Post: #26

Don't worry guys.

An armed society is a polite society.

Post: #27

(01-25-2016 06:32 PM)Suits Wrote:  Don't worry guys.

An armed society is a polite society.

I guess the US needs more guns then.

Post: #28

There has been across the board anit gun laws in Australia for 2 decades now. The only people outside law enforcement to have street guns are all levels of the organised crime underworld, bikies and middle eastern gangs. Hooray.

They largely shoot each other, and our population is a fraction of the states so numbers of incidents are small by comparison. But if you think shootings aren't going on in our major cities weekly, you're naive. Shit, a Muslim kid walked into a Parramatta police station late last year and blew an employee away.

Post: #29

(01-25-2016 06:00 PM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  MickeyD. Why should we further regulate handgun ownership?

The problem with handguns is the potent mixture of concealability, difficulty of use, and their very specific intended use, which is short range use against a human target.

Handguns are not easily found during a police search of a vehicle or home. They are not readily apparent if someone is wearing loose clothing. Handguns are the criminal's choice of weapon. I understand the concept that criminals will not obey laws, obtain weapons illegally, possess them illegally etc. But, any chance we can give law enforcement to crack down on the steps in which a handgun goes from a legal gun dealer to the criminal will ultimately help reduce crime. Right now a person who has no criminal record can buy a gun in about 45 minutes, go straight to the criminal and resell it. Its really that simple. The criminal will then scratch the serial and hide it in his residence.

All handguns that aren't full size are notoriously hard to shoot. Literally anybody can pick up a .22 rifle, put 10 rounds onto a man-sized target at 25 yards with about 10 minutes of training. Doing the same with a .22 pistol requires much more training. How many forum members actually even carry EVERYWHERE they go? Slim to none i bet. So, knowing that truly concealable handguns are fucking near impossible to be accurate with at the shooting range, where everything is comfortable, imagine a situation under duress, with sweaty shaky hands, and fast-moving target. It takes alot of training to prepare for something like that.

And finally, why would anyone choose a handgun to defend against a home invasion?? If the word isn't out already, people should know that handgun rounds are actually very puny. There are cases where someone gets hit by a .22 in the right spot and drops dead immediately, while 50 cent was shot by a 9mm 9 times and recovered just fine. To my knowledge, no one has ever survived a direct hit from a shotgun...

So, in essence, the only real use of a handgun is concealed carry self-defense in trained, dedicated, law-abiding hands. The Gov. should employ privately owned handgun schools that do a 2 or 3 weekend course, with classroom education, and then training drills at a shooting range, in which someone must pass a multiple choice exam, a simple accuracy test, and a draw-and-holster test. After you pass you get a handgun permit and you can buy whatever handgun you want.

Post: #30

The news media presented this as strictly a case about gun violence, and several posters here bought it. Guns are bad, these guys had guns at hand, and now some of them are dead.

Do you think these two guys in a small Mississippi town didn't already have some kind of history? It's only about the guns?

Post: #31

(01-25-2016 07:25 PM)mickeyd Wrote:  And finally, why would anyone choose a handgun to defend against a home invasion??

I would reckon because sleeping with a shotgun under your pillow is far from comfortable.

Post: #32

(01-25-2016 07:25 PM)mickeyd Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 06:00 PM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  MickeyD. Why should we further regulate handgun ownership?

The problem with handguns is the potent mixture of concealability, difficulty of use, and their very specific intended use, which is short range use against a human target.

Handguns are not easily found during a police search of a vehicle or home. They are not readily apparent if someone is wearing loose clothing. Handguns are the criminal's choice of weapon. I understand the concept that criminals will not obey laws, obtain weapons illegally, possess them illegally etc. But, any chance we can give law enforcement to crack down on the steps in which a handgun goes from a legal gun dealer to the criminal will ultimately help reduce crime. Right now a person who has no criminal record can buy a gun in about 45 minutes, go straight to the criminal and resell it. Its really that simple. The criminal will then scratch the serial and hide it in his residence.

All handguns that aren't full size are notoriously hard to shoot. Literally anybody can pick up a .22 rifle, put 10 rounds onto a man-sized target at 25 yards with about 10 minutes of training. Doing the same with a .22 pistol requires much more training. How many forum members actually even carry EVERYWHERE they go? Slim to none i bet. So, knowing that truly concealable handguns are fucking near impossible to be accurate with at the shooting range, where everything is comfortable, imagine a situation under duress, with sweaty shaky hands, and fast-moving target. It takes alot of training to prepare for something like that.

And finally, why would anyone choose a handgun to defend against a home invasion?? If the word isn't out already, people should know that handgun rounds are actually very puny. There are cases where someone gets hit by a .22 in the right spot and drops dead immediately, while 50 cent was shot by a 9mm 9 times and recovered just fine. To my knowledge, no one has ever survived a direct hit from a shotgun...

So, in essence, the only real use of a handgun is concealed carry self-defense in trained, dedicated, law-abiding hands. The Gov. should employ privately owned handgun schools that do a 2 or 3 weekend course, with classroom education, and then training drills at a shooting range, in which someone must pass a multiple choice exam, a simple accuracy test, and a draw-and-holster test. After you pass you get a handgun permit and you can buy whatever handgun you want.

You talk about more regulations on law abiding citizens to aid the police.

But do you have data that shows a positive correlation between stricter handgun laws and less crime? Or data that shows a positive correlation between less handguns and less crime?

Post: #33

(01-25-2016 07:25 PM)mickeyd Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 06:00 PM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  MickeyD. Why should we further regulate handgun ownership?

The problem with handguns is the potent mixture of concealability, difficulty of use, and their very specific intended use, which is short range use against a human target.

Handguns are not easily found during a police search of a vehicle or home. They are not readily apparent if someone is wearing loose clothing. Handguns are the criminal's choice of weapon. I understand the concept that criminals will not obey laws, obtain weapons illegally, possess them illegally etc. But, any chance we can give law enforcement to crack down on the steps in which a handgun goes from a legal gun dealer to the criminal will ultimately help reduce crime. Right now a person who has no criminal record can buy a gun in about 45 minutes, go straight to the criminal and resell it. Its really that simple. The criminal will then scratch the serial and hide it in his residence.

All handguns that aren't full size are notoriously hard to shoot. Literally anybody can pick up a .22 rifle, put 10 rounds onto a man-sized target at 25 yards with about 10 minutes of training. Doing the same with a .22 pistol requires much more training. How many forum members actually even carry EVERYWHERE they go? Slim to none i bet. So, knowing that truly concealable handguns are fucking near impossible to be accurate with at the shooting range, where everything is comfortable, imagine a situation under duress, with sweaty shaky hands, and fast-moving target. It takes alot of training to prepare for something like that.

And finally, why would anyone choose a handgun to defend against a home invasion?? If the word isn't out already, people should know that handgun rounds are actually very puny. There are cases where someone gets hit by a .22 in the right spot and drops dead immediately, while 50 cent was shot by a 9mm 9 times and recovered just fine. To my knowledge, no one has ever survived a direct hit from a shotgun...

So, in essence, the only real use of a handgun is concealed carry self-defense in trained, dedicated, law-abiding hands. The Gov. should employ privately owned handgun schools that do a 2 or 3 weekend course, with classroom education, and then training drills at a shooting range, in which someone must pass a multiple choice exam, a simple accuracy test, and a draw-and-holster test. After you pass you get a handgun permit and you can buy whatever handgun you want.

First of all I'd like to suggest that instead of banning handguns I'd like to see a law passed where carrying of a handgun is mandatory by law if over the age of 18. Sure, you could argue that it would/could be more dangerous, but I think people would think twice about recklessly pulling a pistol. Even if a lot of people were like you, so against the handgun, you don't need to use it, because it's just the thought that everyone else is strapped as well.

Secondly. You said that all handguns that are not full sized are notoriously hard to shoot. I say that you are wrong in your opinion, but please tell us how your opinion is actually a fact.

Third. I also fail to see how it's easier to pick up a .22 rifle and learn shooting it at 25 yards compared to shooting a .22 pistol at the same range. That round is easy to shoot no matter what it's coming out of.

I believe that you are just extremely biased in your thinking. Pistol have their purpose as well as long guns have their own. You have a right to your opinion but keep an open mind.

#gunsizesmatter
#istandbymyanalysis

Post: #34

(01-26-2016 01:36 AM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 07:25 PM)mickeyd Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 06:00 PM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  MickeyD. Why should we further regulate handgun ownership?

The problem with handguns is the potent mixture of concealability, difficulty of use, and their very specific intended use, which is short range use against a human target.

Handguns are not easily found during a police search of a vehicle or home. They are not readily apparent if someone is wearing loose clothing. Handguns are the criminal's choice of weapon. I understand the concept that criminals will not obey laws, obtain weapons illegally, possess them illegally etc. But, any chance we can give law enforcement to crack down on the steps in which a handgun goes from a legal gun dealer to the criminal will ultimately help reduce crime. Right now a person who has no criminal record can buy a gun in about 45 minutes, go straight to the criminal and resell it. Its really that simple. The criminal will then scratch the serial and hide it in his residence.

All handguns that aren't full size are notoriously hard to shoot. Literally anybody can pick up a .22 rifle, put 10 rounds onto a man-sized target at 25 yards with about 10 minutes of training. Doing the same with a .22 pistol requires much more training. How many forum members actually even carry EVERYWHERE they go? Slim to none i bet. So, knowing that truly concealable handguns are fucking near impossible to be accurate with at the shooting range, where everything is comfortable, imagine a situation under duress, with sweaty shaky hands, and fast-moving target. It takes alot of training to prepare for something like that.

And finally, why would anyone choose a handgun to defend against a home invasion?? If the word isn't out already, people should know that handgun rounds are actually very puny. There are cases where someone gets hit by a .22 in the right spot and drops dead immediately, while 50 cent was shot by a 9mm 9 times and recovered just fine. To my knowledge, no one has ever survived a direct hit from a shotgun...

So, in essence, the only real use of a handgun is concealed carry self-defense in trained, dedicated, law-abiding hands. The Gov. should employ privately owned handgun schools that do a 2 or 3 weekend course, with classroom education, and then training drills at a shooting range, in which someone must pass a multiple choice exam, a simple accuracy test, and a draw-and-holster test. After you pass you get a handgun permit and you can buy whatever handgun you want.

You talk about more regulations on law abiding citizens to aid the police.

But do you have data that shows a positive correlation between stricter handgun laws and less crime? Or data that shows a positive correlation between less handguns and less crime?

Handguns are by far the most used tool for homicides.


Guns (presumably mostly handguns) are the most used tool for suicides

The current data shows that long term murder rates have remained flat after gun bans

Ok, so after further review, guns and gun laws do not affect homicide and I assume you could logically extend that to crime in general, so you guys win. But they are still used in alot of murders and suicides so theres that.

Basically, crime is determined by a zillion different things and we can never pin the perfect conclusion.

Oh well. I still don't like the idea of handguns for the reasons i've already stated but no sense in restricting them I suppose...

Post: #35

(01-26-2016 02:20 AM)Snowplow Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 07:25 PM)mickeyd Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 06:00 PM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  MickeyD. Why should we further regulate handgun ownership?

The problem with handguns is the potent mixture of concealability, difficulty of use, and their very specific intended use, which is short range use against a human target.

Handguns are not easily found during a police search of a vehicle or home. They are not readily apparent if someone is wearing loose clothing. Handguns are the criminal's choice of weapon. I understand the concept that criminals will not obey laws, obtain weapons illegally, possess them illegally etc. But, any chance we can give law enforcement to crack down on the steps in which a handgun goes from a legal gun dealer to the criminal will ultimately help reduce crime. Right now a person who has no criminal record can buy a gun in about 45 minutes, go straight to the criminal and resell it. Its really that simple. The criminal will then scratch the serial and hide it in his residence.

All handguns that aren't full size are notoriously hard to shoot. Literally anybody can pick up a .22 rifle, put 10 rounds onto a man-sized target at 25 yards with about 10 minutes of training. Doing the same with a .22 pistol requires much more training. How many forum members actually even carry EVERYWHERE they go? Slim to none i bet. So, knowing that truly concealable handguns are fucking near impossible to be accurate with at the shooting range, where everything is comfortable, imagine a situation under duress, with sweaty shaky hands, and fast-moving target. It takes alot of training to prepare for something like that.

And finally, why would anyone choose a handgun to defend against a home invasion?? If the word isn't out already, people should know that handgun rounds are actually very puny. There are cases where someone gets hit by a .22 in the right spot and drops dead immediately, while 50 cent was shot by a 9mm 9 times and recovered just fine. To my knowledge, no one has ever survived a direct hit from a shotgun...

So, in essence, the only real use of a handgun is concealed carry self-defense in trained, dedicated, law-abiding hands. The Gov. should employ privately owned handgun schools that do a 2 or 3 weekend course, with classroom education, and then training drills at a shooting range, in which someone must pass a multiple choice exam, a simple accuracy test, and a draw-and-holster test. After you pass you get a handgun permit and you can buy whatever handgun you want.

First of all I'd like to suggest that instead of banning handguns I'd like to see a law passed where carrying of a handgun is mandatory by law if over the age of 18. Sure, you could argue that it would/could be more dangerous, but I think people would think twice about recklessly pulling a pistol. Even if a lot of people were like you, so against the handgun, you don't need to use it, because it's just the thought that everyone else is strapped as well.

Secondly. You said that all handguns that are not full sized are notoriously hard to shoot. I say that you are wrong in your opinion, but please tell us how your opinion is actually a fact.

Third. I also fail to see how it's easier to pick up a .22 rifle and learn shooting it at 25 yards compared to shooting a .22 pistol at the same range. That round is easy to shoot no matter what it's coming out of.

I believe that you are just extremely biased in your thinking. Pistol have their purpose as well as long guns have their own. You have a right to your opinion but keep an open mind.

#gunsizesmatter
#istandbymyanalysis

I never argued for banning handguns. please read my post. i proposed a handgun permit, which would include conceal carry.

And I should rephrase my statement. Truly concealable handguns are hard to shoot. This is a fact because it is an opinion held by a great number of people. Short barrel, minimal sights, snappy recoil, and too small to get a normal grip. Granted, I live in Florida where a speedo is appropriate dress during the summer so concealing is alot harder here.

The .22 rifle/pistol example wasnt about recoil or anything. I was simply stating that the average Joe will be significantly more accurate with a long gun vs a pistol, which is true.

Post: #36

(01-25-2016 07:25 PM)mickeyd Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 06:00 PM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  MickeyD. Why should we further regulate handgun ownership?

The problem with handguns is the potent mixture of concealability, difficulty of use, and their very specific intended use, which is short range use against a human target.

snip

And finally, why would anyone choose a handgun to defend against a home invasion?? If the word isn't out already, people should know that handgun rounds are actually very puny. There are cases where someone gets hit by a .22 in the right spot and drops dead immediately, while 50 cent was shot by a 9mm 9 times and recovered just fine. To my knowledge, no one has ever survived a direct hit from a shotgun...

snip

I understand why you're asking the question, and it really comes down to what the individual needs his firearm to do. It's just a tool, and there are different types of tools, right? If you learn how to use them safely, and practice, it becomes easier... kind of like chopping wood with an axe.

A couple things regarding your post. Sometimes the velocity and design of the projectile is important to consider, if you are living in an apartment building, for example. Personally, I hope my neighbors aren't using .22lr for home defense. I know a .357mag or 9mm hollow point doesn't look like much, but ballistics technology and the science in how the bullet fragments upon impact is pretty incredible. (I hope I never have to find out up close.)

Secondly, not everyone has the financial capital to purchase a specific firearm for home defense, they are choosing from the existing catalog that they've built and/or what family members have passed down. If I am going to spend $1,000, I want it to have a purpose (hopefully to put meat in the freezer) and I want to shoot it. If I purchased a tactical pistol grip shotgun, I'd never use it for anything other than if someone broke into my home. That is a poor investment for me. That being said, I don't think a large game rifle (243, 270, etc.) with optics would even be an option, or my 3-shot semi auto shotgun that is set up to shoot migratory birds. We do have revolvers that we carry that might have snake shot in them depending on rainfall, and I also have a lightweight and compact 9mm that holds 16 rounds that is carried as a last resort option for wild game defense at the hunting lease. Which one would you go with? This is what a lot of gun owners are going to be choosing from. Some will have AR/AK style pig hunters or whatever, but that was probably last on the priority list for a person like me. So the 9mm is what I would use, given these options. There are other reasons why this was determined to be the best fit from a strategy perspective, but you get the idea.

The last thing I'll say, to those that are curious about the solution, is that a lot of people buy a firearm for self defense and they go to the range one time and then their Glock or whatever just sits in the drawer forever, waiting to be a problem. I've seen women pick out some clunky pink pistol and then can't even pull the slide back. Many people lack education on functionality and reliability and go with what looks cool, which is usually a mistake. If anything, I think more safety classes, mental training, and instruction on operation and maintenance would help a lot. This should be an ongoing renewal process, just like how they check your eyesight when you renew your drivers license to make sure you can see the damn road. But, at least here in the US, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Post: #37

The amount of misinformation/misconceptions on guns and crime is amazing. A lot of people have a fantastical idea about what goes on and why, repeated by the media and fueled by stories like OP posted, which have nothing to do with the vast, vast majority of crime.

These are long videos, but excellent looks at the stats and data regarding guns and crime in the U.S.

Post: #38

(01-25-2016 04:28 PM)mickeyd Wrote:  Shit like this is why I'm anti-gun. Most of these hillbillies think with the most circle-jerk pseudo-logic I've ever heard (kind of like a feminist). Ex:

Me: why do you need a concealed handgun?
Hillbilly: Because I need to protect myself.
Me: from who?
Hillbilly: From criminals of course.
Me: so you've been a victim of crime and now you see the need for it?
Hillbilly: no
Me: so why do you need it?
Hillbilly: well i saw on the news that everyone was getting attacked and this one time my cousin got harrassed by a homeless guy...

These people live in totally safe environments and feel the need to play the "Batman fantasy" instead of getting real hobbies (George Zimmerman, a classic example). They overspend on diesel 4x4 trucks to drive on good roads and they have no hitches on their truck because they don't own anything that they'd need to tow.

1. Nice Strawman. I don't think I've seen once this good since 'Nam.

"These people".

Who the fuck are you talking about? A character from a comic book? A punching bag on The Young Turks? A mythical creature that dwells in the comments on the Daily Kos?

Quote: These people live in totally safe environments

2. "These people" don't live in totally safe environments. I suspect you already know this, though I could be wrong. I initially assumed you live in a little urban hipster city/suburb, but I dont know.

Move out near me - Im up in the Northwestern area of Illinois near the border - or where most of my friends live and there are all sorts of reasons to have guns to protect yourself, whether its from wild animals, Latin Kings coming up from Chicago - or thugs breaking into your house, shooting bar bouncers, or beating up people who end up on the wrong side of a drug deal who end up lying under my retaining wall.

Thats why i need my puny 22s - my handgun included, and I'm furious that I need a concealed carry permit to stick one in my jeans everytime I hope to not get mugged on the Metra platforms in Chicago.


And thats just me. Go out to rural Kentucky. Or Wisconsin. Or anywhere that isn't some urban paradise.

Quote:Unfortunately no gun legislation ever gets through because hillbillies think " omg! the guberment is trying to take my guns and exterminate children!! omg! the evil database of gun owners will destroy us all". But you can't have an automatic weapon, cant have rockets, grenades etc. Alot of "arms" are already banned. And the government knows your address, what car you own, where you work, who your relatives are, and can access bank records, purchases, etc. How the fuck is another database going to affect you?

3. Maybe they think that because ITS FUCKING HAPPENED before!!!!! It happened to my ancestors and "registration" was the first step before the Turks finally came and took their guns. It's happened many times throughout history, and we can't pretend our government is some shining beacon that wouldn't do something similar to the "wrong people"

Databases mean oversight. It means surveillance. It means more shit about you the government shouldn't know. If you are smart, never EVER register your weapon. Find a way to purchase one outside the legal system. What the government does know will always hurt you.

Post: #39

^ I'm in agreement with Armenia with this, especially not because I've been a victim, but because I never want to be one. I live in Chicago, not in the worst neighborhood, but in a fairly high crime area. Plenty of people shot in my neighborhood, including a 19 year old girl recently and a college student shot dead last year. I carry as often as I legally can. When I can't have my gun, I have a knife, because it's better than nothing.

I see the news, I hear the stories. I'd rather have it and not need it. Always be prepared, situational awareness is huge, and so is knowing defensive measures.

Post: #40

Since so many people get it wrong, and since that view is intentionally being pushed in the media by so-called objective experts, this is what the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution means linguistically:

2nd Amendment Wrote:"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."

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:

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.

Despite being placed at the back, the second part is the independent clause, the main sentence the amendment is about, a sentence that can stand by itself. In contrast, the first part cannot stand by itself. It is an dependent clause meant to give more information about the independent clause.

Independent clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In other words, the people have a right to be armed and the government is not allowed to touch that. Like the other amendments of the Bill of Rights, it is meant to limit governmental powers and safeguard rights and freedoms.

Dependent clause: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state."

This can not stand as a separate sentence, and is meant to modify the main clause. It is a bit old and therefore confusing. It provides a reason for the amendment. Why should the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed by the government?

The United States of America was founded in a context of tyrannical governments. Power corrupts people and governments, however noble at this moment, cannot be trusted to stay benign. It's why government powers were limited. And as a last protection against a dictatorship, against slavery, they wanted the people to be able to fight a government-gone-rogue.

An armed population is a constant reminder to the people in power that they can be held responsible. One person with a gun can't do much, but when they organize into well thought out militias, they can protect the free state.

Enemies foreign and domestic. We're being distracted with false foreign enemies, so we do not see the intentions and machinations of the real domestic ones. They lie via omissions, they lie with statistics, and they want to take your weapons.

Since it is necessary for the protection of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Really? Let's ask Jefferson:

Thomas Jefferson Wrote:The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

So when they come for your guns, it is very clear that would be exactly the authoritarian scenario the Founding Fathers wanted to protect against, and there is only one possible response to that.

Post: #41

Thanks Micky,

You have shown us a textbook case of the typical anti-gun crowd. You used straw man arguments, massive assumptions, and bigotry to make an argument that with further research you found to be flawed. After realizing the lack of credible data, you still stand by your previous opinion. And you did it all with a quaint air of superiority.

It's like a case study In left-wing decision making. It's beautiful.

Post: #42

Mickeyd

In the end, if you dislike handguns and think they should be regulated to death than why don't you choose not to carry.

Or choose not to have a gun at all since they are responsible for so many deaths. You don't want to be a part of all those statistics for all those gun crimes.

The point is if you dislike handguns you ultimately have the choice to:not buy them, not carry them, not do anything with them.

So are you going to put your money and safety where your mouth is?

Post: #43

Ok, clearly i spoke dissent, and got the lynch mob after me. At this point, no one is reading my posts anymore. I have to re-iterate the obvious.

1. In my original reply, the first line reads " shit like this is why I'm anti-gun." THAT WAS AN OVERSTATEMENT AND IT IS NOT MY ACTUAL OPINION.

2. My only real opinion is that a handgun should be harder to get and have a permit system. Like a driver's license. Like a hunting permit. Like a conceal carry permit. If I'm wrong on this notion, then I'm wrong and you can call me out on this notion only.

3. My opinion is aimed at gun violence in the US as a whole and not this particular case.

4. My original reply was a sort of mini-rant against the faux-redneck types that populate the great state of Florida. It was not towards people who train with their weapon regularly and are completely responsible concealed carriers.

Post: #44

Handguns are harder to get, but just a little. In my state, handgun age is 21 (vs 18 for rifles) and there is a 3 (or maybe 10 now) day waiting period after you pass the nic check and pay, that you can get it, if you don't have a CCW.
I have no idea how to get actual gun violence down, in the small city I live in, every single person is armed to the gills, and there is no gun violence at all.
I used to conceal carry when I lived in ghetto areas, but haven't renewed since moving, because most everyone just open carries here.

Post: #45

Can't this just be a crime?

There's no conceivable law that will keep Bubba from getting his legal guns, much less one that will make him into a conscientious gun owner.

His hood and suburban counterparts and those on the underground won't be stopped either.

This is the new reality.

This weekend, a kid who was supposed to be headed back to school, cut class and broke into his own house. His father shot him dead because he thought it was an intruder/burglar. Cincinnati

These things happen, and it's just a fact of American life.

WIA

Post: #46

My argument at :10 seconds

Post: #47

(01-25-2016 07:25 PM)mickeyd Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 06:00 PM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  MickeyD. Why should we further regulate handgun ownership?

The problem with handguns is the potent mixture of concealability, difficulty of use, and their very specific intended use, which is short range use against a human target.

Handguns are not easily found during a police search of a vehicle or home. They are not readily apparent if someone is wearing loose clothing. Handguns are the criminal's choice of weapon. I understand the concept that criminals will not obey laws, obtain weapons illegally, possess them illegally etc. But, any chance we can give law enforcement to crack down on the steps in which a handgun goes from a legal gun dealer to the criminal will ultimately help reduce crime. Right now a person who has no criminal record can buy a gun in about 45 minutes, go straight to the criminal and resell it. Its really that simple. The criminal will then scratch the serial and hide it in his residence.

All handguns that aren't full size are notoriously hard to shoot. Literally anybody can pick up a .22 rifle, put 10 rounds onto a man-sized target at 25 yards with about 10 minutes of training. Doing the same with a .22 pistol requires much more training. How many forum members actually even carry EVERYWHERE they go? Slim to none i bet. So, knowing that truly concealable handguns are fucking near impossible to be accurate with at the shooting range, where everything is comfortable, imagine a situation under duress, with sweaty shaky hands, and fast-moving target. It takes alot of training to prepare for something like that.

And finally, why would anyone choose a handgun to defend against a home invasion?? If the word isn't out already, people should know that handgun rounds are actually very puny. There are cases where someone gets hit by a .22 in the right spot and drops dead immediately, while 50 cent was shot by a 9mm 9 times and recovered just fine. To my knowledge, no one has ever survived a direct hit from a shotgun...

So, in essence, the only real use of a handgun is concealed carry self-defense in trained, dedicated, law-abiding hands. The Gov. should employ privately owned handgun schools that do a 2 or 3 weekend course, with classroom education, and then training drills at a shooting range, in which someone must pass a multiple choice exam, a simple accuracy test, and a draw-and-holster test. After you pass you get a handgun permit and you can buy whatever handgun you want.

If you need to shoot someone 25 yards away, then you aren't defending yourself.

Post: #48

(01-26-2016 01:33 PM)Skull_Leader Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 07:25 PM)mickeyd Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 06:00 PM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  MickeyD. Why should we further regulate handgun ownership?

The problem with handguns is the potent mixture of concealability, difficulty of use, and their very specific intended use, which is short range use against a human target.

Handguns are not easily found during a police search of a vehicle or home. They are not readily apparent if someone is wearing loose clothing. Handguns are the criminal's choice of weapon. I understand the concept that criminals will not obey laws, obtain weapons illegally, possess them illegally etc. But, any chance we can give law enforcement to crack down on the steps in which a handgun goes from a legal gun dealer to the criminal will ultimately help reduce crime. Right now a person who has no criminal record can buy a gun in about 45 minutes, go straight to the criminal and resell it. Its really that simple. The criminal will then scratch the serial and hide it in his residence.

All handguns that aren't full size are notoriously hard to shoot. Literally anybody can pick up a .22 rifle, put 10 rounds onto a man-sized target at 25 yards with about 10 minutes of training. Doing the same with a .22 pistol requires much more training. How many forum members actually even carry EVERYWHERE they go? Slim to none i bet. So, knowing that truly concealable handguns are fucking near impossible to be accurate with at the shooting range, where everything is comfortable, imagine a situation under duress, with sweaty shaky hands, and fast-moving target. It takes alot of training to prepare for something like that.

And finally, why would anyone choose a handgun to defend against a home invasion?? If the word isn't out already, people should know that handgun rounds are actually very puny. There are cases where someone gets hit by a .22 in the right spot and drops dead immediately, while 50 cent was shot by a 9mm 9 times and recovered just fine. To my knowledge, no one has ever survived a direct hit from a shotgun...

So, in essence, the only real use of a handgun is concealed carry self-defense in trained, dedicated, law-abiding hands. The Gov. should employ privately owned handgun schools that do a 2 or 3 weekend course, with classroom education, and then training drills at a shooting range, in which someone must pass a multiple choice exam, a simple accuracy test, and a draw-and-holster test. After you pass you get a handgun permit and you can buy whatever handgun you want.

If you need to shoot someone 25 yards away, then you aren't defending yourself.

Youre missing the point. 25 yards its not a self-defense distance. But 25 yards is a reasonable distance you must maintain focus and technique to hit your target. In a self defense scenario, it will be more like 5 feet. But your target will be rapidly moving and you will be in a state of duress. You will have to maintain that focus to hit anything other than an aircraft carrier.

Post: #49

(01-26-2016 10:34 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  This weekend, a kid who was supposed to be headed back to school, cut class and broke into his own house. His father shot him dead because he thought it was an intruder/burglar. Cincinnati

Damn.

Quote:In Ohio father shot and killed his teenage son early Tuesday morning, apparently mistaking him for an intruder, Cincinnati Police said.

According to his father, the teen, identified as Georta Mack, 14, left for school, but returned through the basement, unbeknownst to his father, said police.

"I just shot my son by accident," Mack's father told a 911 operator. "He scared me. I thought he was in school. I heard noise and then I went downstairs looking. He jumped out at me. I shot him," the father is heard saying in a 911 recording obtained by CNN affiliate WCPO Tuesday.

"Oh God. Oh God. Why didn't you go to school?"

The investigative unit is not releasing the father's name yet, according to said Lt. Tim Brown of the Cincinnati Police Department.

Georta was taken to Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center where he later died.

Both Cincinnati Police and the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office are investigating the shooting.

This is at least the second case of a family member shooting and killing a family member -- apparently by mistake -- within the last two weeks. On the night of December 29, a woman in St. Cloud, Florida, shot her 27-year-old daughter, apparently mistaking her for a burglar. The woman fired only one round, police said, and the daughter later died at a hospital.

CNN did not identify family members in that case by request of St. Cloud Police who said the father of the victim had been an undercover police officer.

St. Cloud police said the shooting appears to be accidental, but that an investigation is ongoing.