rifle right next to me (the lower is on the way). I think most of the rules and regs people come up with are pretty fucking stupid. Background checks, though, are about the very least we can do to try and keep guns away from knuckleheads and scumbags, and I think every single one of us thinks that's a pretty good thing to do. It's a quick and painless process, mine took 15 minutes, and the lack of reliability tends to work the wrong way. That is, people slip through the cracks rather than honest folk getting denied. Even the NRA supports background checks, and those guys are fucking terrorists.
Yeah, I'm with Barto. There isn't a good reason to NOT have background checks, and plenty of good reason FOR. And they have been expressly found to be Constitutional, so the statement that they are not is just flat out wrong.
I don't really have a problem with background checks. What I do have a problem with is paying the police to investigate me for six months in order to get a permit...for something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.
I've never been convicted of any crimes, nor have I ever been admitted to a mental hospital. It shouldn't take six months to figure out I'm not crazy. I don't own a pistol because I don't want to jump through all the hoops.
Very good point.
-
I mean, simply because the law allows you to do it, that doesn't mean it's right morally speaking. That should be obvious from the word go, but again, this isn't P/R.
I'm trying to understand if this is meant to say that it's immoral to carry a gun? If it is, then.....carry on because there's no way we'd even be able to have a conversation about it because that stance is already loaded to the max.
That is, in fact, not what I was saying. I was simply saying that what is "right" (ethically, morally, what have you) does not correspond 100% with what is "legal." A bunch of stuff that's completely "legal" is not particularly "right," it seems to me. Gun ownership can fall in any number of locations on the right/wrong and illegal/legal axes.
The problem is in the use of the word "right", and applying it in this context. It's not apples to apples. As a lawyer, for me, the only "right" (as in correct) is "legal". The rest - morals, ethics - is in the eye of the beholder. I don't tell you what your morals/ethics should be, and you stay the hell away from mine, thanks. Each and every one of us can and should operate to the highest standard we hold. That's what we ASK. That's what the social contract is predicated on, and what the "tragedy of the commons" hopes to teach us to adopt. The law is the minimum, and all we can DEMAND. That's the difference.
OK, still doesn't change the fact that lawyers—shockingly—can discourse on the various ethical merits of the laws and legal arguments with which they engage. I know for a fact it can happen—my girlfriend is currently in law school!!!
It also seems like something of a non sequitur to bring up how you are forced to go about engaging with "the law" when I made a broader point, one with which I am sure you agree: legal does not always mean moral. And moreover, I completely disagree with you on the subject of "I don't tell you what your morals/ethics should be, and you stay the hell away from mine, thanks." It's that sort of laissez-faire attitude that gets people killed. If you see people acting in a way you find unethical, by all means shout, vote, talk to your senator, or, even, in certain cases, act violently (which in many cases is illegal).
And the tragedy of the commons is a bogus idea anyway...
Edit: Also, the idea that right and wrong is simply in the eye of the beholder has to prove, after a moment's thought, specious. This is not to say I have a comprehensive ethical philosophy worked out, but relativism just seems so obviously wrong.
-
Those are all facts. But none of them move the needle on the analysis. All of that has been taken into account, and background checks have still, without question, been found to be constitutional.
Perhaps, but an inalienable right is... inalienable. Once a person has paid their debt to society, it is paid. Thus ALL their liberties should be restored, including the right own a gun. I understand what the courts have decided, but I don't believe the courts have rulled in conjunction with the constitution for a long time now. So, as I see it, background checks are completely unconstitutional and an "infringement" on that right for citizens.
Precedent rules the day in courts nowadays, not the constitution unfortunately.
Once the government finds reasons to take that right away from some folks, it becomes a slippery slope and it won't take long for them to keep expanding that list to include most folks.
All that being said, under the current social climate that exists in our country as well as the horrible mass shootings that have happened in the last several years, I can understand why most folks are in favor of background checks. And I don't blame anyone for feeling that way. I'm just not one of them. But I also know I'm standing in the wrong side of a loosing battle.
If it's inalienable then what right did you have taking away their guns when you imprisoned them in the first place?
Look, I actually agree with some of your objections here. There are certainly people who've been disenfranchised and that's a raw deal in my book. If you want to suggest improvements to the system then go for it. I'll be on board. This isn't really a constitutional thing, though. There will always be necessary restrictions on rights, just like the convict who can't take his arsenal to prison with him, and insofar as restrictions go this one's narrowly tailored, not very restrictive, and serves a very compelling interest.
-
I mean, simply because the law allows you to do it, that doesn't mean it's right morally speaking. That should be obvious from the word go, but again, this isn't P/R.
I'm trying to understand if this is meant to say that it's immoral to carry a gun? If it is, then.....carry on because there's no way we'd even be able to have a conversation about it because that stance is already loaded to the max.
That is, in fact, not what I was saying. I was simply saying that what is "right" (ethically, morally, what have you) does not correspond 100% with what is "legal." A bunch of stuff that's completely "legal" is not particularly "right," it seems to me. Gun ownership can fall in any number of locations on the right/wrong and illegal/legal axes.
The problem is in the use of the word "right", and applying it in this context. It's not apples to apples. As a lawyer, for me, the only "right" (as in correct) is "legal". The rest - morals, ethics - is in the eye of the beholder. I don't tell you what your morals/ethics should be, and you stay the hell away from mine, thanks. Each and every one of us can and should operate to the highest standard we hold. That's what we ASK. That's what the social contract is predicated on, and what the "tragedy of the commons" hopes to teach us to adopt. The law is the minimum, and all we can DEMAND. That's the difference.
OK, still doesn't change the fact that lawyers—shockingly—can discourse on the various ethical merits of the laws and legal arguments with which they engage. I know for a fact it can happen—my girlfriend is currently in law school!!!
It also seems like something of a non sequitur to bring up how you are forced to go about engaging with "the law" when I made a broader point, one with which I am sure you agree: legal does not always mean moral. And moreover, I completely disagree with you on the subject of "I don't tell you what your morals/ethics should be, and you stay the hell away from mine, thanks." It's that sort of laissez-faire attitude that gets people killed. If you see people acting in a way you find unethical, by all means shout, vote, talk to your senator, or, even, in certain cases, act violently (which in many cases is illegal).
We disagree on this. Vehemently. Whether I find homosexuality "immoral" or not (I don't, but go with me here), I don't get to tell <insert homosexual person yuo know here> what to do with their partner in the bedroom. Whether I find pornography to be immoral, or the practice of producing porn unethical (I don't, but go with me here), I don't get to tell you what you can watch in your quietest of moments, or whether - with consent (a rights issue, not a moral or ethical one) - you can film your girlfriend in flagrante delicto.
I don't know what you mean by "getting people killed"; if someone dies, it's no longer a moral or ethical thing, it's a civil rights thing. For me, whether it's a lawyer, a politician, or someone else, the "ethical" argument for practical legal positions is, more often than not, the argument of the weak. For me, ANY of the so-called ethical arguments we can talk about boil down also to some infringement on rights, and that's where the DEMAND comes from.
Again, we're talking about what we can (or should) FORCE someone else to do.
And the tragedy of the commons is a bogus idea anyway...
Well, provably false, but okay. "Climate change" is but one of many, obvious, egregious examples of that idea. Climate change is bogus?
Edit: Also, the idea that right and wrong is simply in the eye of the beholder has to prove, after a moment's thought, specious. This is not to say I have a comprehensive ethical philosophy worked out, but relativism just seems so obviously wrong.
So who, then, gets to decide? And are you willing to live by that yourself? There's NOTHING you find perfectly acceptable that someone, somewhere (left or right) would deem problematic?
-
Those are all facts. But none of them move the needle on the analysis. All of that has been taken into account, and background checks have still, without question, been found to be constitutional.
Perhaps, but an inalienable right is... inalienable. Once a person has paid their debt to society, it is paid. Thus ALL their liberties should be restored, including the right own a gun. I understand what the courts have decided, but I don't believe the courts have rulled in conjunction with the constitution for a long time now. So, as I see it, background checks are completely unconstitutional and an "infringement" on that right for citizens.
Precedent rules the day in courts nowadays, not the constitution unfortunately.
Once the government finds reasons to take that right away from some folks, it becomes a slippery slope and it won't take long for them to keep expanding that list to include most folks.
All that being said, under the current social climate that exists in our country as well as the horrible mass shootings that have happened in the last several years, I can understand why most folks are in favor of background checks. And I don't blame anyone for feeling that way. I'm just not one of them. But I also know I'm standing in the wrong side of a loosing battle.
If it's inalienable then what right did you have taking away their guns when you imprisoned them in the first place?
Look, I actually agree with some of your objections here. There are certainly people who've been disenfranchised and that's a raw deal in my book. If you want to suggest improvements to the system then go for it. I'll be on board. This isn't really a constitutional thing, though. There will always be necessary restrictions on rights, just like the convict who can't take his arsenal to prison with him, and insofar as restrictions go this one's narrowly tailored, not very restrictive, and serves a very compelling interest.
That's a good point. And, ruluctantly, I don't have a good answer for that because I haven't thought through it.
Other than imprisonment, I don't think there should ever be restrictions on rights and, at least off the top of my head, I can't think of any good reasons for it. But I'm kind of an odd ball in that regard :biggrin:
-
Hey everyone, I want to apologize. My comments have veered way too far into the P/R territory in this thread. So in order to not derail this thread anymore, I'll keep all my gun comments in P/R. :)
-
Guns?
Yay or nay? I don't know, I guess it depends. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with a homeowner having a shotgun in the closet just in case of some kind of crazy home invasion or whatever other madness can come your way. Again, it depends. I live in a good neighborhood, but we do have break-ins from time to time and I've got an elderly mother and my wife living with me. If I didn't have a record, I would probably have a shotgun. But since I have a record, I don't have a shotgun. But my mother does :biggrin: And it just happens to live in my bedroom closet.
A few years ago this would have never happened, but there was a home invasion about a mile from where I live about 2 or 3 years ago where the homeowner's wife was raped, tortured and almost killed, while the two suspects held them at gunpoint for a day and a half. That was enough to convince my mother we should have something in the house to defend ourselves as a last resort. I'm still conflicted about it, but not conflicted enough to get rid of it. I hate to be forced into a position of using it, but if it came down to a choice between my wife or mother being hurt (or worse) or me shooting the attacker I won't hesitate.
-
Good to hear from you Barry!
-
Those are all facts. But none of them move the needle on the analysis. All of that has been taken into account, and background checks have still, without question, been found to be constitutional.
Perhaps, but an inalienable right is... inalienable. Once a person has paid their debt to society, it is paid. Thus ALL their liberties should be restored, including the right own a gun. I understand what the courts have decided, but I don't believe the courts have rulled in conjunction with the constitution for a long time now. So, as I see it, background checks are completely unconstitutional and an "infringement" on that right for citizens.
Precedent rules the day in courts nowadays, not the constitution unfortunately.
Once the government finds reasons to take that right away from some folks, it becomes a slippery slope and it won't take long for them to keep expanding that list to include most folks.
All that being said, under the current social climate that exists in our country as well as the horrible mass shootings that have happened in the last several years, I can understand why most folks are in favor of background checks. And I don't blame anyone for feeling that way. I'm just not one of them. But I also know I'm standing in the wrong side of a loosing battle.
If it's inalienable then what right did you have taking away their guns when you imprisoned them in the first place?
Look, I actually agree with some of your objections here. There are certainly people who've been disenfranchised and that's a raw deal in my book. If you want to suggest improvements to the system then go for it. I'll be on board. This isn't really a constitutional thing, though. There will always be necessary restrictions on rights, just like the convict who can't take his arsenal to prison with him, and insofar as restrictions go this one's narrowly tailored, not very restrictive, and serves a very compelling interest.
That's a good point. And, ruluctantly, I don't have a good answer for that because I haven't thought through it.
Other than imprisonment, I don't think there should ever be restrictions on rights and, at least off the top of my head, I can't think of any good reasons for it. But I'm kind of an odd ball in that regard :biggrin:
What about calling the local cop shop and telling them there's 250 lbs of AmFo in a car in their garage? If this guy (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cd/Jared_Loughner_sheriff%27s_office.jpg/170px-Jared_Loughner_sheriff%27s_office.jpg) bails himself should we allow him to go down to academy and buy another gun? Jumping ahead to number 8, should he necessarily be able to receive bail? How about kicking the front door in sans warrant when there's a woman screaming for help on the other side? These are necessary and reasonable abridgements of enumerated rights that I think most would have a hard time arguing against. Denying guns to people who really shouldn't have them shouldn't automatically get stopped by the strictest interpretation of the 2A, no more than my other examples should be precluded by their respective amendments.
-
Those are all facts. But none of them move the needle on the analysis. All of that has been taken into account, and background checks have still, without question, been found to be constitutional.
Perhaps, but an inalienable right is... inalienable. Once a person has paid their debt to society, it is paid. Thus ALL their liberties should be restored, including the right own a gun. I understand what the courts have decided, but I don't believe the courts have rulled in conjunction with the constitution for a long time now. So, as I see it, background checks are completely unconstitutional and an "infringement" on that right for citizens.
Precedent rules the day in courts nowadays, not the constitution unfortunately.
Once the government finds reasons to take that right away from some folks, it becomes a slippery slope and it won't take long for them to keep expanding that list to include most folks.
All that being said, under the current social climate that exists in our country as well as the horrible mass shootings that have happened in the last several years, I can understand why most folks are in favor of background checks. And I don't blame anyone for feeling that way. I'm just not one of them. But I also know I'm standing in the wrong side of a loosing battle.
If it's inalienable then what right did you have taking away their guns when you imprisoned them in the first place?
Look, I actually agree with some of your objections here. There are certainly people who've been disenfranchised and that's a raw deal in my book. If you want to suggest improvements to the system then go for it. I'll be on board. This isn't really a constitutional thing, though. There will always be necessary restrictions on rights, just like the convict who can't take his arsenal to prison with him, and insofar as restrictions go this one's narrowly tailored, not very restrictive, and serves a very compelling interest.
That's a good point. And, ruluctantly, I don't have a good answer for that because I haven't thought through it.
Other than imprisonment, I don't think there should ever be restrictions on rights and, at least off the top of my head, I can't think of any good reasons for it. But I'm kind of an odd ball in that regard :biggrin:
What about calling the local cop shop and telling them there's 250 lbs of AmFo in a car in their garage? If this guy (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cd/Jared_Loughner_sheriff%27s_office.jpg/170px-Jared_Loughner_sheriff%27s_office.jpg) bails himself should we allow him to go down to academy and buy another gun? Jumping ahead to number 8, should he necessarily be able to receive bail? How about kicking the front door in sans warrant when there's a woman screaming for help on the other side? These are necessary and reasonable abridgements of enumerated rights that I think most would have a hard time arguing against. Denying guns to people who really shouldn't have them shouldn't automatically get stopped by the strictest interpretation of the 2A, no more than my other examples should be precluded by their respective amendments.
Well, I'm not sure what AmFo is, is that drugs? If so, I don't care, let 'em be. In the case of a woman screaming for help, that is consent of the governed by the woman, therefore a warrant isn't needed. (karate chop! :))
-
Guns?
Yay or nay? I don't know, I guess it depends. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with a homeowner having a shotgun in the closet just in case of some kind of crazy home invasion or whatever other madness can come your way. Again, it depends. I live in a good neighborhood, but we do have break-ins from time to time and I've got an elderly mother and my wife living with me. If I didn't have a record, I would probably have a shotgun. But since I have a record, I don't have a shotgun. But my mother does :biggrin: And it just happens to live in my bedroom closet.
A few years ago this would have never happened, but there was a home invasion about a mile from where I live about 2 or 3 years ago where the homeowner's wife was raped, tortured and almost killed, while the two suspects held them at gunpoint for a day and a half. That was enough to convince my mother we should have something in the house to defend ourselves as a last resort. I'm still conflicted about it, but not conflicted enough to get rid of it. I hate to be forced into a position of using it, but if it came down to a choice between my wife or mother being hurt (or worse) or me shooting the attacker I won't hesitate.
That is terrible. Were the suspects caught?
-
Those are all facts. But none of them move the needle on the analysis. All of that has been taken into account, and background checks have still, without question, been found to be constitutional.
Perhaps, but an inalienable right is... inalienable. Once a person has paid their debt to society, it is paid. Thus ALL their liberties should be restored, including the right own a gun. I understand what the courts have decided, but I don't believe the courts have rulled in conjunction with the constitution for a long time now. So, as I see it, background checks are completely unconstitutional and an "infringement" on that right for citizens.
Precedent rules the day in courts nowadays, not the constitution unfortunately.
Once the government finds reasons to take that right away from some folks, it becomes a slippery slope and it won't take long for them to keep expanding that list to include most folks.
All that being said, under the current social climate that exists in our country as well as the horrible mass shootings that have happened in the last several years, I can understand why most folks are in favor of background checks. And I don't blame anyone for feeling that way. I'm just not one of them. But I also know I'm standing in the wrong side of a loosing battle.
If it's inalienable then what right did you have taking away their guns when you imprisoned them in the first place?
Look, I actually agree with some of your objections here. There are certainly people who've been disenfranchised and that's a raw deal in my book. If you want to suggest improvements to the system then go for it. I'll be on board. This isn't really a constitutional thing, though. There will always be necessary restrictions on rights, just like the convict who can't take his arsenal to prison with him, and insofar as restrictions go this one's narrowly tailored, not very restrictive, and serves a very compelling interest.
That's a good point. And, ruluctantly, I don't have a good answer for that because I haven't thought through it.
Other than imprisonment, I don't think there should ever be restrictions on rights and, at least off the top of my head, I can't think of any good reasons for it. But I'm kind of an odd ball in that regard :biggrin:
What about calling the local cop shop and telling them there's 250 lbs of AmFo in a car in their garage? If this guy (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cd/Jared_Loughner_sheriff%27s_office.jpg/170px-Jared_Loughner_sheriff%27s_office.jpg) bails himself should we allow him to go down to academy and buy another gun? Jumping ahead to number 8, should he necessarily be able to receive bail? How about kicking the front door in sans warrant when there's a woman screaming for help on the other side? These are necessary and reasonable abridgements of enumerated rights that I think most would have a hard time arguing against. Denying guns to people who really shouldn't have them shouldn't automatically get stopped by the strictest interpretation of the 2A, no more than my other examples should be precluded by their respective amendments.
Well, I'm not sure what AmFo is, is that drugs? If so, I don't care, let 'em be. In the case of a woman screaming for help, that is consent of the governed by the woman, therefore a warrant isn't needed. (karate chop! :))
Wrong acronym. ANFO is ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. I was referring to a bomb threat. And the woman screaming is a common example of an exigent circumstance which would allow Johnny to enter somebody's premises without consent or a warrant. In any case, I'm just pointing out other common examples of where we've quite reasonably abridged the constitutional rights of others.
-
Those are all facts. But none of them move the needle on the analysis. All of that has been taken into account, and background checks have still, without question, been found to be constitutional.
Perhaps, but an inalienable right is... inalienable. Once a person has paid their debt to society, it is paid. Thus ALL their liberties should be restored, including the right own a gun. I understand what the courts have decided, but I don't believe the courts have rulled in conjunction with the constitution for a long time now. So, as I see it, background checks are completely unconstitutional and an "infringement" on that right for citizens.
Precedent rules the day in courts nowadays, not the constitution unfortunately.
Once the government finds reasons to take that right away from some folks, it becomes a slippery slope and it won't take long for them to keep expanding that list to include most folks.
All that being said, under the current social climate that exists in our country as well as the horrible mass shootings that have happened in the last several years, I can understand why most folks are in favor of background checks. And I don't blame anyone for feeling that way. I'm just not one of them. But I also know I'm standing in the wrong side of a loosing battle.
If it's inalienable then what right did you have taking away their guns when you imprisoned them in the first place?
Look, I actually agree with some of your objections here. There are certainly people who've been disenfranchised and that's a raw deal in my book. If you want to suggest improvements to the system then go for it. I'll be on board. This isn't really a constitutional thing, though. There will always be necessary restrictions on rights, just like the convict who can't take his arsenal to prison with him, and insofar as restrictions go this one's narrowly tailored, not very restrictive, and serves a very compelling interest.
That's a good point. And, ruluctantly, I don't have a good answer for that because I haven't thought through it.
Other than imprisonment, I don't think there should ever be restrictions on rights and, at least off the top of my head, I can't think of any good reasons for it. But I'm kind of an odd ball in that regard :biggrin:
What about calling the local cop shop and telling them there's 250 lbs of AmFo in a car in their garage? If this guy (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cd/Jared_Loughner_sheriff%27s_office.jpg/170px-Jared_Loughner_sheriff%27s_office.jpg) bails himself should we allow him to go down to academy and buy another gun? Jumping ahead to number 8, should he necessarily be able to receive bail? How about kicking the front door in sans warrant when there's a woman screaming for help on the other side? These are necessary and reasonable abridgements of enumerated rights that I think most would have a hard time arguing against. Denying guns to people who really shouldn't have them shouldn't automatically get stopped by the strictest interpretation of the 2A, no more than my other examples should be precluded by their respective amendments.
Well, I'm not sure what AmFo is, is that drugs? If so, I don't care, let 'em be. In the case of a woman screaming for help, that is consent of the governed by the woman, therefore a warrant isn't needed. (karate chop! :))
Wrong acronym. ANFO is ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. I was referring to a bomb threat. And the woman screaming is a common example of an exigent circumstance which would allow Johnny to enter somebody's premises without consent or a warrant. In any case, I'm just pointing out other common examples of where we've quite reasonably abridged the constitutional rights of others.
Oh, I see. I'm not on the up and up when it comes to explosive agents. I guess it depends on who's garage. If it's mine and I called the police because I wasn't sure how it got there and I wanted a professional to get rid of it, well then I verbally gave the police consent to come and remove it. So still no warrant needed because, again, of consent of the governed. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your scenario?
-
Those are all facts. But none of them move the needle on the analysis. All of that has been taken into account, and background checks have still, without question, been found to be constitutional.
Perhaps, but an inalienable right is... inalienable. Once a person has paid their debt to society, it is paid. Thus ALL their liberties should be restored, including the right own a gun. I understand what the courts have decided, but I don't believe the courts have rulled in conjunction with the constitution for a long time now. So, as I see it, background checks are completely unconstitutional and an "infringement" on that right for citizens.
Precedent rules the day in courts nowadays, not the constitution unfortunately.
Once the government finds reasons to take that right away from some folks, it becomes a slippery slope and it won't take long for them to keep expanding that list to include most folks.
All that being said, under the current social climate that exists in our country as well as the horrible mass shootings that have happened in the last several years, I can understand why most folks are in favor of background checks. And I don't blame anyone for feeling that way. I'm just not one of them. But I also know I'm standing in the wrong side of a loosing battle.
If it's inalienable then what right did you have taking away their guns when you imprisoned them in the first place?
Look, I actually agree with some of your objections here. There are certainly people who've been disenfranchised and that's a raw deal in my book. If you want to suggest improvements to the system then go for it. I'll be on board. This isn't really a constitutional thing, though. There will always be necessary restrictions on rights, just like the convict who can't take his arsenal to prison with him, and insofar as restrictions go this one's narrowly tailored, not very restrictive, and serves a very compelling interest.
That's a good point. And, ruluctantly, I don't have a good answer for that because I haven't thought through it.
Other than imprisonment, I don't think there should ever be restrictions on rights and, at least off the top of my head, I can't think of any good reasons for it. But I'm kind of an odd ball in that regard :biggrin:
What about calling the local cop shop and telling them there's 250 lbs of AmFo in a car in their garage? If this guy (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cd/Jared_Loughner_sheriff%27s_office.jpg/170px-Jared_Loughner_sheriff%27s_office.jpg) bails himself should we allow him to go down to academy and buy another gun? Jumping ahead to number 8, should he necessarily be able to receive bail? How about kicking the front door in sans warrant when there's a woman screaming for help on the other side? These are necessary and reasonable abridgements of enumerated rights that I think most would have a hard time arguing against. Denying guns to people who really shouldn't have them shouldn't automatically get stopped by the strictest interpretation of the 2A, no more than my other examples should be precluded by their respective amendments.
Well, I'm not sure what AmFo is, is that drugs? If so, I don't care, let 'em be. In the case of a woman screaming for help, that is consent of the governed by the woman, therefore a warrant isn't needed. (karate chop! :))
Wrong acronym. ANFO is ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. I was referring to a bomb threat. And the woman screaming is a common example of an exigent circumstance which would allow Johnny to enter somebody's premises without consent or a warrant. In any case, I'm just pointing out other common examples of where we've quite reasonably abridged the constitutional rights of others.
Oh, I see. I'm not on the up and up when it comes to explosive agents. I guess it depends on who's garage. If it's mine and I called the police because I wasn't sure how it got there and I wanted a professional to get rid of it, well then I verbally gave the police consent to come and remove it. So still no warrant needed because, again, of consent of the governed. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your scenario?
I'm simply making the point that there are numerous examples where we abridge constitutional rights for valid reasons. YOu can't make bomb threats or shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Johnny doesn't have to wait for a search warrant before entering a home if there's an immediate danger going on inside. Some people don't get bail, and nor should they. And some people don't get to own guns. There are countless other examples, some we'd agree with and some we wouldn't. The point, though, is that citing the 2A to shoot down any restriction on who can own what gun and where doesn't really work.
-
I lean libertarian, but Bart's pretty spot on about all of this. He's got it right. My beef isn't so much "Constitutional rights" as it is that most gun legislation are "feel good" reactionary measures meant to say "we're doing something" rather than any specific act to curtail the actual problem. And that's where the Constitution comes in; the "compelling interest" that El Barto mentioned doesn't usually cover "politicians looking to appear useful or curry favor with constituents".
-
^Exactly what Barto and Stadler have said. The Constitution does not really enter into this. And we don't get to call something "unconstitutional" just because we don't like it. And the Constitution is what gives the High Court the sole authority to interpret was is or is not constitutional, so saying "it is unconstitutional because the courts are too activist" is to completely disregard the meaning of the term "constitutional."
-
Well, I disagree, but that's OK. I'm used to being in the minority on issues like this. But I always enjoy the discussion. :tup. But hey, thanks for putting up with my crap.
-
Well, I disagree, but that's OK. I'm used to being in the minority on issues like this. But I always enjoy the discussion. :tup. But hey, thanks for putting up with my crap.
If you don't mind, which part do you disagree with? That there can be reasonable restrictions to fundamental rights? Bosk's point that the Constitution allows the courts to interpret the constitutionality of those restrictions? Simply this particular restriction about background checks? Normally I don't like to play with Libertarians, frankly you guys can be a daftly intransigent lot, but you seem like a pretty reasonable guy so I'm curious where the disconnect is.
-
Just picked up my gun permit from the police station today. I figured with the Minneapolis Riots a month ago, having to board up our store, it seemed like a good move to become proficient in firearms, know how to handle them, and to get registered to be able to buy a pistol.
I’m uneasy about it because it’s something I never pictured myself doing and it is a big deal, as commonplace as it is in America, to have the ability to purchase a firearm—to me at least. I’m sure that feeling will wear off
-
Christ, I've forgotten how to manipulate quotes to make responding to points easier to read. In any event, I'll go point by point.
We disagree on this. Vehemently. Whether I find homosexuality "immoral" or not (I don't, but go with me here), I don't get to tell <insert homosexual person yuo know here> what to do with their partner in the bedroom. Whether I find pornography to be immoral, or the practice of producing porn unethical (I don't, but go with me here), I don't get to tell you what you can watch in your quietest of moments, or whether - with consent (a rights issue, not a moral or ethical one) - you can film your girlfriend in flagrante delicto."
Pornography, same-sex marriage, etc. are all individual cases or examples within a broader question about the government should or can be allowed to do. Where you and I disagree, probably, is that I think that the government definitely should be able to intervene in the lives of the peoples within its boarders, but that it is often best or right not to. And insofar as people elect a government and the will of the government is in some way representational of the will of the people, I'm ok with saying that if a broad swath of a population wants the government to crack down on something—be it gay marriage or sweets, then fine. Though that doesn't mean that I need to be ok with those decisions have there are various forms of recourse an exasperated citizen can take.
I don't know what you mean by "getting people killed"; if someone dies, it's no longer a moral or ethical thing, it's a civil rights thing.
In what universe do the two not coincide in practically every respect? Surely it is the job of the government to make sure we live in some at base moral way. I find it hard to believe that when you strip back all the jobs of government broadly conceived, from as limited as you can get to as expansive, the government is in some way regulating, legislating, and guiding morality.
Also, the "I stand back and let you do your thing while you let me do mine" is the attitude of those who stand by while "government authorities" trample over the so-called "rights" to speech and peaceful assembly, with many citizens dying in the process.
For me, whether it's a lawyer, a politician, or someone else, the "ethical" argument for practical legal positions is, more often than not, the argument of the weak. For me, ANY of the so-called ethical arguments we can talk about boil down also to some infringement on rights, and that's where the DEMAND comes from.
Very Nietzschian. Quite badass.
Again, we're talking about what we can (or should) FORCE someone else to do.
I'm aware. This is the crux of the issue and of all good government. Ultimately though, I think the government should be able to force you to do quite a lot.
"Climate change" is but one of many, obvious, egregious examples of that idea. Climate change is bogus?
No, climate change is not bogus, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with the way the notion of the tragedy of the commons has been interpreted as a something of a manifesto for the benefits of private ownership in the wake of the idea's initial publication.
So who, then, gets to decide? And are you willing to live by that yourself? There's NOTHING you find perfectly acceptable that someone, somewhere (left or right) would deem problematic?
There's the rub. I've always had a soft spot for originalists on the supreme court because I didn't think it made much sense for unelected judges to legislate from the bench, and originalism provided a fine (but often specious) method for maneuvering around the pitfalls of too strong a judiciary. That is to say, I didn't like the idea of the constitution being molded by progressively minded judges (no matter how much I agreed with them) because a hack like Alito could always come along and fuck it up. So I get you. You want to institute a government where its institutions allow for all sides to be heard, all viewpoints to be considered, and there's no tyranny of the majority, etc.
Yet, re that social contract you talked about earlier, that's still there. And there are those who break the social contract: citizens and rulers alike. And when they break that contract egregiously enough, even if not everyone agrees the contract's been broken, then force is necessary. Where is the line? No idea. But it's there.
-
Pornography, same-sex marriage, etc. are all individual cases or examples within a broader question about the government should or can be allowed to do. Where you and I disagree, probably, is that I think that the government definitely should be able to intervene in the lives of the peoples within its boarders, but that it is often best or right not to. And insofar as people elect a government and the will of the government is in some way representational of the will of the people, I'm ok with saying that if a broad swath of a population wants the government to crack down on something—be it gay marriage or sweets, then fine. Though that doesn't mean that I need to be ok with those decisions have there are various forms of recourse an exasperated citizen can take.
We're not MILES apart here; I view it from a different perspective of "will". The government CAN intervene, if the people allow them to, and only to the extent they are allowed to. But I see no moral or ethical reason that they SHOULD intervene, or that they should intervene at the expense of the will of the people.
I don't know what you mean by "getting people killed"; if someone dies, it's no longer a moral or ethical thing, it's a civil rights thing.
In what universe do the two not coincide in practically every respect? Surely it is the job of the government to make sure we live in some at base moral way. I find it hard to believe that when you strip back all the jobs of government broadly conceived, from as limited as you can get to as expansive, the government is in some way regulating, legislating, and guiding morality.
In any universe where the person in question isn't averse to killing. In any universe - such as ours - where there are exceptions to the laws against homicide. There are several ways I can legally and without any consequence effect the homicide of another person. Those distinctions are almost always when we deem the right to life lesser than any other rights that are immediately being compromised.
Look, we're splitting hairs here in a practical sense, but I don't see any need for a government to enforce morals. As I've written before elsewhere, "laws" are not our optimal existance, they are our base existance. They are the limits to what we can DEMAND of others. "Morals" and "ethics" are what we can ASK of others. I understand that there are laws on the books now that seem to "demand" morals, and that's true, but that's not to say I think those are a good thing. I think we need laws to make sure rights are honored and respected, no more.
Also, the "I stand back and let you do your thing while you let me do mine" is the attitude of those who stand by while "government authorities" trample over the so-called "rights" to speech and peaceful assembly, with many citizens dying in the process.
But - and I say this respectfully - you can't change the focus of the discussion midway like that. If RIGHTS are being trampled then there's no standing back. I'm very clearly talking about all of those instances where rights ARE being trampled. It's a mindset; we have to get out of this idea that we can set morals for everyone, and get back into the mindset of "where do my rights and your rights intersect, and how do we deal with that?" And I'm not naive or living under a rock; I recognize that has implications in our every day life. Half of the identity politics platform is undermined when you make that shift; I'm okay with that, because the other half is strengthened, and strengthened more than the undermine.
For me, whether it's a lawyer, a politician, or someone else, the "ethical" argument for practical legal positions is, more often than not, the argument of the weak. For me, ANY of the so-called ethical arguments we can talk about boil down also to some infringement on rights, and that's where the DEMAND comes from.
Very Nietzschian. Quite badass.
I don't know about "badass"; but I do know that increasingly in today's debates the arguments are getting weaker and weaker, and (I do not at all thing coincidentally) the "moral" arguments are getting more and more prominent. Here, in this topic, my junior senator has made gun control his personal meal ticket crusade, and since he doesn't have the data and science behind him - or, to be fair, he knows that what little data and science he does have will fall on deaf ears - he falls back on "our moral obligation" in photo ops with the Sandy Hook (also my state) survivors and their families.
I'm aware. This is the crux of the issue and of all good government. Ultimately though, I think the government should be able to force you to do quite a lot.
Where we disagree.
"Climate change" is but one of many, obvious, egregious examples of that idea. Climate change is bogus?
No, climate change is not bogus, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with the way the notion of the tragedy of the commons has been interpreted as a something of a manifesto for the benefits of private ownership in the wake of the idea's initial publication.
Well, I can understand and even agree with that. I don't view it as a manifesto of "private ownership" per se. I see it as a tool to understand the interaction between public and private ownership, and how human nature left to its own devices is ineffective. (There's also a decent argument in there as to why common sense is utter bullshit too, but I'd be stretching things.)
There's the rub. I've always had a soft spot for originalists on the supreme court because I didn't think it made much sense for unelected judges to legislate from the bench, and originalism provided a fine (but often specious) method for maneuvering around the pitfalls of too strong a judiciary. That is to say, I didn't like the idea of the constitution being molded by progressively minded judges (no matter how much I agreed with them) because a hack like Alito could always come along and fuck it up. So I get you. You want to institute a government where its institutions allow for all sides to be heard, all viewpoints to be considered, and there's no tyranny of the majority, etc.
Yet, re that social contract you talked about earlier, that's still there. And there are those who break the social contract: citizens and rulers alike. And when they break that contract egregiously enough, even if not everyone agrees the contract's been broken, then force is necessary. Where is the line? No idea. But it's there.
Sure is, don't disagree. But you really hit the nail on the head. Not only do I want to minimize the "tyranny of the majority", I don't trust it, and I don't have faith in it. I fear it, actually. There's no justification in numbers, and that has been proven over and over and over and over. Doubly insidious when we pull in meaningless sops like "we're on the right side of history!" At that point, we're only steps away from being told we have a "moral obligation" and we're back where we started 300 words or so ago. I want us to be great humans. I want us to be compassionate, to be kind, and to, as i like to put it, tend our own garden. I just don't want government, which can so easily fall into the hands of people like Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, to be the arbiter of that.
-
Without creating a giant quote, Stadler I agree with everything you just said.
-
One thing I will say, the folks who are choosing now to become gun owners picked a bad time. Researching and shopping I watched all of the parts disappear over a period of two weeks. I've done alright with my purchase, but it took a great deal of effort. It's going to take quite a while for inventories to build back up. And if you do find the weapon you want, good luck finding ammo for it. Something I'd certainly suggest is that if you're trying to decide on .40 or 9mm, look at ammo inventories first. You're going to want to practice, and that's going to be pretty tough right now.
-
I think I will buy a shotgun when I get a weapon. My eye sight isn't very good so I need to be able to hit the broad side of a Barn :lol
Any recommendations?
-
Maybe a bigger barn? ;D
-
I think I will buy a shotgun when I get a weapon. My eye sight isn't very good so I need to be able to hit the broad side of a Barn :lol
Any recommendations?
Yeah. Get a big scary dog, instead.
-
Maybe a bigger barn? ;D
ha ha :censored :biggrin:
I think I will buy a shotgun when I get a weapon. My eye sight isn't very good so I need to be able to hit the broad side of a Barn :lol
Any recommendations?
Yeah. Get a big scary dog, instead.
I would, but the city I live in doesn't like dogs very much. They like to give out citations as if they were sticks of gum.
However, if it puts you at ease, I have gone target practicing plenty with friends (shotguns, hand guns, rifles...) But I need a powerful scope. I just don't see well enough to legally drive. I'm not so worried about hitting something or someone I shouldn't, but more worried about missing the target because I don't want to need a scope in a potentially scary situation. And I figured a shotgun would solve that for me. My sight isn't so bad that I would accidentally shoot people I know or police.
-
WTF?
Guns yes
Dogs no
:lol
-
Something I'd certainly suggest is that if you're trying to decide on .40 or 9mm, look at ammo inventories first. You're going to want to practice, and that's going to be pretty tough right now.
Yep. We are supposed to have our yearly training exercise for Church Security mid August and I really don't want to do it because it's usually a 1000 round day. Ammo is not supplied...you bring your own. That's a tough pill to swallow right now because even when ammo is delivered to stores it's gone within a couple hours. Plus, it's F'n expensive to restock. I shot 200 rounds about three weeks ago when I went out to my Grandfather's house. That's the least I've shot in a setting like that in ages but I just didn't want to burn ammo.
-
WTF?
Guns yes
Dogs no
:lol
Yeah, basically. It's not that we can't have dogs, its just the city finds anyway possible to give out citations regarding dogs. And they aren't small either $1000 bucks and a misdemeanor on your record! So, until I move out to the country, no dogs.
-
Something I'd certainly suggest is that if you're trying to decide on .40 or 9mm, look at ammo inventories first. You're going to want to practice, and that's going to be pretty tough right now.
Yep. We are supposed to have our yearly training exercise for Church Security mid August and I really don't want to do it because it's usually a 1000 round day. Ammo is not supplied...you bring your own. That's a tough pill to swallow right now because even when ammo is delivered to stores it's gone within a couple hours. Plus, it's F'n expensive to restock. I shot 200 rounds about three weeks ago when I went out to my Grandfather's house. That's the least I've shot in a setting like that in ages but I just didn't want to burn ammo.
I'm actually really surprised a company hasn't yet capitalized on the expense of target/range shooting. While not 100% identical, I feel like someone could engineer a CO2 pistol with realistic blow back that'd fired larger caliber lead pellets for the sake of practicing. The 12 gram cartridges wouldn't be enough, you'd have to run a line to a larger tank, but so what. You could have lines plumbed to each booth at a range and just feed off a mother tank. It'd be there to specifically to work on form and practicing without it costing people an arm and a leg. It'd also be a lot quieter.
I could fire 1000 pellet rounds out of my break barrel rifles for like $11. I'm surprised that hasn't been adapted to a higher caliber for more serious shooters.
It'd be specifically to work on form and practicing without it costing people an arm and a leg. It'd also be a lot quieter.
-
Something I'd certainly suggest is that if you're trying to decide on .40 or 9mm, look at ammo inventories first. You're going to want to practice, and that's going to be pretty tough right now.
Yep. We are supposed to have our yearly training exercise for Church Security mid August and I really don't want to do it because it's usually a 1000 round day. Ammo is not supplied...you bring your own. That's a tough pill to swallow right now because even when ammo is delivered to stores it's gone within a couple hours. Plus, it's F'n expensive to restock. I shot 200 rounds about three weeks ago when I went out to my Grandfather's house. That's the least I've shot in a setting like that in ages but I just didn't want to burn ammo.
I'm actually really surprised a company hasn't yet capitalized on the expense of target/range shooting. While not 100% identical, I feel like someone could engineer a CO2 pistol with realistic blow back that'd fired larger caliber lead pellets for the sake of practicing. The 12 gram cartridges wouldn't be enough, you'd have to run a line to a larger tank, but so what. You could have lines plumbed to each booth at a range and just feed off a mother tank. It'd be there to specifically to work on form and practicing without it costing people an arm and a leg. It'd also be a lot quieter.
I could fire 1000 pellet rounds out of my break barrel rifles for like $11. I'm surprised that hasn't been adapted to a higher caliber for more serious shooters.
It'd be specifically to work on form and practicing without it costing people an arm and a leg. It'd also be a lot quieter.
All weapons fire differently, and more importantly, all ammunition fires differently. You really need to train with the weapon, and ideally the ammunition you plan on using. Particularly when it comes to form, and that's what you'd be losing switching to CO2.
-
Just curious....what are the costs of gun ownership in general?
-
Just curious....what are the costs of gun ownership in general?
I paid $379 for my Sig (they're closer to 5 bills now). Under normal circumstances 50 9mm rounds cost about $11. If you live in a state with no public shooting, like Texas, a trip to the range will set you back $15-20/trip, or $350/yr. So in my case just going to get in some practice during my lunch break sets me back about $60+tax. Adding a rifle into the mix, 5.56/.223 ammo runs about 40¢/bang, so basically double your ammo cost. If you want to carry, the license is $140 initially (4 years) and another 50-100 for the class.
edit:Oh yeah, new shooter, one-time purchases. Drop $15-20 on some ear protection. Ranges will require eye protection, too, but that's only a couple of bucks. You'll want something to shoot at, and despite being cheap, targets are stupidly over priced (they're paper, FFS). A case or a holster to carry your weapon. Prices will vary with the weapon (I probably paid $30 for my cheap leather holster). A case for your AR will certainly be more expensive. Probably quite a few other one-time purchases that I'm overlooking.
-
Guns?
Yay or nay? I don't know, I guess it depends. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with a homeowner having a shotgun in the closet just in case of some kind of crazy home invasion or whatever other madness can come your way. Again, it depends. I live in a good neighborhood, but we do have break-ins from time to time and I've got an elderly mother and my wife living with me. If I didn't have a record, I would probably have a shotgun. But since I have a record, I don't have a shotgun. But my mother does :biggrin: And it just happens to live in my bedroom closet.
A few years ago this would have never happened, but there was a home invasion about a mile from where I live about 2 or 3 years ago where the homeowner's wife was raped, tortured and almost killed, while the two suspects held them at gunpoint for a day and a half. That was enough to convince my mother we should have something in the house to defend ourselves as a last resort. I'm still conflicted about it, but not conflicted enough to get rid of it. I hate to be forced into a position of using it, but if it came down to a choice between my wife or mother being hurt (or worse) or me shooting the attacker I won't hesitate.
That is terrible. Were the suspects caught?
Yes, and there was even a brief shoot-out with the police, in the next town over from me. But they got them. I'm pretty sure their parole officers aren't even born yet. :police:
-
Barry, I am truly sorry for laughing at anything connected with such a horrific experience, but...
I'm pretty sure their parole officers aren't even born yet. :police:
:rollin
-
Forgot to share my experience here. I got my pistol safety cert the other day and got all my paperwork into the police last week. Should hopefully hear back in 8-10 weeks on whether or not I passed my federal background check (idk why I wouldn't).
The whole day was a very weird/different experience. First off, the course was kind of a joke. We learned a lot, but it's designed so literally no one fails. The test was 25 multiple choice questions and 25 T/F questions. We went through a text book, and question by question the instructor would say "Okay, this next bit is going to be on the exam" and then he'd read the excerpt that was worded exactly the same as the question on the exam. The only way to not pass would have been to piss the guy off to the point he would throw you out of the class.
The gun shop itself gave me a really weird vibe. I felt like I didn't fit in, and definitely got a weird look or two when I mentioned where I worked. I know the typical 2A crowd and I don't agree on much, but it felt like there was legit tension in the room. The building was filled with pictures of Trump with political propaganda, and virtue signalling posters were hung anywhere there was wall space. There were two huge posters as soon as you walked in. The first one said "If you can read this sign, thank a teacher. Since you're reading it in English, thank a soldier" ::). The other was a giant sign that said "If we suspect you are on and/or use marijuana, you will be asked to leave". Just seemed a little strange that they didn't call out any other intoxicant or medication that could legitimately incapacitate you, especially when this particular shop didn't even have a range.
For the live fire (different shop with a range), we used a Ruger Mark II. It was pretty easy to shoot from 35'. Below are the 15 shots I took.
(https://i.imgur.com/SkE86vB.jpg)
-
Forgot to share my experience here. I got my pistol safety cert the other day and got all my paperwork into the police last week. Should hopefully hear back in 8-10 weeks on whether or not I passed my federal background check (idk why I wouldn't).
The whole day was a very weird/different experience. First off, the course was kind of a joke. We learned a lot, but it's designed so literally no one fails. The test was 25 multiple choice questions and 25 T/F questions. We went through a text book, and question by question the instructor would say "Okay, this next bit is going to be on the exam" and then he'd read the excerpt that was worded exactly the same as the question on the exam. The only way to not pass would have been to piss the guy off to the point he would throw you out of the class.
The gun shop itself gave me a really weird vibe. I felt like I didn't fit in, and definitely got a weird look or two when I mentioned where I worked. I know the typical 2A crowd and I don't agree on much, but it felt like there was legit tension in the room. The building was filled with pictures of Trump with political propaganda, and virtue signalling posters were hung anywhere there was wall space. There were two huge posters as soon as you walked in. The first one said "If you can read this sign, thank a teacher. Since you're reading it in English, thank a soldier" ::). The other was a giant sign that said "If we suspect you are on and/or use marijuana, you will be asked to leave". Just seemed a little strange that they didn't call out any other intoxicant or medication that could legitimately incapacitate you, especially when this particular shop didn't even have a range.
For the live fire (different shop with a range), we used a Ruger Mark II. It was pretty easy to shoot from 35'. Below are the 15 shots I took.
[[SNIP]]
Gun ranges always have a weird vibe for me. They always feel like the next meeting of the National Freedom Coalition is fixing to come to order. Really don't like them much at all. I did find an outdoor range in Ft Worth that'll let me shoot the cheap Rooskie ammo I've got so I'll be checking them out pretty soon. Kind of hopeful that an outdoor range will have a different vibe.
I was looking into getting my Texas CCW just yesterday. (I've been carrying to and from work anyway.) I assumed that it would be just like the defensive driving test, which nobody ever fails, and you pretty much described it to a T. Down here you can even take them online now. And giving you a .22LR to take the test with was a friendly gesture. :lol If we're being honest they should probably make you take it with a Taurus Judge or Dirty Harry's gun.
Out of curiosity, was the format anything like Texas's?
Stage 1: Twenty shots (20) will be fired from 3 yards.
A. Five (5) shots fired in a “One Shot Exercise” 2 seconds allowed for each shot.
B. Ten shots (10) fired in a “Two Shot Exercise” 3 seconds allowed for each two shot sequence.
C. Five (5) shots fired in 10 seconds
Stage 2: Twenty shots (20) will be fired from 7 yards – fired 5 stages.
A. Five (5) shots will be fired in 10 seconds
B. Five (5) shots will be fired in 2 stages:
1. Two (2) shots will be fired in 4 seconds
2. Three (3) shots will be fired in 6 seconds
C. Five (5) shots fired in a “One Shot Exercise” 3 seconds allowed for each shot.
D. Five (5) shots fired in 15 seconds.
Stage 3: Ten shots (10) fired from 15 yards – fired in two 5-shot strings.
A. Five (5) shots fired in two stages:
1. Two (2) shots fired in 6 seconds.
2. Three (3) shots fired in 9 seconds.
B. Five (5) shots fired in 15 seconds.
Or was it "just hit the target 15 times and we're good?"
-
So there's an actual shooting test in Texas to get the CCW, wow. Pretty much expected that for Connecticut, but I was thinking Texas would be a little looser.
PA, you walk into the courthouse, turn in you application, pay $10 bucks and then pick it up, lol. And for the record, I do think the shooting test is a good idea, its just interesting to see what different states require.
Now I've been to the range many times, have shot hundreds of rounds getting competent with the gun, but I can guarantee that there's many people in my state that get a Gun and the CCW and never even fire it once, until a mishap happens.
-
Out of curiosity, was the format anything like Texas's?
Stage 1: Twenty shots (20) will be fired from 3 yards.
A. Five (5) shots fired in a “One Shot Exercise” 2 seconds allowed for each shot.
B. Ten shots (10) fired in a “Two Shot Exercise” 3 seconds allowed for each two shot sequence.
C. Five (5) shots fired in 10 seconds
Stage 2: Twenty shots (20) will be fired from 7 yards – fired 5 stages.
A. Five (5) shots will be fired in 10 seconds
B. Five (5) shots will be fired in 2 stages:
1. Two (2) shots will be fired in 4 seconds
2. Three (3) shots will be fired in 6 seconds
C. Five (5) shots fired in a “One Shot Exercise” 3 seconds allowed for each shot.
D. Five (5) shots fired in 15 seconds.
Stage 3: Ten shots (10) fired from 15 yards – fired in two 5-shot strings.
A. Five (5) shots fired in two stages:
1. Two (2) shots fired in 6 seconds.
2. Three (3) shots fired in 9 seconds.
B. Five (5) shots fired in 15 seconds.
Or was it "just hit the target 15 times and we're good?"
Nothing like that at all. We had 90 minutes for 12 people to get in and out of their lane. The instructor basically laid down 5 rounds, had you load them into the magazine and them into the gun, and then take your 5 shots at your pace. This was then repeated two more times totaling 15. The pace was at your discretion, and the distance was fixed.
And giving you a .22LR to take the test with was a friendly gesture. :lol If we're being honest they should probably make you take it with a Taurus Judge or Dirty Harry's gun.
I swear I have a pellet pistol with more recoil than the gun I used in the live fire :lol. It had a red dot site on it too. It was almost like cheating.
-
Texas is halfway thorough. The problem is that it takes numerous steps, and they're all separate. You've got to apply, take a class with a test, take a proficiency test, get yourself fingerprinted, and then send it all in, with fees at each step. The people who train you aren't allowed to fingerprint you. The people who fingerprint you aren't allowed to submit your application. I'd have already done it if it weren't so convoluted. The only overlap is that the class you take will generally be held at a range, so they can test you afterward, but they still charge for lane fees, adding another $20 or so onto the price tag. When it's all said and done you're probably out $150.
The test isn't hard. From what I gather most people have already passed before they move back to 15 yards. It is timed, though. Apparently the biggest risk to failing is cheap ammo causing malfunctions that count against your score. Still, it's better than a lot of states. "You see that target over there? Great. Congratulations, you've passed."
-
Got a little further with my CC permit today. I was officially issued my "temporary permit" which I submitted the paperwork for on 9/8/2020. Now I have to get the actual permit at the state police HQ, but because of Covid restrictions and 500% greater demand for permits than the annual average, you have to schedule by appointment. This you can't do until you have your temp permit in hand, and the earliest date I could get was 7/24.
Such a pain in the dick. I scheduled my initial safety training course last June. By the time all is said and done, the process is going to take over a year. It's supposed to typically take 8-10 weeks.
-
Wow Chino, that sounds like a pain in the ass.
-
Got a little further with my CC permit today. I was officially issued my "temporary permit" which I submitted the paperwork for on 9/8/2020. Now I have to get the actual permit at the state police HQ, but because of Covid restrictions and 500% greater demand for permits than the annual average, you have to schedule by appointment. This you can't do until you have your temp permit in hand, and the earliest date I could get was 7/24.
Such a pain in the dick. I scheduled my initial safety training course last June. By the time all is said and done, the process is going to take over a year. It's supposed to typically take 8-10 weeks.
Have you cooled down, yet? :)
Sounds like the cooldown period is enough to make you hot!
-
Got a little further with my CC permit today. I was officially issued my "temporary permit" which I submitted the paperwork for on 9/8/2020. Now I have to get the actual permit at the state police HQ, but because of Covid restrictions and 500% greater demand for permits than the annual average, you have to schedule by appointment. This you can't do until you have your temp permit in hand, and the earliest date I could get was 7/24.
Such a pain in the dick. I scheduled my initial safety training course last June. By the time all is said and done, the process is going to take over a year. It's supposed to typically take 8-10 weeks.
Ooof. That really sucks.
Was just thinking of the process I went through and it was much simpler. I took extra classes, more than you were required....but it still was a rather quick process. Come to think about it, it's been 14 years now I've had mine. Wow.
Also, Missouri has a ridiculous law now that literally anyone can conceal carry....without a permit. You can't be a felon and have to be over 21. I still maintain my permit status for the reciprocity advantages it brings with other states who recognize Missouri's conceal carry permit....but yeah, there's no telling how many people are carrying in Missouri. Unless they're one of the douche bag open carry people who like to show off.
-
Re: Guns: Yay or nay?
No.
Just No.
-
Re: Guns: Yay or nay?
No.
Just No.
Exactly.
I thought about some large reply, but this covers it.
-
Also, Missouri has a ridiculous law now that literally anyone can conceal carry....without a permit. You can't be a felon and have to be over 21. I still maintain my permit status for the reciprocity advantages it brings with other states who recognize Missouri's conceal carry permit....but yeah, there's no telling how many people are carrying in Missouri. Unless they're one of the douche bag open carry people who like to show off.
Yikes, that's like the wild west :eek I know in Georgia where my son lives you can open carry if you have a permit for the gun, no special permit required to open carry and believe me when I tell you, the natives of the area take full advantage of that law. We went to eat at Texas Roadhouse and I swear just about every dude in that joint was packing heat.
I bought a pellet rifle recently because it looks a lot like a real .22 - it doesn't have the bright orange plastic piece on the muzzle like a lot of pellet and bb guns. It's CO2 powered I forget the size the pellets I'm using but they get buried pretty deep in the maple tree I've been shooting at in my yard, so I'm pretty sure it wouldn't feel very good getting hit my a couple of these pellets especially on exposed skin, but I didn't get it to shoot anybody, I got it because it was a cheap, practically non-lethal and perfectly legal thing for me to have that I could conceivably defend my mother and wife with if we ever had intruders. I live in a nice, middle class neighborhood in a good part of town, but just a couple of miles from here there have been some home invasions over the last few years. So I wanted something that looks like an actual rifle that fires real .22-caliber bullets and the sales guy from the web site gave me 3 options, two pump-style rifles that are single shot or this semi-automatic CO2 model that can old about 15 to 18 pellets at a time and you can empty it as fast as you can pull the trigger. That was the option for me :) I hope it will never come to that, but you never know. I have a machete and a taser too. But the taser is really only good for someone who is within 10 or 15 feet at the most. Kind of an "if all else fails" kind of option.
-
Also, Missouri has a ridiculous law now that literally anyone can conceal carry....without a permit. You can't be a felon and have to be over 21. I still maintain my permit status for the reciprocity advantages it brings with other states who recognize Missouri's conceal carry permit....but yeah, there's no telling how many people are carrying in Missouri. Unless they're one of the douche bag open carry people who like to show off.
Yikes, that's like the wild west :eek I know in Georgia where my son lives you can open carry if you have a permit for the gun, no special permit required to open carry and believe me when I tell you, the natives of the area take full advantage of that law. We went to eat at Texas Roadhouse and I swear just about every dude in that joint was packing heat.
I bought a pellet rifle recently because it looks a lot like a real .22 - it doesn't have the bright orange plastic piece on the muzzle like a lot of pellet and bb guns. It's CO2 powered I forget the size the pellets I'm using but they get buried pretty deep in the maple tree I've been shooting at in my yard, so I'm pretty sure it wouldn't feel very good getting hit my a couple of these pellets especially on exposed skin, but I didn't get it to shoot anybody, I got it because it was a cheap, practically non-lethal and perfectly legal thing for me to have that I could conceivably defend my mother and wife with if we ever had intruders. I live in a nice, middle class neighborhood in a good part of town, but just a couple of miles from here there have been some home invasions over the last few years. So I wanted something that looks like an actual rifle that fires real .22-caliber bullets and the sales guy from the web site gave me 3 options, two pump-style rifles that are single shot or this semi-automatic CO2 model that can old about 15 to 18 pellets at a time and you can empty it as fast as you can pull the trigger. That was the option for me :) I hope it will never come to that, but you never know. I have a machete and a taser too. But the taser is really only good for someone who is within 10 or 15 feet at the most. Kind of an "if all else fails" kind of option.
Every two or three years I break out the Sean Taylor story, and it seems that it's that time again. Taylor was a safety for the Redskins. When the Skins were playing an away game some knucklehead kids decided it'd be a great time to burglarize his home since he's obviously out of town. Turns out he was injured, so he stayed home shacked up with his baby-mama. He hears the ruckus and runs out to confront them with a machete, at which point one of the kids panics and shoots him in the leg. He died the next morning from massive blood loss. The thing is, none of these idiots every had any intention of shooting anybody. If he'd just yelled GTFO they probably would have run off screaming. They were caught completely by surprise by a ginormous black guy running at them with a machete. Three ran and one started shooting wildly.
I bust out this story to point out to people that unless you have the means of ending a gunfight, you shouldn't attend one. Often times people escalate the situation well beyond their ability to prevail. Sean Taylor took a knife to a gunfight that he unwittingly instigated. If you point that pellet rifle at somebody, you will start a gunfight, and you won't win it.
My question is, why don't you just buy a shotgun? Shotguns are generally not covered by other statutes regarding gun ownership. Even teenagers can buy them. They're affordable, highly effective, and something damn near anybody can own and shoot.
Also, as much for curiosity as anything else, try putting a T-shirt in front of an old piece of leather furniture, or a jacket or something, and shooting that. You might very well find that the pellet doesn't penetrate the leather, which is somewhat analogous to human skin. Trees are hard and don't dissipate energy. Fabric and leather absorb quite a bit of energy.
-
Also, Missouri has a ridiculous law now that literally anyone can conceal carry....without a permit. You can't be a felon and have to be over 21. I still maintain my permit status for the reciprocity advantages it brings with other states who recognize Missouri's conceal carry permit....but yeah, there's no telling how many people are carrying in Missouri. Unless they're one of the douche bag open carry people who like to show off.
Yikes, that's like the wild west :eek I know in Georgia where my son lives you can open carry if you have a permit for the gun, no special permit required to open carry and believe me when I tell you, the natives of the area take full advantage of that law. We went to eat at Texas Roadhouse and I swear just about every dude in that joint was packing heat.
I think open carry folks are the type of 'gun rights' people that just like to start crap. I conceal carry out of what I perceive as an obligation and duty as a husband and father to always be prepared to protect my family. That's it. It's not out of bravado or to be cool. Carrying and even owning a weapon opens a whole realm of responsibility and danger that isn't lost on me. But to openly carry a gun in this day and age is just silly and it's inviting conflict. Plus, it puts a massive target on you if there happens to be something go down.....like...take out the guy with the gun first type thing.
-
Also, Missouri has a ridiculous law now that literally anyone can conceal carry....without a permit. You can't be a felon and have to be over 21. I still maintain my permit status for the reciprocity advantages it brings with other states who recognize Missouri's conceal carry permit....but yeah, there's no telling how many people are carrying in Missouri. Unless they're one of the douche bag open carry people who like to show off.
Yikes, that's like the wild west :eek I know in Georgia where my son lives you can open carry if you have a permit for the gun, no special permit required to open carry and believe me when I tell you, the natives of the area take full advantage of that law. We went to eat at Texas Roadhouse and I swear just about every dude in that joint was packing heat.
I think open carry folks are the type of 'gun rights' people that just like to start crap. I conceal carry out of what I perceive as an obligation and duty as a husband and father to always be prepared to protect my family. That's it. It's not out of bravado or to be cool. Carrying and even owning a weapon opens a whole realm of responsibility and danger that isn't lost on me. But to openly carry a gun in this day and age is just silly and it's inviting conflict. Plus, it puts a massive target on you if there happens to be something go down.....like...take out the guy with the gun first type thing.
One thing I will add about it is that it no longer matters if people can "see" your weapon and freak out about it. There's no longer a necessary requirement to keep your weapon concealed, like their used to be. I agree with you that people who do it are silly, but from a legal standpoint it actually isn't such a bad thing at a practical level. In my case it's not uncommon to see the but of my gun sticking slightly out of my pocket when I'm carrying. No longer an issue.
-
Also, Missouri has a ridiculous law now that literally anyone can conceal carry....without a permit. You can't be a felon and have to be over 21. I still maintain my permit status for the reciprocity advantages it brings with other states who recognize Missouri's conceal carry permit....but yeah, there's no telling how many people are carrying in Missouri. Unless they're one of the douche bag open carry people who like to show off.
Yikes, that's like the wild west :eek I know in Georgia where my son lives you can open carry if you have a permit for the gun, no special permit required to open carry and believe me when I tell you, the natives of the area take full advantage of that law. We went to eat at Texas Roadhouse and I swear just about every dude in that joint was packing heat.
I bought a pellet rifle recently because it looks a lot like a real .22 - it doesn't have the bright orange plastic piece on the muzzle like a lot of pellet and bb guns. It's CO2 powered I forget the size the pellets I'm using but they get buried pretty deep in the maple tree I've been shooting at in my yard, so I'm pretty sure it wouldn't feel very good getting hit my a couple of these pellets especially on exposed skin, but I didn't get it to shoot anybody, I got it because it was a cheap, practically non-lethal and perfectly legal thing for me to have that I could conceivably defend my mother and wife with if we ever had intruders. I live in a nice, middle class neighborhood in a good part of town, but just a couple of miles from here there have been some home invasions over the last few years. So I wanted something that looks like an actual rifle that fires real .22-caliber bullets and the sales guy from the web site gave me 3 options, two pump-style rifles that are single shot or this semi-automatic CO2 model that can old about 15 to 18 pellets at a time and you can empty it as fast as you can pull the trigger. That was the option for me :) I hope it will never come to that, but you never know. I have a machete and a taser too. But the taser is really only good for someone who is within 10 or 15 feet at the most. Kind of an "if all else fails" kind of option.
My question is, why don't you just buy a shotgun?
I'm a felon, can't buy a shotgun and my wife made me get rid of my mother's shotgun last year after some kid down the street blew his brother's head off with one. We have kids around the house quite a bit. It was a battle I didn't want to fight at the time so I didn't.
I think you might be misinterpreting my intention with the pellet gun - it looks like a .22 and if someone sees it, especially at night, they might think twice about what they're doing. I know I'm not gonna kill anyone with it, but it's what I'm legally allowed to have on the property and in my possession, so it's what I've got.
As for your knife story, I don't know what makes you think I'd be stupid enough to bring a knife to a gunfight but whatever. The machete, baseball bat, taser and pellet gun are all last resort things like I said. Last resort. I'm pushing 60 and I ain't looking to physically throw down with any intruders. We have a panic room. My only goal is to get my wife and mother into the panic room. Solid metal core door, 4" thick by 8" deep deadbolt into a metal frame. You'd need a grenade to get through it. And we have a silent alarm that gets set every night.
I'm not really against a homeowner having a gun but my wife is staunchly anti-gun so I got rid of the shotgun to keep the peace. Happy wife, happy life.
-
Also, Missouri has a ridiculous law now that literally anyone can conceal carry....without a permit. You can't be a felon and have to be over 21. I still maintain my permit status for the reciprocity advantages it brings with other states who recognize Missouri's conceal carry permit....but yeah, there's no telling how many people are carrying in Missouri. Unless they're one of the douche bag open carry people who like to show off.
Yikes, that's like the wild west :eek I know in Georgia where my son lives you can open carry if you have a permit for the gun, no special permit required to open carry and believe me when I tell you, the natives of the area take full advantage of that law. We went to eat at Texas Roadhouse and I swear just about every dude in that joint was packing heat.
I bought a pellet rifle recently because it looks a lot like a real .22 - it doesn't have the bright orange plastic piece on the muzzle like a lot of pellet and bb guns. It's CO2 powered I forget the size the pellets I'm using but they get buried pretty deep in the maple tree I've been shooting at in my yard, so I'm pretty sure it wouldn't feel very good getting hit my a couple of these pellets especially on exposed skin, but I didn't get it to shoot anybody, I got it because it was a cheap, practically non-lethal and perfectly legal thing for me to have that I could conceivably defend my mother and wife with if we ever had intruders. I live in a nice, middle class neighborhood in a good part of town, but just a couple of miles from here there have been some home invasions over the last few years. So I wanted something that looks like an actual rifle that fires real .22-caliber bullets and the sales guy from the web site gave me 3 options, two pump-style rifles that are single shot or this semi-automatic CO2 model that can old about 15 to 18 pellets at a time and you can empty it as fast as you can pull the trigger. That was the option for me :) I hope it will never come to that, but you never know. I have a machete and a taser too. But the taser is really only good for someone who is within 10 or 15 feet at the most. Kind of an "if all else fails" kind of option.
My question is, why don't you just buy a shotgun?
I'm a felon, can't buy a shotgun and my wife made me get rid of my mother's shotgun last year after some kid down the street blew his brother's head off with one. We have kids around the house quite a bit. It was a battle I didn't want to fight at the time so I didn't.
I think you might be misinterpreting my intention with the pellet gun - it looks like a .22 and if someone sees it, especially at night, they might think twice about what they're doing. I know I'm not gonna kill anyone with it, but it's what I'm legally allowed to have on the property and in my possession, so it's what I've got.
As for your knife story, I don't know what makes you think I'd be stupid enough to bring a knife to a gunfight but whatever. The machete, baseball bat, taser and pellet gun are all last resort things like I said. Last resort. I'm pushing 60 and I ain't looking to physically throw down with any intruders. We have a panic room. My only goal is to get my wife and mother into the panic room. Solid metal core door, 4" thick by 8" deep deadbolt into a metal frame. You'd need a grenade to get through it. And we have a silent alarm that gets set every night.
I'm not really against a homeowner having a gun but my wife is staunchly anti-gun so I got rid of the shotgun to keep the peace. Happy wife, happy life.
I think you may have missed my point. I don't think you're stupid enough to bring a knife to a gunfight. My point was that often times people inadvertently start a gunfight that might not have otherwise occurred. Brandishing a pellet gun is a pretty good example of just that thing.
-
Agreed, but I would never do that. My hope is that just the sight of it would scare off an intruder who might mistake it for a .22
When I get home later I'll post a picture of it. It looks like a rifle, not a pellet gun. But in a situation where there were some kind of invaders in my house, EVERYTHING I do would be in service of two things 1. Retreating to the panic room and 2. making sure my wife and mother get there as well. Honestly, though, after we had the panic room built and the new alarm system installed I became a lot more confident that none of this would ever happen anyway. You can't get in my house without tripping the alarm. Even if thy shut the power off, the generator kicks on automatically and even if they somehow managed to fuck up the generator it still wouldn't matter because the entire alarm system runs off a perpetually charging battery system and it links up to the police station with a battery-operated cellular phone.
The LAST thing I am looking to do is interact in any way with intruders. The 40-year-old version of me would never have given up that shotgun, the 57 year old version, though? I'm too fucking old to be paying alimony :rollin
-
USA : We need 450 guns to protect our home. Might even get more.
UK : Burglar alarms.
-
The LAST thing I am looking to do is interact in any way with intruders. The 40-year-old version of me would never have given up that shotgun, the 57 year old version, though? I'm too fucking old to be paying alimony :rollin
That made me chuckle. :)
-
With armed carjackings up 300% over 2019 and no end in sight, I have a feeling it’s going to be incredibly difficult to get a conceal and carry in Minnesota, at least the wait time, hopefully not as bad as Chino’s wait time. I know the classes are booked out until May/June. I’ve got my permit to buy a handgun, I just haven’t gone out and actually purchased one
-
FINALLY got my CC permit after a 14 month exercise in patience. Now time to shop :)
-
FINALLY got my CC permit after a 14 month exercise in patience. Now time to shop :)
Have fun....there are so many options when it comes to a Carry Weapon. Lot's of great guns. I recently switched my every day carry gun to the SIG P365 Nitrom Micro Compact. I'm really liking it. It's comfortable and with the double stack technology in the magazine even with the 10 rd Magazine you can have 10+1 in a micro carry. I bought the model with the Manual Safety. But they come standard with the Tritium Night Sights as well.
https://www.sigsauer.com/p365-nitron-micro-compact.html
Also, when it comes to Conceal Holsters I've purchased multiple holsters from Muddy River Tactical
https://muddyrivertactical.com/
The IWB Buffalo Hide leather holsters are comfortable and I've also purchased the Form fitting IWB Kydex holsters for each of my hand guns.
Anyway....it can be a rabbit hole once you start shopping and looking. I'm no pro by any means but have been conceal carrying for 14 years now....so, if you have any questions PM me.
-
I just picked up my new-old Sig yesterday. Unlike Gary, I'm a DA/SA kind of guy, so I went with the P239 SAS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_P239
Mine came pre-equipped with a Crimson Trace laser sight, and while many people dislike them for tactical purposes, as a training aid it's an absolute godsend.
https://www.crimsontrace.com/products/laser-sights/lasergrips/lg-439-lasergrips-for-sig-sauer-p239/01-1530.html
In the 20 hours I've owned the thing I've probably picked it up, aimed, and dry fired it 75 times, and I've already become far steadier through the process, as demonstrated by the laser. Moreover, with my old-man eyes, I'm having a pretty tough time focusing on the front sight, so the laser resolves that issue, as well.
-
I decided to check out the local store after work to chat with the people working there and ask some questions. I ended up walking out with some stuff.
(https://i.imgur.com/GHoGAxK.jpg)
Smith & Wesson Model 19. I picked up 150 rounds of .38 special as well and hope to hit the range next week. It's capable of shooting .357, but the store was out. Plus it's probably best I start with something that has a bit less pop.
I also grabbed a cleaning kit and some pretty sweet noise cancelling muffs that can let voice through while blocking gunfire I guess.
-
Nice! You know, I own many guns but no revolvers. Now I’m jealous.
-
Very nice Chino. That's a sweet piece of hardware.
-
Thanks dudes. When it comes to the range, what's some basic etiquette to keep in mind that I might not be thinking of?
-
I'm pretty sure my dad has one of those. Both that S&W and Bart's Sig Sauer are nice pieces.
Others are probably more up to date on etiquette, and it differs from place to place, but for me, I try to remember:
- Each place has their own rules; it's a dick move to go in and think you own the place because "we do it this way at [other place]";
- Know the firing line, be aware when the range is hot or cold (be aware of your surroundings) and make your intention clear (don't EVER point your weapon anywhere but down range, and don't put your finger on the trigger until ready to actually shoot).
- Clear your brass
- Go slow and take your time; it's not a race, and accidents happen in haste.
-
Thanks dudes. When it comes to the range, what's some basic etiquette to keep in mind that I might not be thinking of?
Here's everything that comes to mind
1. Leave the gun in the case until you get to the shooting podium
2. When not firing, keep it pointed down range with the revolver part open (that way the range officer knows its clear and safe)
3. Never take the gun between lanes (if shooting with someone else)
4. Sweep up your bullets when done
5. The ear muffs you got are great but I actually wear the tiny plugs underneath the earmuffs for extra protection (but that's up to you)
6. Besides getting range target paper, you have to get a cardboard backing as well. you tape the paper to that.
-
Thanks dudes. When it comes to the range, what's some basic etiquette to keep in mind that I might not be thinking of?
RSO will keep an eye on you anyway, but courtesy would probably be to tell him it's your first time there. And if it's a good range they'll be quite friendly and helpful. I went today to test out my new Sig and after the first mag the RSO came over and asked me, very politely, to be more mindful of where the weapon is when I rack the slide. I didn't notice but he said I was holding it a little too far to the left (I was on the furthest right lane). Not judgmental but just a friendly "try to be mindful" kind of thing. As Stadler says, it's real easy to get distracted around there and overlook something obvious.
And don't be afraid to ask the guy for help if there's something you're not up on. I had him fire a mag through my Sig just to see if the sights were off or if it was just me. It was just me. :sadpanda:
Edit: Also what Phoenix said: 5. The ear muffs you got are great but I actually wear the tiny plugs underneath the earmuffs for extra protection (but that's up to you)
People will be shooting big-ass guns, and they're a lot louder than you think.
-
I put 150 rounds (38 special) through my new model-19 after work today. I was really impressed with the power. Two-handed was no problem, single handed was a bit tough. I can't wait to try 357s in there, though I almost feel like that's going to be too much.
I started at 25' and did well. I put thousands of rounds through co2 pellet pistols in my youth, so I'm accustomed to lining up sights and whatnot. But I think my eyes are going though because looking through the sights was way blurrier than at any other time I can remember :lol
Just for shits, as I was approaching the end of my ammo, I set a target somewhere between 55' and 60' out. That's a lot harder, but only one missed the paper entirely. I would have thought I'd hit lower the further out the target got, but I had a tendency to shoot high instead.
(Left is 25' - Right is 50')
(https://i.imgur.com/RqY3WEJ.jpg :azn:)
-
Nice work! It's sure fun to shoot. A couple days ago I ran 100 rounds through my .556 AR because I switched my optics to a Red dot with a flip magnifier. It's pretty easy to go through 100 rounds.
Your grouping on the 25' is perfect for center mass. That's all you need. Realistically, unless your messing around with buddies or whatever you're not going to be firing over 25' anyway.
-
Just for shits, as I was approaching the end of my ammo, I set a target somewhere between 55' and 60' out. That's a lot harder, but only one missed the paper entirely. I would have thought I'd hit lower the further out the target got, but I had a tendency to shoot high instead.
Bullets actually rise before they drop. In the case of your .38 special it'll rise 2-4" on its way to ~35yds or so before it starts to drop back down. A whole lot can effect the trajectory, bullet weight, chamber pressure, barrel length, any number of things, but what you saw there was pretty typical behavior. If you want to understand a bit better about how it all works you can read up on zeroing, but as you can see, it's not going to make a big difference at typical self defense range. And keep in mind that ammo makes a huge difference. Just switching from one brand to another can move your POI quite a bit. When I was shooting .40 S&W last week, my rounds started hitting about 3" to the left when I switched from cheap target ammo to the ammo I bought for defense purposes. It's not just elevation that can change. That's why you ideally want to practice with what you're going to shoot, or at the very least, make sure what you're going to shoot behaves the same way as what you practice with.
And for what it's worth, you're probably already shooting better than I am right now. What a drag it is getting old.
.38 Special under typical circumstances:
(https://www.npaammo.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/38spl-trajectory-height-vs-line-of-sight.png)
And while I didn't intend to make any points here, if there's anybody actually reading this thread who always asks "why couldn't they have shot him in the knee or somethin," here's a crackerjack reason.
-
I was shooting my friend's AR-15 last year and I was shocked how shaky I was. My accuracy was OK but I floated a ton.
What Wl Barto said is true.
-
Thanks guys.
Does this look like normal/expected wear on the cylinder after just 150 shots?
(https://preview.redd.it/h7dhfn7wjcf71.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=e9621cb5888257943a538b0d6cd8b2bfeb16af53)
-
The impression I get is yes. Plenty of discussion about that on various forums. Hot gasses escaping through the cylinder gap and ablating the protective coating. But I've never owned a wheel gun, so I'm the furthest thing from an expert.
-
I'm getting mixed messages in the various places I'm asking. Some guys are saying it's residual soot and should rub off, but it's not budging if it is. Others are saying it's rubbing on the frame, but that doesn't look like the case to me.
-
It's not residual soot. I can't see how it would rub against the frame like that, so I'm sticking with the escaping gasses theory. I also don't know what kind of finish they use at the S&W factory. It could be Cerakoted or traditional bluing. From what I gather Cerakote is more prone to that happening.
-
It's not residual soot. I can't see how it would rub against the frame like that, so I'm sticking with the escaping gasses theory. I also don't know what kind of finish they use at the S&W factory. It could be Cerakoted or traditional bluing. From what I gather Cerakote is more prone to that happening.
I'm way late to this, but that stuff came off with some gun oil and a rag :lol Real easy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm in the market for a .22 and I'm limiting myself to $1000. I've narrowed it down to two:
1) S&W SW22 Performance Center Edition (modified trigger, red dot, carbon fiber barrel, larger mag-release button)
(https://www.hyattgunstore.com/images/D/1330363-medium.jpg)
2) S&W Model 617
(https://images.gunsinternational.com/listings_sub/acc_1167/gi_100862945/Smith-and-Wesson-Model-617-4-K-22-Masterpiece-Stainless-Full-Lug-10-shot-22LR_100862945_1167_FEC0B38DFF16A448.JPG)
I'm leaning toward the 617 even though I think the SW22 is cool as shit. For one, it can accept pretty much any rimfire .22 whereas the SW22's magazine is limited. The 617 is also a K-frame, like my current revolver. My Model-19 costs me $200 every time I go to the range once you include lane fees. I'm paying $0.90-$0.94 per round for .38 special whereas .22LR is under $0.40. The 617 is near identical in weight and length (assuming 4" barrel) to my Model 19, so I'm thinking it'd be wise to get that for the sake of practice and proficiency.
The 617 looks so damn sexy though.
Opinions welcome :)
-
Depends on what you're using it for. If you want it for serious training then I'd suggest whatever's closest to your regular gun. If you're buying it for fun I'd go with different options. I know two people who are fond of the Kel-Tec CP33 22LR, which sports a 33rd magazine. As AR owners will tell you, firing off 30rds in a big hurry is a lot of fun. Speaking of, you could also consider a rifle. The venerable 10-22 is always a popular choice, and you can also slap high capacity mags in those. You can also by target/competition versions of them. You could also buy an AR platform rifle in .22, if you want to feel like John Rambo.
Another advantage of the rifle (which might or might not apply to a pistol) is that you can buy subsonic ammo and make the thing whisper quiet. Not like movie pew-pew quiet, but about the same as a pellet gun.
-
As AR owners will tell you, firing off 30rds in a big hurry is a lot of fun.
Too much fun and way too expensive :lol
You could also buy an AR platform rifle in .22, if you want to feel like John Rambo.
My buddy has one and it's super fun to shoot, and great for the kids to learn and practice with.
-
Its always blows my mind how fast I go through a full magazine at the range.
I started just loading like 5 rounds into the magazine at time, just to enjoy more time there and save money too.
-
I'm in the market for a .22 and I'm limiting myself to $1000. I've narrowed it down to two:
1) S&W SW22 Performance Center Edition (modified trigger, red dot, carbon fiber barrel, larger mag-release button)
(https://www.hyattgunstore.com/images/D/1330363-medium.jpg)
2) S&W Model 617
(https://images.gunsinternational.com/listings_sub/acc_1167/gi_100862945/Smith-and-Wesson-Model-617-4-K-22-Masterpiece-Stainless-Full-Lug-10-shot-22LR_100862945_1167_FEC0B38DFF16A448.JPG)
I'm leaning toward the 617 even though I think the SW22 is cool as shit. For one, it can accept pretty much any rimfire .22 whereas the SW22's magazine is limited. The 617 is also a K-frame, like my current revolver. My Model-19 costs me $200 every time I go to the range once you include lane fees. I'm paying $0.90-$0.94 per round for .38 special whereas .22LR is under $0.40. The 617 is near identical in weight and length (assuming 4" barrel) to my Model 19, so I'm thinking it'd be wise to get that for the sake of practice and proficiency.
The 617 looks so damn sexy though.
Opinions welcome :)
Did you already eliminate the Browning Buckmark in your narrowing process? Good shooter.
-
I hadn't come across that one. I like the aesthetics of some of those variants a lot. I'll watch a couple Youtube videos about them after work. Thanks!
-
yw
I'm not here that often these days but if you have questions and I see them I'll answer.
-
yw
I'm not here that often these days but if you have questions and I see them I'll answer.
Just got back from the store :hat
(https://i.imgur.com/GsXcwyJ.jpg)
-
So happy to be free of the Cali gun laws. Walked into a store around the corner from my new home here in SW Florida and walked out with a couple 40 round clips for my AR. Next... 60 round drum :) Actually felt weird going to the range with these clips... about 20 rounds in and I was like... "Is this empty yet?" :lol
-
yw
I'm not here that often these days but if you have questions and I see them I'll answer.
Just got back from the store :hat
(https://i.imgur.com/GsXcwyJ.jpg)
Damn dude. I even have the same grip and the gold trigger. Hope you enjoy!
-
Cheers. Thanks for the recommendation. Any tips, tricks, or pieces of advice with this one?
I went to the store to see what they had in stock, and the rep at the counter said he hadn't seen either of the two S&Ws I was interested in in months. I asked about the Buckmark and they had two in stock. I'm admittedly still fuzzy on how you differentiate which model is which as there appears to be about 18 variants :lol Do you mind me asking how much you paid for yours? This one was in the case for $539. The one next to it was $429. That one was all black, had a round barrel, a different rail, and smooth non-wooden grips. I remembered one of the reviews I read saying something like "If you have the money, spend it up front and get the better grips". So I did. I've had a laugh watching older reviews of guns I'm interested in. You'll find one from 2018 and they'll say "This gun will cost you around $449". That exact same model today is approaching the mid-600s.
I'll make the call after my first range day with it, but I'm not sure I'm going to keep the front sight. It's the same black as the rear sights, and I'm having a lot of trouble picking it up. Bed browsing on my phone last night, it looked like you could get a red/green fiber optic sight for $30 give or take. I'd like to throw a red dot on it at some point. Time to start reading up on rails and what not.
Kind of side-bar... Holy shit is 22LR cheap.
At the store I go to, 50 rounds of .38 special is anywhere from $42 -$49. I just got 500 rounds of 22LR for $40 :lol I couldn't believe it. I knew there was a price difference. I didn't think one would be 1/10 the cost of the other. I was way off in my comment from a few days back.
I still want that 617 though. One day.
-
Nice work Brian! That’ll be a fun fun to shoot. Especially as you’ve discovered how cheap it is to buy ammo for.
-
Cheers. Thanks for the recommendation. Any tips, tricks, or pieces of advice with this one?
One stupid one - If you turn the safety on pulling the trigger won't actually operate the action. Might be different with the newer guns, but I think dry firing 22LR still damages the gun, so I always store it with the safety on just in case.
I went to the store to see what they had in stock, and the rep at the counter said he hadn't seen either of the two S&Ws I was interested in in months. I asked about the Buckmark and they had two in stock. I'm admittedly still fuzzy on how you differentiate which model is which as there appears to be about 18 variants :lol
Yup the only thing I knew really mattered was the grip I knew I had to be flexible on everything else. I have the one that's blued with the gold trigger got lucky.
Do you mind me asking how much you paid for yours? This one was in the case for $539. The one next to it was $429.
Like 400 something? Prices are nuts these days.
That one was all black, had a round barrel, a different rail, and smooth non-wooden grips. I remembered one of the reviews I read saying something like "If you have the money, spend it up front and get the better grips". So I did.
Worth
I've had a laugh watching older reviews of guns I'm interested in. You'll find one from 2018 and they'll say "This gun will cost you around $449". That exact same model today is approaching the mid-600s.
Sadge
I'll make the call after my first range day with it, but I'm not sure I'm going to keep the front sight. It's the same black as the rear sights, and I'm having a lot of trouble picking it up. Bed browsing on my phone last night, it looked like you could get a red/green fiber optic sight for $30 give or take. I'd like to throw a red dot on it at some point. Time to start reading up on rails and what not.
The sight picture's not that bad to pick up but yeah they aren't the best.
Kind of side-bar... Holy shit is 22LR cheap.
At the store I go to, 50 rounds of .38 special is anywhere from $42 -$49. I just got 500 rounds of 22LR for $40 :lol I couldn't believe it. I knew there was a price difference. I didn't think one would be 1/10 the cost of the other. I was way off in my comment from a few days back.
My dumb theory - It's not the best hunting or self-defense ammo so demand isn't quite the same way. I saw some prices for like, historical gun ammo recently and it wasn't that bad either. The real price crunch is on stuff like 9mm and 5.56, which is used by everyone for practical purposes.
I still want that 617 though. One day.
One day indeed.
-
When buying a replacement front sight, would I want a low or a high version to replace the factory on on the Buckman
https://tacticalsol.com/products.aspx?CAT=12588
-
When buying a replacement front sight, would I want a low or a high version to replace the factory on on the Buckman
https://tacticalsol.com/products.aspx?CAT=12588
One's for a 4" barrel and the other's for a 5.5". Don't know what barrel you have, but if it's not the specific barrel listed for those sights I'd probably fire off an email to Browning. Typically sights are specific to weapons.
-
I feel like an idiot :lol I must have opened the wrong listing when I was comparing because it looked like they were all for the 5.5". That makes way more sense now.
Thanks :tup
-
I've ordered a couple things this week off three different gun websites (new front sight, extra magazines, speed loader thing, and a halo charging ring).
I have to say, the service on those sights is top notch. On all three, my orders shipped within 6 hours of placing them. I'm really impressed compared to a lot of the companies I've dealt with in other hobbies.
-
I went to the range last night to put the Buckmark through its paces. What a blast! My sister came with me (recently permitted) and I let her put a few magazines through it first while I shot a few cylinders of 357 mag with my model 19. When I finally tried out the Buckmark, I wasn't even sure if the thing fired :lol There was so little kick/recoil/sound compared to the revolver, I though for a second it misfired. The thing is incredibly accurate and grouped well right out of the box. I was very pleased.
As suspected, I was having a really hard time finding the front sight, and the problem was only exacerbated by the so-so lighting at the range I go to. I have a rail and a red dot arriving today, and I put a charging ring on it last night. I can't tell if I like it or not yet. I think I'm going to head back to the range on Saturday and zero it in.
Sidebar: Steel cased ammo. Anyone ever use it? I ordered a few hundred rounds of "TulAmmo" in .38special because it was half the price of the next cheapest brand at only $0.42 per round. I don't think I'm a fan. At least not of that particular brand's. It almost felt violent in the revolver. Lots of kick. Far more than the 357 I
was using (different brand). Accuracy seemed to be garbage as well, even when using single-action. After two dozen rounds or so, I started having problems electing the casings out of the cylinder. I had to really force them out. It's the first time in 900+ rounds now that that's happened, and the problem didn't happen again when I switched back over to brass. I clean the gun after each use.
Is that a common problem when using steel cases in a revolver?
-
I don't know about that specific problem, but brass is more forgiving, more malleable, than steel, so that might be some of it. For lack of a better word, you're probably getting a better "fit" with the brass casings. You might not see a difference in any short term time, but it's also my understanding that steel will, over time, wear your barrel more (same reason).
-
I went to the range last night to put the Buckmark through its paces. What a blast! My sister came with me (recently permitted) and I let her put a few magazines through it first while I shot a few cylinders of 357 mag with my model 19. When I finally tried out the Buckmark, I wasn't even sure if the thing fired :lol There was so little kick/recoil/sound compared to the revolver, I though for a second it misfired. The thing is incredibly accurate and grouped well right out of the box. I was very pleased.
As suspected, I was having a really hard time finding the front sight, and the problem was only exacerbated by the so-so lighting at the range I go to. I have a rail and a red dot arriving today, and I put a charging ring on it last night. I can't tell if I like it or not yet. I think I'm going to head back to the range on Saturday and zero it in.
Sidebar: Steel cased ammo. Anyone ever use it? I ordered a few hundred rounds of "TulAmmo" in .38special because it was half the price of the next cheapest brand at only $0.42 per round. I don't think I'm a fan. At least not of that particular brand's. It almost felt violent in the revolver. Lots of kick. Far more than the 357 I
was using (different brand). Accuracy seemed to be garbage as well, even when using single-action. After two dozen rounds or so, I started having problems electing the casings out of the cylinder. I had to really force them out. It's the first time in 900+ rounds now that that's happened, and the problem didn't happen again when I switched back over to brass. I clean the gun after each use.
Is that a common problem when using steel cases in a revolver?
Some people have no issues with steel cased ammo and some people hate it. As for how it performs I think it comes down to the weapon. As Stadler will say, brass if far more forgiving than steel. I'm not sure why it'd be an issue with a revolver, but in semiautomatics it can be too hard for the extractor to get a grip on the casings. For my part, if that's what I can afford I've got no problem buying it. If the prices are more or less the same I'll go with brass. While I do recall some FTEs using cheap ammo, at the range that's not really such a bad thing. You need experience dealing with failures, too.
One thing I can tell you is that it shouldn't have any effect on the recoil. That sounds to me like Tul making hotter ammo than what you'd been using before (which is honestly kind of surprising). Check the numbers on the box. As for accuracy, that can be effected, but for the same reason as recoil. In truth, any time you switch ammo you'll see a difference in where your shots land. Sometimes a dramatic difference. At seven yards the grouping from my carry ammo was about 2 inches high left from my practice ammo. Tul being as cheap as it is (I've used plenty, along with Monarch--essentially the same thing), it's probably not loaded as precisely as you'd want. A variance in chamber pressure will cause all kinds of wild shit, including a different spin.
And you're still young enough to have good eyesight. Wait for that to go South on you and then see how hard it is to find sights you can deal with. :lol I had to put a damn laser on my Sig because neither high contrast nor night sights were standing out to me.
-
I went to the range last night to put the Buckmark through its paces. What a blast! My sister came with me (recently permitted) and I let her put a few magazines through it first while I shot a few cylinders of 357 mag with my model 19. When I finally tried out the Buckmark, I wasn't even sure if the thing fired :lol There was so little kick/recoil/sound compared to the revolver, I though for a second it misfired. The thing is incredibly accurate and grouped well right out of the box. I was very pleased.
Nice!
I ordered a few hundred rounds of "TulAmmo"
lol TulAmmo
-
I tried out a new range yesterday and zeroed in the red dot I purchased. I had a good time out and shot just over 1000 rounds in the time I was there. You guys were right... it's really easy to chew through 22 :lol
Just out of curiosity, what do you guys typically pay for lane time? I usually go to an indoor range and it's $30 per hour or $40 for two people. This outdoor place was $39 for a day pass (only option). Both places offer annual memberships. $700 for indoor place and $535 for outdoor. The outdoor facility has 5 ranges (pistol, rifle, sniper rifle, shotgun, and indoor 22 only).
(https://i.imgur.com/YbW6jtH.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/jegSk28.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/EG6uKMf.jpeg)
-
The indoor place I go to is $20 bucks an hour.
I had the full membership the first year I started shooting which was $350, and that was nice since you could get free rentals of anything and I was able to try out a whole bunch of guns.
-
Mine's $20/day, which seems about normal for Dallas. You can buy silver or gold memberships, which cut the rage fee either to $12.5 or free, for $200 or $500. I came across this place because somebody bought me a silver membership for Christmas. The Walker Texas Ranger gun range is $25/day, or $400 for a membership with free shooting.
If you ever look to buy a rifle, something to look for before you sign up is what type of ammo the range will let you fire. Some places frown on steel bullets (like your Tul), though that typically only applies to rifle calibers. My range doesn't care so long as it's not AP or incendiary, but they did inspect my ammo before letting me in.
-
The guy across the street from me built a shooting range in his back yard. I'm not at all certain of the legality of that endeavor. :) :)
-
The guy across the street from me built a shooting range in his back yard. I'm not at all certain of the legality of that endeavor. :) :)
As a rule, most laws about discharging weapons only apply inside of city limits. Since you're presumably in an unincorporated chunk of CT it shouldn't be a problem. After that it's simply a matter of courtesy and available room with a backstop.
-
I think the rules in CT require you to own at least 10 acres of property and must be 500' or more away from a structure you don't own when firing.
Not bad on the range fees you guys mentioned. I'm a bit jealous!
-
I think the rules in CT require you to own at least 10 acres of property and must be 500' or more away from a structure you don't own when firing.
That's honestly pretty reasonable. Down here the only state law is that you cannot recklessly discharge a weapon in a municipality of more than 100k. Presumably you can be as reckless as you want elsewhere. :lol
-
Shenanigans have gotten pretty close to where I live the last year or so. A 13 year old was shot in his home from a stray bullet, and a two year old was shot as well, both within the last 3 weeks on the route I walk my dog.
The summer months aren't bad, but for 4 or 5 months of the year, it's pitch black for the better part of an hour while I walk my dog. I've been looking into pocket carrying. I really would like a revolver, but most that apply are $700+. I was looking at the Luger LCP II at the store yesterday, and it took every ounce of restraint to not impulse buy it.
My apprehension was, and I know this is all on me and against the grain, but I don't love the idea of keeping a round in the chamber. I want something I can pull out and fire with one hand, which is why I like the revolver route.
Thoughts/advice/words of wisdom? I'm not interested in holstering something, and I really don't have any intention of carrying outside of my morning 5A AM walks, so pocket carry is the way I'm leaning. My intention is to use a pocket holster though. One of those sleeves that hooks tot he inside of your pocket when drawing. At least that way the trigger is guarded.
-
That Ruger you mentioned or the Smith and Wesson Bodyguard would be perfect for that you’re talking about. I’m not a huge revolver fan so I don’t have any experience or advice on that front. There are a plethora of pocket holsters for those two models as well that’d be perfect. One in the chamber does not bother me. That gun isn’t going off unless you pull the trigger. If anything don’t chamber the round and practice slide chambering a round as you draw.
-
That Ruger you mentioned or the Smith and Wesson Bodyguard would be perfect for that you’re talking about. I’m not a huge revolver fan so I don’t have any experience or advice on that front. There are a plethora of pocket holsters for those two models as well that’d be perfect. One in the chamber does not bother me. That gun isn’t going off unless you pull the trigger. If anything don’t chamber the round and practice slide chambering a round as you draw.
So that's my pinch point. I know it's a specific scenario, but if I'm walking my dog and have his leash in my hand (it's a bulky retractable thing), it's going to be really hard to rack, especially if the situation calls for split second decisions/actions. I'd prefer to keep it all to one handed If possible.
I'm sure comfort with a chambered round would come in time. I'm not afraid of it randomly discharging or anything. I fear I could have a lapse in mind while it's chambered and accidentally discharge.
I've always been super confident in myself, and my ability to maintain situational awareness. But three weeks ago, I had a fender bender in my car. For the first time in my 17 years of driving, I was the cause of an accident. I had to cross 5 lanes of traffic coming from both directions, and despite being 100% certain I was clear, I managed to clip someone. It's a weird feeling I can't shake. I'm 100% confident I'd never accidentally discharge a revolver. A semi with a round in the chamber, I'm not sure I have faith in myself. I know from a mechanical standpoint (weight on the trigger), the LCR would be no more likely to fire than the revolvers you mentioned, but still. It's a weird mental block to shake.
(Apologies for any terrible syntasyntaxes, I'm on mobile)
-
Chino, other than the stray bullets, is there armed crime on the rise in your neighborhood? In other words, a pocket gun won't help you if a stray bullet comes your way from a quarter mile away.
Are there any other circumstances that make you feel that you'd need a gun to walk your dog?
-
Chino, other than the stray bullets, is there armed crime on the rise in your neighborhood? In other words, a pocket gun won't help you if a stray bullet comes your way from a quarter mile away.
Are there any other circumstances that make you feel that you'd need a gun to walk your dog?
I call it the "Waterbury Creep". There's a highway that's usually been the defining line between the crime and suburbs.
That creep has been getting closer a few streets at a time over the last few years.
Shootings have increased, but stolen cars are up substantially in the last two years (usually stolen in the early AM when I'm out), as are catalytic converter thefts. I've had cars of guests broken into while they're here, and neighbors have mentioned that they've had things stolen over the last few months (cars, mowers, a trailer, etc).
So I guess there hasn't been an increase in violence in my neighborhood, the brazen activity is ticking up very quickly. People do get robber and held up in the areas just beyond creep I'm talking about, and it's getting closer.
I don't just say that willy nilly. If you look at crimes over the last 15 years, the numbers are creeping their way in. I do t feel like it's an immediate threat, but I would feel safer when out in the pitch black a couple miles from home.
-
That Ruger you mentioned or the Smith and Wesson Bodyguard would be perfect for that you’re talking about. I’m not a huge revolver fan so I don’t have any experience or advice on that front. There are a plethora of pocket holsters for those two models as well that’d be perfect. One in the chamber does not bother me. That gun isn’t going off unless you pull the trigger. If anything don’t chamber the round and practice slide chambering a round as you draw.
So that's my pinch point. I know it's a specific scenario, but if I'm walking my dog and have his leash in my hand (it's a bulky retractable thing), it's going to be really hard to rack, especially if the situation calls for split second decisions/actions. I'd prefer to keep it all to one handed If possible.
I'm sure comfort with a chambered round would come in time. I'm not afraid of it randomly discharging or anything. I fear I could have a lapse in mind while it's chambered and accidentally discharge.
I've always been super confident in myself, and my ability to maintain situational awareness. But three weeks ago, I had a fender bender in my car. For the first time in my 17 years of driving, I was the cause of an accident. I had to cross 5 lanes of traffic coming from both directions, and despite being 100% certain I was clear, I managed to clip someone. It's a weird feeling I can't shake. I'm 100% confident I'd never accidentally discharge a revolver. A semi with a round in the chamber, I'm not sure I have faith in myself. I know from a mechanical standpoint (weight on the trigger), the LCR would be no more likely to fire than the revolvers you mentioned, but still. It's a weird mental block to shake.
(Apologies for any terrible syntasyntaxes, I'm on mobile)
Totally understandable. The S&W Bodyguard has a safety whereas the Ruger doesn’t. Accidental discharges are certainly possible but that trigger has to be pulled for a round to be fired.
-
Chino, other than the stray bullets, is there armed crime on the rise in your neighborhood? In other words, a pocket gun won't help you if a stray bullet comes your way from a quarter mile away.
Are there any other circumstances that make you feel that you'd need a gun to walk your dog?
I call it the "Waterbury Creep". There's a highway that's usually been the defining line between the crime and suburbs.
That creep has been getting closer a few streets at a time over the last few years.
Shootings have increased, but stolen cars are up substantially in the last two years (usually stolen in the early AM when I'm out), as are catalytic converter thefts. I've had cars of guests broken into while they're here, and neighbors have mentioned that they've had things stolen over the last few months (cars, mowers, a trailer, etc).
So I guess there hasn't been an increase in violence in my neighborhood, the brazen activity is ticking up very quickly. People do get robber and held up in the areas just beyond creep I'm talking about, and it's getting closer.
I don't just say that willy nilly. If you look at crimes over the last 15 years, the numbers are creeping their way in. I do t feel like it's an immediate threat, but I would feel safer when out in the pitch black a couple miles from home.
Is it necessary to walk your dog in the pitch black? Are there bears near you? I know they're in Connecticut.
-
It's not "necessary", per say. I could not walk, or do the treadmill instead. But I like going out with him before work, for both our sakes.
I actually see bears quite a bit pending time of year and day of the week (garbage days).
-
It's not "necessary", per say. I could not walk, or do the treadmill instead. But I like going out with him before work, for both our sakes.
I actually see bears quite a bit pending time of year and day of the week (garbage days).
Cool. If you think you need a gun, then go for it. The bears would scare the shit out of me, honestly.
-
It's not "necessary", per say. I could not walk, or do the treadmill instead. But I like going out with him before work, for both our sakes.
I actually see bears quite a bit pending time of year and day of the week (garbage days).
Cool. If you think you need a gun, then go for it. The bears would scare the shit out of me, honestly.
I cracked up a while back when I read some article about the different ways you are supposed to react depending on what kind of bear you see (walk away slowly backwards while maintaining eye contact, lay down and play dead, etc.), and I am like, who is going to remember that when you are shitting your pants? :lol :lol
-
I think it's Brown-lay down, Black-fight back.
But whatever you do, do not turn and run.
-
Oddly enough, I've yet to get really nervous around the bears. They seem predictable enough. I haven't come across a mama with cubs though. That'd stop me in my tracks and ponder life for a second or two. But all the encounters I've had have more or less been the bear just scoping us out and just waiting for us to pass more than anything. They're always in driveways or at the end of them tearing through trash bins. They've got a buffet at their claw tips. I've never felt like I was on the menu.
If I was out hiking in the woods and got within 30'-40' like I do in my neighborhood, I'd probably be shitting my pants.
-
Shenanigans have gotten pretty close to where I live the last year or so. A 13 year old was shot in his home from a stray bullet, and a two year old was shot as well, both within the last 3 weeks on the route I walk my dog.
The summer months aren't bad, but for 4 or 5 months of the year, it's pitch black for the better part of an hour while I walk my dog. I've been looking into pocket carrying. I really would like a revolver, but most that apply are $700+. I was looking at the Luger LCP II at the store yesterday, and it took every ounce of restraint to not impulse buy it.
My apprehension was, and I know this is all on me and against the grain, but I don't love the idea of keeping a round in the chamber. I want something I can pull out and fire with one hand, which is why I like the revolver route.
Thoughts/advice/words of wisdom? I'm not interested in holstering something, and I really don't have any intention of carrying outside of my morning 5A AM walks, so pocket carry is the way I'm leaning. My intention is to use a pocket holster though. One of those sleeves that hooks tot he inside of your pocket when drawing. At least that way the trigger is guarded.
This is why I've always been a DA/SA kind of guy. An exposed hammer makes all the difference. With mine I've got no qualms about carrying with a round in the chamber because I know it'll take a significant effort on my part to fire the thing, but I can still fire it without having to rack the slide. It's the advantages of a revolver and a semi-auto combined, and the only thing it costs you is a bit more pull on the trigger. If you ever have to use it that won't be a problem.
Here's the important thing. Go with what you're comfortable with. Lots of people will tell you that if you don't feel comfortable with a weapon ready to fire at all times you shouldn't carry at all. Fuck those people. You certainly want to get comfortable with it, but you also want to allow for a bad day full of distractions. From my point of view if you're of the mindset that you will always be in complete control of your weapon without fail, you're probably the one that shouldn't be carrying. "This is all on me and against the grain" doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
It's a little small for my taste, but the XD-E is a hammer fired single stack at a reasonable price. I bought the Sig equivalent used a while back and really like it, though that might be a little large for you.
-
It's not "necessary", per say. I could not walk, or do the treadmill instead. But I like going out with him before work, for both our sakes.
I actually see bears quite a bit pending time of year and day of the week (garbage days).
Cool. If you think you need a gun, then go for it. The bears would scare the shit out of me, honestly.
This was in my driveway last fall:
(https://i.imgur.com/9wFgtoK.jpg)
-
That is insane!
-
Thanks Barto. What when you say "This is why I've always been a DA/SA kind of guy", what is DA/SA?
@Stads
That's a bear getting ready to go down for winter. What a chonker!
-
Thanks Barto. What when you say "This is why I've always been a DA/SA kind of guy", what is DA/SA?
@Stads
That's a bear getting ready to go down for winter. What a chonker!
Double Action / Single Action. Just like most revolvers. You carry it with the hammer down. The first trigger pull will raise it but requires a much heftier pull. After you fire it recocks for subsequent rounds, hence semi-auto. The alternative is a striker fired weapon where there is no hammer, and any trigger pull will fire it. Downside to DA/SA is that you've got a heavy trigger pull and then subsequent light ones, which some people suggest inhibits accuracy. That's why you practice. For my money that 11lb trigger pull is an ideal safety feature. Or, if you're not in a panic situation you can cock it yourself and have a consistently light trigger pull.
edit: also, if bears are your primary concern this is probably the wrong discussion. Either carry a rifle or a can of bear spray. Shooting at him will hopefully scare him off, or less than ideally, cause him to die of lead poisoning a few days after you're buried.
-
Brian, your self-awareness and level of concern are actually pretty commendable. But I like Barto's recommendation and explanation of a DA/SA or revolver and the trigger pull issue for the first shot. That added trigger pull makes it VERY difficult/unlikely to have an accidental discharge. And as for the mental lapse issue, the added trigger pull should also be more than enough to send a message to the brain to stop before the hammer comes back that something is amiss if you aren't actually trying to fire the weapon.
Take that for what it's worth. But, also for what it's worth, you are getting the same advice from a guy that knows a lot about guns (Barto) and a guy that used to teach Marines how to shoot (me).
-
Brian, your self-awareness and level of concern are actually pretty commendable. But I like Barto's recommendation and explanation of a DA/SA or revolver and the trigger pull issue for the first shot. That added trigger pull makes it VERY difficult/unlikely to have an accidental discharge. And as for the mental lapse issue, the added trigger pull should also be more than enough to send a message to the brain to stop before the hammer comes back that something is amiss if you aren't actually trying to fire the weapon.
Take that for what it's worth. But, also for what it's worth, you are getting the same advice from a guy that knows a lot about guns (Barto) and a guy that used to teach Marines how to shoot (me).
Indeed. That first trigger pull is not only heavier, but it's much longer, too.
-
It's not "necessary", per say. I could not walk, or do the treadmill instead. But I like going out with him before work, for both our sakes.
I actually see bears quite a bit pending time of year and day of the week (garbage days).
Cool. If you think you need a gun, then go for it. The bears would scare the shit out of me, honestly.
This was in my driveway last fall:
(https://i.imgur.com/9wFgtoK.jpg)
Wow, I wouldn’t want to encounter that bear.
I see bears once in a while when I’m out walking. I did encounter a mother with two cubs last year, but the mother was not threatening at all. She perched on a park bench while the cubs were climbing trees. :lol I managed to get some decent photos.
-
Brian, your self-awareness and level of concern are actually pretty commendable. But I like Barto's recommendation and explanation of a DA/SA or revolver and the trigger pull issue for the first shot. That added trigger pull makes it VERY difficult/unlikely to have an accidental discharge. And as for the mental lapse issue, the added trigger pull should also be more than enough to send a message to the brain to stop before the hammer comes back that something is amiss if you aren't actually trying to fire the weapon.
Take that for what it's worth. But, also for what it's worth, you are getting the same advice from a guy that knows a lot about guns (Barto) and a guy that used to teach Marines how to shoot (me).
Indeed. That first trigger pull is not only heavier, but it's much longer, too.
Thanks guys. Are you saying there are semi auto pistols that you chamber by pulling the trigger once (basically dry firing) instead of racking it? Is there no live round in the chamber until the second trigger pull?
-
edit: also, if bears are your primary concern this is probably the wrong discussion. Either carry a rifle or a can of bear spray. Shooting at him will hopefully scare him off, or less than ideally, cause him to die of lead poisoning a few days after you're buried.
This is accurate; I carry an air-horn with me when I walk down past my pond into the woods. Not perfect, but better than nothing. I'm in full agreement that a 9mm or a revolver isn't going to help me much at 25 yards with a mad bear.
-
Brian, your self-awareness and level of concern are actually pretty commendable. But I like Barto's recommendation and explanation of a DA/SA or revolver and the trigger pull issue for the first shot. That added trigger pull makes it VERY difficult/unlikely to have an accidental discharge. And as for the mental lapse issue, the added trigger pull should also be more than enough to send a message to the brain to stop before the hammer comes back that something is amiss if you aren't actually trying to fire the weapon.
Take that for what it's worth. But, also for what it's worth, you are getting the same advice from a guy that knows a lot about guns (Barto) and a guy that used to teach Marines how to shoot (me).
Indeed. That first trigger pull is not only heavier, but it's much longer, too.
Thanks guys. Are you saying there are semi auto pistols that you chamber by pulling the trigger once (basically dry firing) instead of racking it? Is there no live round in the chamber until the second trigger pull?
No, there's still a round in the chamber. It's just that it's not going to fire while the hammer is down. This is essentially the same with your revolvers. You've always got a round chambered there, too. You've just got to cock the hammer before it'll go bang. Either you do that with your thumb or you use the trigger to raise it.
edit: After looking into it, your Model 19 S&W is similar, but yours is double action only. When you pull the trigger it raises the hammer. The weapons Bosk and I are talking about work exactly the same on the first shot. Pulling the trigger will raise the hammer. The difference is that once it fires it leaves the hammer back for the next shot.
-
Brian, your self-awareness and level of concern are actually pretty commendable. But I like Barto's recommendation and explanation of a DA/SA or revolver and the trigger pull issue for the first shot. That added trigger pull makes it VERY difficult/unlikely to have an accidental discharge. And as for the mental lapse issue, the added trigger pull should also be more than enough to send a message to the brain to stop before the hammer comes back that something is amiss if you aren't actually trying to fire the weapon.
Take that for what it's worth. But, also for what it's worth, you are getting the same advice from a guy that knows a lot about guns (Barto) and a guy that used to teach Marines how to shoot (me).
Indeed. That first trigger pull is not only heavier, but it's much longer, too.
Thanks guys. Are you saying there are semi auto pistols that you chamber by pulling the trigger once (basically dry firing) instead of racking it? Is there no live round in the chamber until the second trigger pull?
No, there's still a round in the chamber. It's just that it's not going to fire while the hammer is down. This is essentially the same with your revolvers. You've always got a round chambered there, too. You've just got to cock the hammer before it'll go bang. Either you do that with your thumb or you use the trigger to raise it.
edit: After looking into it, your Model 19 S&W is similar, but yours is double action only. When you pull the trigger it raises the hammer. The weapons Bosk and I are talking about work exactly the same on the first shot. Pulling the trigger will raise the hammer. The difference is that once it fires it leaves the hammer back for the next shot.
Ahhh! I understand what you're saying. That sounds exactly what I'm looking for. That's for chiming in.
-
Since Chino had to ask what DA/SA even was, is there value in explaining what a de-cocker is and what it does? I'm not aware of any way to do DA/SA safely without one. (My stuff is all striker don't want to ramble without any personal knowledge)
-
Since Chino had to ask what DA/SA even was, is there value in explaining what a de-cocker is and what it does? I'm not aware of any way to do DA/SA safely without one. (My stuff is all striker don't want to ramble without any personal knowledge)
For double action, when the hammer is back (and thus ready to fire with short trigger pull), it gently releases the hammer back down without striking the firing pin and discharging the round. (I think on mine, it actually also deploys a thin plate between the hammer and firing pin while the hammer is de-cocking as an additional "safety"; not sure whether this is standard) But it is possible to safely de-dock the gun without using it, which is what you have to do with weapons that don't have a de-cocker. Basically, you first grab the hammer with your thumb so it cannot go forward, then pull the trigger and gently and slowly allow the hammer to go back to the forward position up against the firing pin. Haven't you ever seen that done in movies or cop shows?
-
Have done similar things with the hammer in my ARs or with hammer pistols that aren't mine.
Technically works. Technically safe if done correctly. But the idea of letting the hammer forward at all with a round in the chamber wigs me out. But I admit to being a gun safety Nazi (and do not apologize for it).
Would personally do cocked and locked or buy something with a decocker. But the manual method can work.
(Don't personally carry. None of this is advice, only opinion)
-
For the record, I knew what DA/SA was, I just never saw it in an acronym format like that :lol I was drawing a complete blank. Also, in my limited research in anything outside of revolvers and 22 pistols, I didn't really encounter DA/SA pistols.
As far as decocking goes, that's something I've practiced with my revolver (unloaded) hundreds of times. Usually after a cleaning, I'll just sit on the couch with it (unloaded), repeating that motion/exercise.
Technically works. Technically safe if done correctly. But the idea of letting the hammer forward at all with a round in the chamber wigs me out. But I admit to being a gun safety Nazi (and do not apologize for it).
Is there another way to do it with a revolver? I just confirmed on mine (Model 19-9) that you can't open the cylinder if the hammer is back.
-
No experience with revolvers
-
Wouldn't own a gun without a de-cocker. That's mandatory in my book. As with ReaP, I just don't much dig the idea of lowering the hammer manually, which will be necessary anytime you load it if you're carrying with an extra round in the chamber. And as Bosk pointed out, in many guns there is a plate that's always in front of the hammer until the trigger is pulled. It fails safe because pulling the trigger is the only thing that will lower that plate. I tested that feature out on my Sig when I first had it, just to confirm.
-
I ended up settling on a Taurus 856 hammerless snub for pocket carrying. In my research, Taurus seems hit or miss on the whole. Lots of issue with some of their older semi autos, but their newer revolvers seem to get great praise for their price point. I watched dozens of videos on YouTube and none were really trashing it or finding reliability issues over time. I would have liked the ultra-lite model, but they didn't have any in stock. I actually ordered one online almost 3 weeks ago, but as of today it still didn't ship, so I canceled the order and requested a refund. I snagged 500 rounds of 38 special and 2000 22lr as well. Hoping to hit the range for a couple hours this Saturday and give it a go.
(https://i.imgur.com/K0NrLaL.jpg)
-
That's interesting. I didn't even know that the hammerless design existed. cool
-
There's still a hammer, so "hammerless" might not be the best term to use. It still comes back and strikes when you pull the trigger. It just lacks that thing on the back of it that you could get your thumb on. The plus side there is you'll never snag it when trying to get it out of the pocket. The downside is you can only use double action.
-
That's definitely the trend in CC weapons, whether revolver or semi-auto, for probably obvious reasons. If you need it, you need to draw quickly, and if it is concealed, there are more things to snag it on.
-
That's definitely the trend in CC weapons, whether revolver or semi-auto, for probably obvious reasons. If you need it, you need to draw quickly, and if it is concealed, there are more things to snag it on.
While I couldn't guarantee that in a crisis situation I won't fumble it around like Barney Fife, I'm adept at covering the hammer with my thumb when I pull it from my pocket. I found a way to remove it without snagging on anything and make a point to always do that. It's really the only way I know to do it now. To me it's just a thing to practice.
-
That is one thing I like about my Glock. Just draw and ready, no extra steps.
-
I'm personally not a revolver guy....but that gun will certainly serve the purpose you intend it to Brian.
How's it 'feel' holding it? I know with my Compact Sig P365....the shortened grip leaves your pinky dangling a bit meaning a good two hand grip is required for more accuracy. The more I've shot it the more comfortable I get with it....but it feels weird not having a full grip sometimes.
-
I'm personally not a revolver guy....but that gun will certainly serve the purpose you intend it to Brian.
How's it 'feel' holding it? I know with my Compact Sig P365....the shortened grip leaves your pinky dangling a bit meaning a good two hand grip is required for more accuracy. The more I've shot it the more comfortable I get with it....but it feels weird not having a full grip sometimes.
The grip is shockingly comfortable, and grippy. It's not a full cutout, but if you look near the base of the grip, there is a notch to get your pinky on. No dangling there! It's fits in my hand perfectly. Granted I haven't shot it yet, but it's more comfortable to hold than the S&W.
-
I'm personally not a revolver guy....but that gun will certainly serve the purpose you intend it to Brian.
How's it 'feel' holding it? I know with my Compact Sig P365....the shortened grip leaves your pinky dangling a bit meaning a good two hand grip is required for more accuracy. The more I've shot it the more comfortable I get with it....but it feels weird not having a full grip sometimes.
The grip is shockingly comfortable, and grippy. It's not a full cutout, but if you look near the base of the grip, there is a notch to get your pinky on. No dangling there! It's fits in my hand perfectly. Granted I haven't shot it yet, but it's more comfortable to hold than the S&W.
:tup
-
(https://i.imgur.com/XDGDHBC.jpg)
I got a few hours in at the range yesterday morning. Couldn't have asked for a nicer day. That new snub nose I got is a handful! I was about 13-14 yards out, and was hitting the paper just fine. Getting near any specific dot on the paper was a different story :lol
I know that's not the distance that'd typically be used at, but it's where I had my targets set up. My RDS on the Buck Mark shit the bed as well. I didn't expect it to last long. I bought a cheap one to see if I liked it, and now that I have a reason to, I plan on upgrading.
-
Did you get any work in from 3-5 yds away with the snub nose? That’s a good range to practice with your carry gun because that’s really the distance you’re most likely going to use it.
Practicing one handed…..off hand, off hand one hand…..all good ideas from 3-5 yds. And if you’re hitting the black from any distance that’s pretty good considering center mass is the goal anyway.
-
I really agree with the practicing multiple ways. One handed, off hand, two handed as a life or death situation can go down in so many different ways. And I am happy to say that my Glock 19 9mm allows me to comfortably and reliably do each different scenario.
On another note, I was toying with the idea of trading my AR-15 to get an AK-47, mainly because I'm lazy as hell and really didn't enjoy cleaning the AR last time around, lol.
I would rather have something a little bit easier in the maintenance department and if shit does go down, I sure as hell don't want to be tearing down an AR in the field.
-
I didn't get a chance for the up close practice. I'll save that for the indoor facility I go to. It has retractable target lines, so it's easy to constantly readjust your distance, and they let you shoot as close as 5 yards. At the outdoor range, you can only move your targets once every 30 minutes when they do a cease fire. You also can't move them any closer to the firing line than that set of targets all the way to the right.
You've made me realize that I've never fired anything left handed. That'd be an absolute shit show. I can't even piss left handed :lol
-
You've made me realize that I've never fired anything left handed. That'd be an absolute shit show. I can't even piss left handed :lol
I think you'll be surprised at how well you do when you finally do it. It's hard to explain, but....for me there's less thought put into it and not all the 'noise' from the different techniques/grips/sight windows etc etc that you read and try through the years with your dominant hand.....and you just shoot because you aren't really trying for the lack of a better term. I've found it to be completely reflexive and more organic and have had pretty good success (10yds or less) at getting nice groupings and staying on the paper.
-
I practice with the left hand because I just know that the one time in my life I have to defend myself the guy will probably have my right hand pinned down :lol
Murphy's law madness
-
I remember a guy I served with in the military once saying, "I like using my left hand because it feels like it's someone else." But I don't think he was talking about shooting.
-
I remember a guy I served with in the military once saying, "I like using my left hand because it feels like it's someone else." But I don't think he was talking about shooting.
:lol
-
I remember a guy I served with in the military once saying, "I like using my left hand because it feels like it's someone else." But I don't think he was talking about shooting.
:lol
I've tried that; and it did feel like it's someone else... someone who didn't know what the hell they were doing! :) :) :) :)
-
I remember a guy I served with in the military once saying, "I like using my left hand because it feels like it's someone else." But I don't think he was talking about shooting.
:lol
I've tried that; and it did feel like it's someone else... someone who didn't know what the hell they were doing! :) :) :) :)
:lol
-
I don't own any guns. If I have enough money to buy a gun, I'm gonna buy a guitar instead. At least something music gear related.
-
I added a 22lr wheel gun to the collection this morning. I wanted another 22lr because the indoor range I like the most for winter shooting is 22 only, and this will be a good alternative to the semiauto Buck Mark I have.
It's a Charter Arms Target Pathfinder. Not my first choice. Ideally I wanted a S&W 617, but haven't found one. I couldn't find a Taurus 942 either (the 22lr version of the 856 snub pictured below). With the Black Friday sale, and being one of the 20 first in line and getting a $25 gift card, I got this and 1000 rounds of ammo for $420. Not a bad morning!
(https://i.imgur.com/gM3SRKI.jpg)
-
That's quite the collection :tup
-
Froze my balls off, but went to the range for a few hours this morning on my day off. Have to do something while the golf courses are shut down!
I don't think I'm loving that Charter Arms I recently purchased. I'm having a really hard time zeroing the sight in. I can't adjust the vertical axis any further, and it's still shooting really high. In the image below, I was aiming at center (unlike the Buck Mark where I was picking dots). I struggle terribly with it in double action. Far more so than with either of my other two revolvers. I'm on the fence on whether or not I want to trade it in. Part of me wants to keep it for no reason other than it's made in Shelton CT, which is like 30 minutes from me.
That snub nose did a number on me today too. It really rattles my wrist. I can still feel it 6 hours later. I was hitting the paper pretty good though for being 10 yards out.
(https://i.imgur.com/piuPf3x.jpg)
-
Good groupings though Brian. I’d personally ditch anything you don’t like firing or have confidence firing. With ammo costs and getting to the range varying in frequency…..no need to waste time with a firearm you don’t like to shoot. Too many good ones out there to choose from.
-
Froze my balls off, but went to the range for a few hours this morning on my day off. Have to do something while the golf courses are shut down!
I don't think I'm loving that Charter Arms I recently purchased. I'm having a really hard time zeroing the sight in. I can't adjust the vertical axis any further, and it's still shooting really high. In the image below, I was aiming at center (unlike the Buck Mark where I was picking dots). I struggle terribly with it in double action. Far more so than with either of my other two revolvers. I'm on the fence on whether or not I want to trade it in. Part of me wants to keep it for no reason other than it's made in Shelton CT, which is like 30 minutes from me.
That snub nose did a number on me today too. It really rattles my wrist. I can still feel it 6 hours later. I was hitting the paper pretty good though for being 10 yards out.
First off, at 30' you're shooting quite well. Nothing to be concerned about there (and far, far better than I can shoot).
As for the shooting high part, 22lr is cheap. Buy 3 small boxes of different ammo and don't be surprised is one of them is bang on. Hell, don't be surprised if one of them is hitting low at that range.
If that doesn't resolve the issue take it to the manufacturer and tell it shoots for shit and see what they do about it. I'd be fascinated to hear the story.
-
Thanks dudes. The advice is appreciated.
Taurus just announced an updated version of the 856 I have. It'll come optic ready now.
(https://www.shootingillustrated.com/media/dz1cl31s/taurus-toro_revolvers_cover.jpg?anchor=center&mode=crop&width=987&height=551&rnd=133179886687600000&quality=70)
I was hunting for the 22lr version (the 942) of that for the better part of 9 months or so, and they are nowhere to be found. I'm hoping they'll be announcing a new version of that one as well. If they do, I'm trading in that Charter Arms without hesitation and getting one of them.
-
Optics on a revolver looks 'strange' to me. Good luck finding the .22 model
-
I think the universe was trying to send me a sign for Valentine's Day yesterday. After searching for over a year for a S&W 617 6", I got alerts from three websites last night that they were now in stock. S&W must have finally gotten a fresh batch into the wild. I don't know how, but one appeared in my cart. In a panic, I accidentally entered all of my CC and FFL information before clicking the "confirm order" button :angel:
(https://external-preview.redd.it/rRBNGlDUyMHUs-xipCZ19DyZZEKNMnAllxGXOZMZXoM.jpg?width=1024&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=582f550d97d2106e484b8f29689072d7b2b202a5)
This is my first time purchasing a firearm on the internet. Finger crossed it all goes smoothly.
I'm debating what to do with that Charter Arms I got. It pails in comparison to this new one in every category besides weight. I don't know whether or not I should trade/sell it to my LGS or just keep it as a "guest gun" for other people on range days.
-
Nice! :tup
-
Grabbed my new 617 this morning. This thing is beefy! I can't wait to try it out next weekend.
(https://external-preview.redd.it/ETpY4Z1QXopuPA19lc7lsBTammUA8ErwQKVrsZPbk9E.jpg?width=805&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=cb7571b6de5ed8b1e4e0dc72fc0f8f466417eda7)
-
From the off let me say that I know less than zero about guns and how they're handled. My exposure to both has been via movies. That's why I was struck by the bodycam footage of the Tennessee shooter being taken down. I've time-stamped the section I'm talking about and my question is: why is the officer holding his weapon at what seems to be a 45-degree angle and away from his body? I've never seen that before. In Hollywood films (I know, I know) cops who go searching for someone in a house always have their weapon tucked tight against their shoulder and pointed arrow-straight. Is this (the 45-degree thing) just that one officer's preference or is that in fact how it's meant to be done?
https://youtu.be/x97jfBwvT2E?t=191
(note/warning: the clip is not graphic but is very intense)
-
I could be wrong, but it just looked like the officer was clearing a corner. Meaning that by peaking a weapon out slanted exposes less of your person.
As for actually firing, I've always been taught to keep it level. But there's also the chaos of the situation as well, so who knows.
But good question/observation though
-
From the off let me say that I know less than zero about guns and how they're handled. My exposure to both has been via movies. That's why I was struck by the bodycam footage of the Tennessee shooter being taken down. I've time-stamped the section I'm talking about and my question is: why is the officer holding his weapon at what seems to be a 45-degree angle and away from his body? I've never seen that before. In Hollywood films (I know, I know) cops who go searching for someone in a house always have their weapon tucked tight against their shoulder and pointed arrow-straight. Is this (the 45-degree thing) just that one officer's preference or is that in fact how it's meant to be done?
https://youtu.be/x97jfBwvT2E?t=191
(note/warning: the clip is not graphic but is very intense)
You mount the scope directly on top for when you need distance aiming, and then a red-dot sight offset 45° that you can use in situations like this. Carrying it at that angle allows him to use the red dot. Looks like this.
(https://www.at3tactical.com/wp-content/uploads/RDM_2045_APP_2.jpg)
-
Got to spend some time at the indoor range over the weekend and got to test out my new speed loader. That was hands down the best investment I've made since getting into shooting!
(https://i.redd.it/meoxuyuxntqb1.jpg)
(https://preview.redd.it/a1prvnqovsqb1.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=2fd62e8192ec3a84cf82c9db6096b37c48912fb5)
(https://preview.redd.it/nv316ljpvsqb1.jpg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=478af1bd589c96406aac072ad65dbae3dc5f41a1)
(https://preview.redd.it/b13x3s0qvsqb1.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=435180b30378d1b50b50d7c4546755e0c4c3fbda)
(https://preview.redd.it/725lnw9qvsqb1.jpg?width=320&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=6b9cad3101a59674a4c9f40b7f94dec2f588ada4)
-
Nice!
-
Had a fun shoot this past Saturday. Once a year those of us who are approved to CCW at our church as a part of the Safety Team have to Qualify. So, went out Saturday morning to take part in the qualification. I asked the guy who runs our team and does the training to send me the criteria list so I could share....here it is:
Training Drills
3 Yards
10 Round Evaluation (1 Mag of 10 Rounds or 2 Mags of 5 ea.) (10 Rds)
Draw from holster
Fire 5 rounds making the tightest group
Holster
Evaluate your group
Repeat 1x
3 Yards
Touch your Buddies Hole (2 Mags of 10 Rounds) (20 Rds)
- First person fires a shot on target. Next person’s shot has to hit that ‘hole’. Then, that person puts a shot on target, partner has to hit that hole….and so on.
I won my group. I still had 12 rounds left and my opponent emptied his 20. This is a fun one from 3 yards out because it makes you aim small/miss small
3 Yards
Speed Drill (2 Magazines of 10 Rounds) (20 Rds)
One shooter at a time, timed individually to see who can get the best time.
From High Compressed Ready fire 10 rounds as fast as possible
Holster
Repeat 1x and see if times improve
This one is set up to get you to get as many rounds on target as fast as possible. My final time I got 10 rounds on target in just under 5 seconds, that's from holster
5 Yards
One Handed - Strong Hand (1 Magazines of 10 Rounds) (10 Rds)
Draw one handed (strong hand) fire 5 rounds one handed in 8 seconds (Reload)
Holster
Repeat 1x with Weak Hand
7 Yards
Holster Drill-Timed (1 Magazine of 10 Rounds) (10 Rds.)
Draw from Holster fire 2 rounds into center mass of target (Repeat 5x)
Holster after every 2 rounds
So I ended up getting my time down to getting out of the holster and first round on target in 1.3 seconds....second round at 1.6. That was from fully concealed and waiting for a random whistle. Instructor did it in 1.1/1.3 so I was pretty happy with my result there.
7 Yards
1 Reload 1 (1R1) Drill (1 Magazine of 10 Rounds and 1 Empty Magazine) (10 Rds.)
Drill Set-Up - 1 Round in Chamber and Empty Mag in Gun
Draw from Holster fire 1 round, speed reload and fire 1 more round
Recover empty mag and set-up again (1 in chamber, empty mag in gun)
Holster
Repeat 5x
7 Yards
Chair / Mozambique Drill (1 Magazine of 3 rounds) (6 Rds)
Shooter starts seated in Chair at 10 Yards, facing away from target. On buzzer stand, move to shooting position (7 yards)
Draw from holster 2 rounds to body, 1 to head - All in 8 Seconds
Holster
Repeat 1x
10 Yards
Headshot Drill (1 Magazine of 5 rounds) (5 Rds)
Draw shoot one round into head box in 5 seconds
Holster
Repeat 5x
10 Yards
Push / Pull Drill (1 Full Magazine) - 1 Shooter at a Time
Partner Up - Non shooting partner will move shooter around by belt / belt loop Shooter will take one shot on steel target on each whistle End drill when mag is empty
This one was fun and weird at the same time. This guy that was moving/tugging me around was a lot bigger than me so he was just jostling me around. You're sitting there getting on target and waiting for the random whistle and you have a second to fire after that. My magazine was a 12 round capacity and I had one chambered so....I went 6/13 on this. It was REALLY hard but fun.
15 Yards
Moving while Shooting (2 Magazines of 10 rounds) (20 Rds)
Start facing away from target. On threat command turn and face target, Draw and walk toward target
Fire 10 rounds at target before reaching 5 yard line
Holster
Repeat 1x
25 Yards
Distance Shooting (1 Magazine of 10 rounds) (10 rds)
From standing position draw and fire 10 rounds
Holster
Qualification – All From Holster – Standard Qualification Target 23”x35”
3 Yards (under 4 seconds)
- (3) rounds Strong Hand (one Handed) Holster
- (3) Rounds Weak Hand (one Handed) Holster
All shooting from this point out can be two-hand braced
5 Yards (under 4 seconds)
- (4) rounds
7 Yards (under 16 seconds)
- (6) rounds mag change (6) rounds
15 Yards (under 8 Seconds) – Sitting backwards away from target(s), instructor marks random target to shoot at. On whistle stand and turn around, ID target and fire (6) rounds on marked target
15 Yards walking to 7 Yards (under 10 seconds)
- From sitting position, on whistle, stand and walk towards target and fire (6) rounds before reaching the 7 Yard marker
Starting at 25 Yards - Must be completed in under 40 Seconds
- prior to firing, participant must start jumping jacks, running in place etc etc to raise heart rate. Instructor lets this go for 45-60 seconds then on random whistle participant begins
- Turn and fire (2) Rounds
- Move quickly to 15 Yards – (2) rounds
- While moving to 10 yard marker reload, from 10 to 7 yard marker, fire (4) rounds while walking towards target
- From 7 Yards – Fire (2) rounds on paper target (2) on steel target set 8-10 yards off to the side of main target
- Move to 5 Yard maker, (4) rounds into head shot area
To Qualify must have minimum 40/50 rounds hit target area.
I went 47/50. I was perfect until the final timed 16 rounds. I know I missed the second shot I took on the steel plate which I was pissed about because it's a pretty easy shot....I'm guessing the other two came during the two from 25 yards or the four rounds while walking towards the target.
-
I think those are some great drills for CCW, as they really get you thinking about things that will occur with you as a shooter in a real-time scenario if you ever had to draw your weapon. It's about a lot more than just calmly standing at the firing line grouping your shots. I would hope that it not only tests one's skills, but also gets people to reflect on scenarios to avoid. For instance, I suspect that if I were to do that one-handed drill, I would quickly come to the conclusion that if I were ever forced to draw on someone in a crowded environment (or any environment where a miss could likely be disastrous and hit someone else), I would want to avoid trying to fire one-handed at all costs, especially with my weak hand, and especially at any distance that was not extremely close.
-
Some of those seem really hard!
You have to rename that second drill, though. Stat. :) :) :)
-
I think those are some great drills for CCW, as they really get you thinking about things that will occur with you as a shooter in a real-time scenario if you ever had to draw your weapon. It's about a lot more than just calmly standing at the firing line grouping your shots. I would hope that it not only tests one's skills, but also gets people to reflect on scenarios to avoid. For instance, I suspect that if I were to do that one-handed drill, I would quickly come to the conclusion that if I were ever forced to draw on someone in a crowded environment (or any environment where a miss could likely be disastrous and hit someone else), I would want to avoid trying to fire one-handed at all costs, especially with my weak hand, and especially at any distance that was not extremely close.
The instructor was saying that nearly 40% of shootings from people with their CCW turn out to be using just one hand/arm....due to a variety of reasons. Be it shielding loved ones, bracing yourself, struggling with the intruder or person who is attacking you....so, they like you to practice one handed AND off handed. Oddly enough, anytime I've fired/practiced 'off handed' I have a great grouping....I don't know why? I'm guessing it's less thinking and just a point and shoot scenario.
You have to rename that second drill, though. Stat. :) :) :)
:lol No kidding. He said this was a tongue and cheek name from his Navy days where he learned the drill. I just left it at that :lol
-
I had to drop my Buck Mark off at the smith the other day, and while I was wandering around, I talked myself into this .22:
(https://preview.redd.it/2b3opq5xz9bc1.jpeg?width=768&auto=webp&s=aa4844a258b8ee96a5e58cbb711c31dbe060b625)
I've always wanted a 1911, and I had 15% off to the store. So I did five minutes of comment reading on Reddit and decided to roll the dice. I ended up getting it for a hair under $275 after tax. It was hard to say no. It's made by GSG, but they're slapping the Mauser name on them at the moment. They did the same for Colt some time ago. It's a full-sized 1911 with the same weight as the original. It's a hoot to shoot.
I always liked the look of dark 1911s with white/pearl grips. I've got some "granite" filament in my workshop and have been messing around with this idea:
(https://preview.redd.it/z0x9udcez9bc1.jpeg?width=996&auto=webp&s=aed38f96e93093ec9399fce97634c95b7d6ec37a)
I've printed with the granite before, and it ends up looking really good. I'm curious to see how it comes out on the set of grips. The tolerances are going to be wicked tight, so I'm not sure if those inlays are going to fit (even if the math says it does). I've got a draft of left grip printing right now. We'll see.
-
Very Nice :tup I used a Kimber sub compact 1911 as my carry gun for the first few years I carried but found that it was just too bulky....even in the sub compact model. Went with a single stack after that and it's just more comfortable but I don't think I've found a smoother shooting gun than what that1911 was....and it was a .45 in a compact frame.
I'm curious to see how those grips turn out....of course I dig the design.
-
I'm digging them so far. I think they'll look good with the Black inlay.
(https://i.redd.it/iwsrrud7gbbc1.png?app_web_view=android)
-
Oh heck yeah. That’s gonna look sweet.
-
Maybe you can bring it to a show and have the guys sign it :lol