Gun control/being safe out there....

[Mystic]

Everybody with any common sense already knows that training is necessary. Training is usually necessary for just about anything.

That is why I suggested above that if somebody is going to use a shotgun for self defense in a home, make sure everybody can handle the shotgun. Train not just with only birdshot, but with buckshot and slugs (if you are going to use slugs). There is a difference between birdshot and buckshot. And especially between birdshot and slugs.

I tried some 9mm ammo in my handgun that was the type of ammo used for training in the Olympics. It had considerable recoil. I could handle it fine, but it was different than shooting 115 grain training rounds. My 9mm handgun is one of the few that can handle P+P ammunition. When I bought self defense ammunition at a Bass ProShop the guy in the gun department told me my 9mm could handle P+P ammunition. But I decided just to get the standard self defense ammunition. It is more like the 115 grain field ammo that I shoot most of the time to train with.

People are told to train the way they would actually fight. I go to the range on a regular basis and practice. Not just with my 9mm but also with my .45.

If you don't have a plan you would be in trouble in an actual situation. And if you had to defend yourself and your family from an intruder, that is going to be different than shooting at paper targets.

One good thing about a pump action shotgun or a AR-15 is that the intruder might just run when he finds himself looking down the barrel of one of those. Which would be fine. Because then you don't have to shoot somebody.

With proper training a person should be able to function in a situation. And training is obviously necessary to be able to handle the gun.

 

[Indydriver]

Gun control laws are inherently discriminatory.

In my state, you have to take time off work, go to the county seat, get fingerprinted, submit to a background check and then PAY the county sheriff AND the state police to process your application. How many poor people can afford the time and money to become eligible to exercise their Bill of Rights?

Imagine being required to do this in order to exercise your 1st Amendment "rights".

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Indydriver


Imagine being required to do this in order to exercise your 1st Amendment "rights".

Yea..good point.

Where it gets sticky is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mandate a weapon may be carried outside of your abode.

The reason all but a few states have "Shall Issue" concealed carry is because before say 1987 some well connected people got the permits and others didn't. Lawsuits are what opened the flood gates..not the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Indydriver]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Indydriver


Imagine being required to do this in order to exercise your 1st Amendment "rights".

Yea..good point.

Where it gets sticky is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mandate a weapon may be carried outside of your abode.

The reason all but a few states have "Shall Issue" concealed carry is because before say 1987 some well connected people got the permits and others didn't. Lawsuits are what opened the flood gates..not the 2nd Amendment.


Two points in response....

1. What does "bear" mean? My common understanding equates bear with carry anywhere, without regard to open or concealed carry.
2. My state constitution (and many others) are more straightforward than 2A. Mine says simply that we can bear for the defense of ourselves and the state. Period.

As an aside, I would suggest all of you look at your state constitutions. Mine was written after 60 years of the national 2A and its writers chose to simplify the language into a very straightforward and unambiguous statement. If you want to overthrow our national constitution, you still have to deal with the state protections.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Indydriver


1. What does "bear" mean? My common understanding equates bear with carry anywhere, without regard to open or concealed carry.



That's a good question. "Bearing" is mostly used in a weapons context. But if my family showed up to surprise me, and announced they had "come bearing gifts", they would either have them right with them, or want me to come see them.

If someone said, hey, I'm bearing a surprise for you, and didn't eventually show me, I'd think they were a douche about the whole thing.

A car that's "really bearing down on me" is obviously visible in my rearview mirror.

To bear something, IMO, is to be proud of it and loudly proclaim its existence.

 

[Win]

"bear" means "carry", then, as well as now.

 

[stockrex]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: stockrex
Originally Posted By: Benito

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.




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.





Overkill, I agree with ya bro, nothing wrong with protecting your family with a shotgun, machete, sling shot.

Some would prefer they allow us civilians to use bouncing betty mines to protect our property [US did not sign the Geneva C on land mines ;-)] but hey shotguns would suffice in-lieu of bouncing betty

The point is that firearms restrictions do nothing to stop bad guys from getting one, and using one.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: stockrex

The point is that firearms restrictions do nothing to stop bad guys from getting one, and using one.

Punishing law-abiding gun owners is a Liberal feel-good ploy, nothing more. The illusion of "doing something" by doing absolutely nothing. Exercising more rules and regulations against the "scary" gun owners in the name of "safety" is really a front for trying to disarm the people these hand-wringers are scared of because they don't understand them. The concept that a criminal by definition doesn't abide by laws and regulations cannot be lost on all of them so that leaves the explanation of something more sinister really being the motivator here.

I have nothing against mandatory training and safe storage practices. These are common sense. However when you start to ban guns by name or because they "look scary" you are betraying the guise of "safety" being used as a front here and reveal the true motive which is that guns scare people that aren't into guns and subsequently those people need their guns taken away from them so that the non-gun people can feel better.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: SaturnIonVue
To the liberal elites, it's safer and more expedient to ban all guns than it is to fix the crazies! Just trade one constitutional right for another. Gun rights vs. the right of people to be crazy and not have to deal with issues of personal liberty. Once upon a time, persons who were mentally ill (1960's) were all kicked out of mental health facilities (hospitals) because their "rights" were being violated. That was a liberal agenda.


So how would the perp have been committed to an institution under 1950's era rules? His mom works in the health care field as an LPN and should have been able to negotiate the system. He did nothing "wrong" before he snapped. He flunked out of Boot Camp, which, well, someone's gotta. But you can't lock everyone away for that. Other than the boot camp thing he kept to himself. Generally one needs to be "an immediate threat to themselves or others."

Although, yes, I agree in principle, mental health needs more resources. And we need to care about our fellow man, maybe not treat them like walking zombies that will be someone else's problem.


Its possible that its not about guns but this country has the most obese and wealthy poor people, and the nicest jails of any country. We hand out more funds to those that don't work than any country, and as a result have more gangs than any country.

 

[Mystic]

Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: SaturnIonVue
To the liberal elites, it's safer and more expedient to ban all guns than it is to fix the crazies! Just trade one constitutional right for another. Gun rights vs. the right of people to be crazy and not have to deal with issues of personal liberty. Once upon a time, persons who were mentally ill (1960's) were all kicked out of mental health facilities (hospitals) because their "rights" were being violated. That was a liberal agenda.


So how would the perp have been committed to an institution under 1950's era rules? His mom works in the health care field as an LPN and should have been able to negotiate the system. He did nothing "wrong" before he snapped. He flunked out of Boot Camp, which, well, someone's gotta. But you can't lock everyone away for that. Other than the boot camp thing he kept to himself. Generally one needs to be "an immediate threat to themselves or others."

Although, yes, I agree in principle, mental health needs more resources. And we need to care about our fellow man, maybe not treat them like walking zombies that will be someone else's problem.


Its possible that its not about guns but this country has the most obese and wealthy poor people, and the nicest jails of any country. We hand out more funds to those that don't work than any country, and as a result have more gangs than any country.



Well, the gangs are killing more with guns than the mass killers but the news media does not notice or does not care. Hundreds and hundreds can die in poor neighborhoods throughout the country and the news media totally does not notice until there is a mass killing in a school or theater or shopping center or whatever.

And the gangs typically are using illegal guns and often the mass killers are using legal guns.

There is some mass killing incident every several months or once a year or so and maybe 10 people get killed. And in ONE CITY ALONE (Chicago) hundreds of people, usually poor people living in poor neighborhoods, die every single year and it is almost like it never even happened.

There is something wrong with that. And something unjust about that.

 

[Nate1979]

^^^^^ Why is it our problem that people in the inner city of Chicago are killing each other?

 

[BRZED]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Indydriver


1. What does "bear" mean? My common understanding equates bear with carry anywhere, without regard to open or concealed carry.



That's a good question. "Bearing" is mostly used in a weapons context. But if my family showed up to surprise me, and announced they had "come bearing gifts", they would either have them right with them, or want me to come see them.


Bearing means "to bring forth." Like a woman bears a child. Etymologically, "to bear" and "to birth" are definitely related. You produce something. You bear a gift and surprise people when you reveal it. So bearing has the component of something appearing suddenly. You wouldn't say Wyatt Earp was bearing a six-gun, because his sixshooter was not ever concealed but at the ready on his hip.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Al
The reason all but a few states have "Shall Issue" concealed carry is because before say 1987 some well connected people got the permits and others didn't. Lawsuits are what opened the flood gates..not the 2nd Amendment.


That's the funny thing about Oz's gun laws...self protection is not a valid reason to get a firearm, never has been. But when Media Magnate Kerry Packer (aka the Goanna) had a pistol stolen out of his desk drawer, the Police were immediately out with "legally owned", and "no charges against Mr Packer".

Seems that there's another set of laws in play for the connected.

While being held up in this thread and others as an example, Oz's laws aren't stopping the willing from killing.

15 year old shooter

Goes over the course of his early teen years from facebook, friends, and games to being groomed, handed a gun, and sent to kill Police officers.

Pretty much most of that is illegal, in one of the most sensibly gun controlled countries in the world, but people with will to commit evil are quite able to do so.

 

[CourierDriver]

A thought, yes handguns kill, be responsible , avoid a hand gun fight in public if you can--most likely you cannot afford the lawyer fees and court hearings-real life is not a TV show, remember that.

Probably 99 % of us are not properly trained for any altercation in public when it comes to handgun usage. IMHO- carrying a weapon in public is probably a one on one incident with you being a would be victim in a split second moment. Situations are never easy, your not a professional, but your ego says you are. I always think I can do this and that, [censored], we are never ready and we are not trained to do or react correctly.

Our gun/carry permit school instructor told us, quote" walk away from a altercation if you can". You most likely will live longer. Well that is what he told us....

At home , thats another story,you be the judge.

 

[stockrex]

Gun laws/restrictions do not prevent crime
why carry a handgun?
well as one of the billboard ads in west Michigan puts it in terms even el presidente Bush_aka_mission_accomplished can understand

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Gun control laws are inherently discriminatory.

In my state, you have to take time off work, go to the county seat, get fingerprinted, submit to a background check and then PAY the county sheriff AND the state police to process your application. How many poor people can afford the time and money to become eligible to exercise their Bill of Rights?

Imagine being required to do this in order to exercise your 1st Amendment "rights".


I was going to say... sounds like Indiana!

 

[Alfred_B]

Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Gun control laws are inherently discriminatory.

In my state, you have to take time off work, go to the county seat, get fingerprinted, submit to a background check and then PAY the county sheriff AND the state police to process your application. How many poor people can afford the time and money to become eligible to exercise their Bill of Rights?

Imagine being required to do this in order to exercise your 1st Amendment "rights".


There is no training requirement in Indiana. All you need is $100 and a couple of hours to go to the sheriff's office.

Not a big deal.

 

[Win]

It's a big deal if you're poor and don't have $100.

It shouldn't cost anything to exercise a right.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: Win
It's a big deal if you're poor and don't have $100.

It shouldn't cost anything to exercise a right.



That's unrealistic idealism. Guns cost money, or should they be provided by the gubment?

 

[Benito]

All this talk about shotguns being hard to handle, and then we have this.

An 11 year old boy shoots an 8 year old girl with a shotgun from inside his trailer home. Maybe she should have been packing an AR15 to defend herself. Or maybe she needed better situational awareness.

http://fox6now.com/2015/10/05/this-is-no...ent-over-puppy/