Gun control/being safe out there....

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: buster
We have many people in this so called "developed" country that lack a developed mind. We still have a hefty population that rejects scientific thinking and thinks evolution is bogus, the earth was created in 7 days, literally, and climate change is bogus.


To characterize, to stereotype, all of the "other side" as stupid is part of the reason we have such acrimony in Washington...


Where did he say "all" or "stupid"?

He said "many" and "hefty". And his characterization of their beliefs was not exaggerated.

Yet you claim he says "all" and "stupid"?

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: stockrex
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Why did the leader of our country never mention that the shooter targeted Christians?





Did he?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...to-be-the-case/




Persecution complex.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: stockrex
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The VAST majority of Canada's gun homicides are committed using hand guns (restricted) which are smuggled in illegally from the USA. This happens primarily in the GTA and is generally gang-bangers offing each other. No amount of additional firearms laws levied on the Canadian public would have ANY impact on this.


You need to build a big beautiful wall.

bottom line you have persons who are using handguns to kill.
all the legislation you have did not and could not prevent that.
what it did was take out of your hand and you are not able protect yourself and your family.


Correct, no legislation has helped with the hand gun problem because the hand guns that are legally owned by Canadians are generally stored away in locked boxes separate from their ammo inside a gun safe. The ILLEGALLY obtained guns are the issue, so further imposing laws on the already law abiding does, as expected, nothing.

HOWEVER

We are certainly able to protect ourselves and our families, it is just that a hand gun simply isn't a viable means of doing so. A shotgun on the other hand, which is non-restricted, is an excellent option and has only the most basic storage restrictions levied against it. It can be stored (disabled) in the open, or with a trigger lock or action lock on it. It can be stored (together with its ammo) inside a gun cabinet, which can be in very close proximity to where you sleep. A cabinet with a thumb scanner or other quick-open lock would give you extremely quick access to the shotgun and its ammunition if needed. If you are in fear for your life, you are allowed under Canadian law to use that shotgun to protect yourself and your family. We recently had an incident that played out in just that way only about an hour from me, no charges or anything levied against the homeowner.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
What percentage of people carrying guns are trained concealed carriers able to make decisions under stressful conditions?
What percentage of people that drive cars are able to make decisions under stressful conditions?

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
A question to the BITOGers.

Imagine you are in a movie theater watching a movie. Suddenly there is gunfire. As a good citizen, you pull out your gun fr self defense and start shooting at the shooter.

1. How do you know the person you are shooting at is the real shooter?
2. How do you make sure that someone just like you will not mistake you for the real shooter?
If you have to ask ,,, O.K. I'll tell you ! you shoot back at the person that is shooting at you. Simple it doesn't take a rocket scientist.

 

[Alfred_B]

Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
What percentage of people carrying guns are trained concealed carriers able to make decisions under stressful conditions?
What percentage of people that drive cars are able to make decisions under stressful conditions?


You have to pass a test to get a license to drive. You have to register your car every year and pass a safety check in most states. The cops will pull you over, and even ban from driving, if you are unsafe on the road. You have to get insurance in order to be able to drive a car.

Very dissimilar situations.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
A question to the BITOGers.

Imagine you are in a movie theater watching a movie. Suddenly there is gunfire. As a good citizen, you pull out your gun fr self defense and start shooting at the shooter.

Thanks. This shows you have no knowledge of how defensive concealed carry works. (I'll give you a pass bc you live in Illinois.)
You get yourself down and out of danger unless you are 100% certain that you can remove the threat with no danger to others. Once you eliminate the threat you quickly get your weapon out of sight.
Readers Digest: you just don't start firing at the shooter....duuuhhh



Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
What percentage of people carrying guns are trained concealed carriers able to make decisions under stressful conditions?

I don't care about most people. I care about me and my family. The one thing I will not do is put anyone in danger by firing at a threat where I am not 100% certain I can eliminate (without danger to others)

 

[Astro14]

As was previously pointed out, cars and guns are very different.

Guns are a right. Cars are not.

Let's apply the "reasonable restrictions" logic to the right to vote. Just to see how it sounds to you.

In order to vote you must:
Pass a background check.
Prove your identity using two forms of government issued picture ID.
Prove your address.
Prove your competence by passing a test.

 

[Rust_Belt_Pete]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
As was previously pointed out, cars and guns are very different.

Guns are a right. Cars are not.

Let's apply the "reasonable restrictions" logic to the right to vote. Just to see how it sounds to you.

In order to vote you must:
Pass a background check.
Prove your identity using two forms of government issued picture ID.
Prove your address.
Prove your competence by passing a test.



If we applied the same standards to gun RIGHTS as we did to voting RIGHTS people would lose their minds and start screaming about racism and poll taxes.
Actually now that I recall racism was the root of firearms restriction in this country.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
As was previously pointed out, cars and guns are very different.

Guns are a right. Cars are not.

Let's apply the "reasonable restrictions" logic to the right to vote. Just to see how it sounds to you.

In order to vote you must:
Pass a background check.
Prove your identity using two forms of government issued picture ID.
Prove your address.
Prove your competence by passing a test.



If only all our rights were defended as vigorously as this one.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: Astro14
As was previously pointed out, cars and guns are very different.

Guns are a right. Cars are not.

Let's apply the "reasonable restrictions" logic to the right to vote. Just to see how it sounds to you.

In order to vote you must:
Pass a background check.
Prove your identity using two forms of government issued picture ID.
Prove your address.
Prove your competence by passing a test.



If only all our rights were defended as vigorously as this one.


Dishdude - On that point, I completely agree.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Benito
Here's a good guy with a gun in a movie theater. An ex cop who shot another customer because he was texting.



That ex-cop was a syco. Who in their right mind shoots someone for over getting popcorn thrown in your face?

 

[Mystic]

Why do some liberals accept shotguns for self-defense but demand that people not have handguns or rifles like the AR-15? Even the vice president talked about how people should use shotguns for self-defense and not rifles like the AR-15.

1. A shotgun is still a gun. And a shotgun can be harder to handle for some people compared to a AR-15 rifle or a handgun. A shotgun loaded with slugs has a considerable recoil. And may endanger innocent people in a house or outside of a house in addition to the intruder/intruders. And one more time-a shotgun is still a gun.

2. A AR-15 type rifle has no recoil (I could not detect any noticeable recoil) and is actually easier to handle than a shotgun. It is probably just as intimidating to an intruder/intruders as a shotgun. The AR-15 is easy to handle, even for a small woman. I would rather shoot a AR-15 type rifle than a shotgun.

What is it about handguns and AR-15 type rifles that disturbs some people so much? And yet some people are okay with shotguns being used for self-defense. A SHOTGUN IS STILL A GUN.

 

[Rust_Belt_Pete]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Why do some liberals accept shotguns for self-defense but demand that people not have handguns or rifles like the AR-15?


Because they dont look scary?
Heck when they slapped a "street sweeper" name on a shotgun and made it look scary every one flipped out and it was promptly banned.

 

[Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Rust_Belt_Pete
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Why do some liberals accept shotguns for self-defense but demand that people not have handguns or rifles like the AR-15?


Because they dont look scary?
Heck when they slapped a "street sweeper" name on a shotgun and made it look scary every one flipped out and it was promptly banned.


Maybe that is the reason. An AR-15 looks kind of like a military rifle and some don't like the military anyway. Or the police for that matter.

Maybe if some manufacturer offered pink AR-15s for sale it would be acceptable?

If somebody is going to use a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot or slugs for self-defense, what if their wife is home alone and has to try to defense herself and the family? Can she handle the 12 gauge with buckshot and slugs? Many women can. Some can't. Better find out on the range before there is an actual incident at home.

I have shot a lot of 12 gauge shotguns. I shot a lightweight one and nobody wanted to shoot slugs or buckshot in that lightweight shotgun. The AR-15 is not a M-16. An M-16 is capable of full automatic fire and also shooting three round bursts. I suppose it is useless to try to explain to some people the difference. I would prefer shooting the AR-15 any day myself compared to shooting a shotgun. Although 12 gauge shotguns just shooting birdshot at clay targets is nice and enjoyable.

Take your wife out shooting and see if she prefers shooting a 12 gauge shotgun with buckshot or slugs or else if she prefers the AR-15. I bet she will like the AR-15 better.

And another point: Do people know what a 12 gauge shotgun can do to a human being? If the intruder is shot with a round from a 9mm handgun he might survive to go to trial. Likely to be a different story if he is hit with 12 gauge buckshot or a slug. A slug can crack an engine block.

 

[stockrex]

Originally Posted By: Rust_Belt_Pete
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Why do some liberals accept shotguns for self-defense but demand that people not have handguns or rifles like the AR-15?


Because they dont look scary?
Heck when they slapped a "street sweeper" name on a shotgun and made it look scary every one flipped out and it was promptly banned.


Lack of knowledge, common sense, paranoia, shifting blame to guns

 

[Alfred_B]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
A question to the BITOGers.

Imagine you are in a movie theater watching a movie. Suddenly there is gunfire. As a good citizen, you pull out your gun fr self defense and start shooting at the shooter.

Thanks. This shows you have no knowledge of how defensive concealed carry works. (I'll give you a pass bc you live in Illinois.)
You get yourself down and out of danger unless you are 100% certain that you can remove the threat with no danger to others. Once you eliminate the threat you quickly get your weapon out of sight.
Readers Digest: you just don't start firing at the shooter....duuuhhh



Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
What percentage of people carrying guns are trained concealed carriers able to make decisions under stressful conditions?

I don't care about most people. I care about me and my family. The one thing I will not do is put anyone in danger by firing at a threat where I am not 100% certain I can eliminate (without danger to others)


Actually, we have a very rigorous training requirement in IL for concealed carry. But in quite a few places, like IN, all you need is $100 to get a carry license, no training is required.

Again, here is what can happen potentially.

Texas ‘good guy with a gun’ shoots carjacking victim in head — then runs away

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-go...then-runs-away/

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B

Actually, we have a very rigorous training requirement in IL for concealed carry. But in quite a few places, like IN, all you need is $100 to get a carry license, no training is required.

Again, here is what can happen potentially.

Texas ‘good guy with a gun’ shoots carjacking victim in head — then runs away

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-go...then-runs-away/


That was already posted. In this thread.

I don't see the point of anecdotal evidence. I can find examples of idiots, or mistakes, in every profession. There are literally hundreds of examples of bad shoots by police.

Yet no one is suggesting that the police lose the right to carry a firearm. That this CCW made a mistake, or was an idiot, doesn't mean that the rest of the group of CCWs are equally unqualified or stupid. In fact, in a study done in FL, where the CCW requirements are far less stringent than IL, it turns out that CCW holders are six times less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen, and three times less likely than police officers. The causality linkage to that correlation wasn't determined, but it's important to consider that those who go through the administrative and legal burden to obtain permission to do something are likely to be law-abiding in general.

IL training requirements for CCW are rigorous: 16 hours. I think they're actually quite good: legal topics, weapon handling, including from concealment. They are more rigorous than most states. That's your prerogative...

If your point is: good training can prevent accidents and mistakes, then I wholeheartedly agree.

If your point is: no one should carry concealed becuase mistakes can be made, then I completely disagree. The logic is specious...by avoiding an activity, we can avoid the risk...sure, but the risk might be necessary. After all, to be perfectly safe, to avoid the possibility of any mistake, a ship should never leave port, and an airplane should never leave the ground.

 

[Alfred_B]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B

Actually, we have a very rigorous training requirement in IL for concealed carry. But in quite a few places, like IN, all you need is $100 to get a carry license, no training is required.

Again, here is what can happen potentially.

Texas ‘good guy with a gun’ shoots carjacking victim in head — then runs away

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-go...then-runs-away/


That was already posted. In this thread.

I don't see the point of anecdotal evidence. I can find examples of idiots, or mistakes, in every profession. There are literally hundreds of examples of bad shoots by police.

Yet no one is suggesting that the police lose the right to carry a firearm. That this CCW made a mistake, or was an idiot, doesn't mean that the rest of the group of CCWs are equally unqualified or stupid. In fact, in a study done in FL, where the CCW requirements are far less stringent than IL, it turns out that CCW holders are six times less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen, and three times less likely than police officers. The causality linkage to that correlation wasn't determined, but it's important to consider that those who go through the administrative and legal burden to obtain permission to do something are likely to be law-abiding in general.

IL training requirements for CCW are rigorous: 16 hours. I think they're actually quite good: legal topics, weapon handling, including from concealment. They are more rigorous than most states. That's your prerogative...

If your point is: good training can prevent accidents and mistakes, then I wholeheartedly agree.

If your point is: no one should carry concealed becuase mistakes can be made, then I completely disagree. The logic is specious...by avoiding an activity, we can avoid the risk...sure, but the risk might be necessary. After all, to be perfectly safe, to avoid the possibility of any mistake, a ship should never leave port, and an airplane should never leave the ground.


My point is that one should be trained to be able to handle the weapon they are allowed to carry in public. Because a mistake can result in injury or death and even one is too many.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: Rust_Belt_Pete
Actually now that I recall racism was the root of firearms restriction in this country.


Yep, the Mulford Act 1967 signed by Ronald Reagan, supported by the NRA, sponsored by Republican Don Mulford.

Originally Posted By: RonaldReagan
no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons ..... no hardship on the honest citizen


That's history, which I'm told is very important and should not be forgotten.