Guns, a controversial subject...
While I understand that the following is a controversial subject, I would like everyone to remain civil while discussing. This is not an article to discuss any president past or present. I will flag anyone that mentions any president’s name [past or present].
CPL Renewal
I just renewed my concealed pistol license (CPL) for the third time, which means that I’ve had a CPL for 15 years now. Gees, time goes by fast. I actually did not own a pistol until after I obtained my CPL. One thing is for sure, it’s far easier to purchase a pistol when you have a CPL. The reason for that is simple; all necessary background checks have been completed and fingerprints obtained. My fingerprints are in the County, State, and Federal databases. The only reason mine are in the Federal database is because of a place I worked for, which provided US prototype military vehicles to the various branches of our military. County and State have my fingerprints because of my CPL and because I had signed up to be a chaperone for school events. The year I started working for that aforementioned company, I had 3 background checks done [those mentioned above]; the most rigorous being the one for said company.
My Belief
I am someone that believes in the right to defend. I am also someone that believes that there should be background checks on all firearms; yes, even for hunting [including bow and arrow and long guns]. In my opinion [take it for what it’s worth], for those underage hunters, they should be required to take hunter’s safety courses and their parents are subject to background check. While I realize some / many states require children under 18 to take a hunter’s safety course, not all do. These laws are left up to each state to determine... albeit for good reason. The 2nd amendment was intended for US citizens to defend against the Federal Government and considering the time that amendment was written, it made complete sense. Therefore, if the Feds were to define the laws for the entire nation, it would go against our Constitution’s 2nd amendment.
My Kids
When my daughter turned 13, I was able to take her to the local gun range. A pleasant surprise upon our arrival that evening was that an all-girl, youth group [under 18] was there teaching other youths gun safety. One young lady [17 years old], offered to help teach my daughter gun safety. That young lady had been in shooting competitions since the age of 12. Initially, she was hesitant to allow me to be near them in the lane and I understand why... many parents would be quick to say something or touch their child on the shoulder before he/she put that pistol down and stepped away, but I’ve been taught by the right people and I understand that’s how people get shot. My time to say anything is after she’s done and puts that pistol down and faces me. Anyways... I was appreciative that this young lady did this and showed my daughter technique and safety. My children never go looking through my room for pistols, because I’ve curbed their curiosity. They’ve felt the power behind a gun. They know never to point a gun at anything they don’t intend to kill. They know that when a trigger is pulled, it can kill. They know that our bedroom is off limits to them or their friends. The other day, my 12 year old son was watching a movie with us (Kindergarten Cop) and towards the end of the movie, when the kid’s grandma drops the mag from Arnold’s gun and sets it on top of the lockers, my son said, “But there’s still one in the chamber. Someone could still use it to kill her!” It was a pretty proud moment for my husband and I... I know it doesn’t seem like much, but it’s really quite huge. We’ve hammered the message, “just because it doesn’t have a mag in it, it doesn’t mean that the gun is empty and won’t fire, always check the chamber,” so often that they’ll never forget it. So, for our son to have picked up on that in a movie, it was pretty awesome.
My Observations
I know there are some people out there that feel that pistols should be outlawed for citizens. I know that there are people that are only against fully automatic weapons. There are even some that feel that unless the circumstances are extreme, everyone should have the right afforded to them. However, I also know that there are even more people like me that feel that it should be a requirement to have background checks on any firearm. The reality is though, no matter the state’s laws, criminals will always find a way to obtain firearms, including those that are fully automatic. The law-abiding citizens that choose to own guns, should have that option to defend, even if it isn’t against the Federal Gov., but rather against those intending to do harm.
What I Currently Own
I currently own a Springfield XD9 (full size 9mm) and a Kahr CW (compact .40 cal.). I actually got really good deals on those pistols, because they were used. However, I knew the people that owned them previously and I also know that they were well taken care of. *Yes, I know I ended that in a preposition.* My XD9 had been owned by two people I had worked with; one of which was a reserve officer and he carried it as his backup. My Kahr was owned by my former brother in law’s buddy and that Kahr only had 300 rounds put through it... and quite frankly, Kahr’s are notoriously known for jamming and inaccuracy prior to 300 (or more) rounds being shot through them. On their website, they recommend 300-400 rounds being shot through their guns at a gun range long before carrying it.
What I Want in the Future
I would like to get a Smith & Wesson .357 snub-nose (NOT air-light though) revolver, a Kimber 1911 (full size .45 cal.), and a Sig P290 (compact carry 9mm).
I will reiterate the first section...
While I understand that the following is a controversial subject, I would like everyone to remain civil while discussing. This is not an article to discuss any president past or present. I will flag anyone that mentions any president’s name [past or present].
In the old west law enforcement often required men entering the town to surrender their weapons while they were in town and pick them back up when they were leaving.
We should not have "open carry" which has mainly given us the spectacle of "militia" armed with AR-15's threatening legislators at various state houses around the country.
I dont mind people having a gun in their house to defend their families . But no one should have military style weapons unless they are in the military.
The individual right to own guns was decided by a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court in 2007 (Heller). If there had been one more liberal on the court and one less conservative it would have went the other way. The legal argument for the Heller decision was hardly overwhelming.
What pisses me off is people acting like it is a fashion accessory.
But if you ask the pro gun toting people about their guns, they will invariably claim the 2nd Amendment. However, if you ask them to quote the 2nd Amendment, they will invariably get it wrong.
They only like the 2nd half of the full Amendment:
The 2nd Amendment speaks directly to the ability of a well regulated militia's members having the right to keep and bear arms. Does the United States currently have a "militia"?
This part, I would say no, not everyone that owns guns fall into this category.
We had to fill out a selective service form for my daughter's boyfriend... so technically, yes.
That could technically be argued that my household is a private group of armed individuals motivated by defending the individual rights against government authority, perceived as oppressive, could it not?
Moreover, are we not afforded "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as US citizens? I think that being afforded the aforementioned includes defending those things; therefore, defending myself and my family from someone that wants to do harm, is part of that ideology.
I know you were answering someone else's question on what the 2nd states. It's be adjudicated many, many times and currently - The 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms for one's own individual self-protection and protection of their own property. What it does not protect is armed members of the community banding together as an organized police force.
Could it? "A private group" pretty much shows that it is not an "individual" right. And while a "family" group could qualify, would your "family" group be well regulated?
Don't misunderstand, I am not opposed to firearms, or people's right to own them. I AM opposed to uneducated people's right to own a designed, deadly weapon, without the proper training it its use.
Any "well regulated" militia, public or private, would necessarily require training in the firearms use, and legal requirements that apply to that ownership.
Same here. I believe that I stated as such in my article.
We agree!!!
Have you looked at any Glocks? I also like the Sig, but this coming weekend, my wife and I are going shopping for a handgun to keep around the house. 45 cal is too big for her, and my daughter (if worse comes to worse). So I am thinking of a Glock 19, or possibly a Glock 26 depending on how it fits in my bigger hand.
Used to have a SW 45 , won several contests with it, but when we had children we got rid of all handguns in the house so there would be no chance of them having an accident with one.
My hands are too small for the grips on a Glock.
I like Sigs, because the grips aren't as wide. The 1911 doesn't have that much recoil despite being a .45... mainly because of the weight. However, a Springfield XD9 is a good option, because they're easy to disassemble / reassemble, not a lot of kick, and not as expensive as many of it's competitors. My 17 year old 100 lb. daughter can shoot my XD9. If you're looking for home safety only, a revolver isn't a bad idea. Anything that's NOT air-light and NOT a snub nose won't kick a lot. I don't like the "air-light" revolvers... hurts the palm.
How old is your daughter?
We just bought a safe instead.
Have ya'll looked at the Browning High Power 9mm.
I got mine for use on the Rifle/Pistol team instead of using the Beretta 9 that rattles so damn much and the Colt 1911. Replaced the wooded grips with Pachmayer and they fit like a glove
Nnnnooo, not a revolver fan. For untrained people like my wife and daughter, they need as many shots as possible since if the unthinkable ever did happen, they would probably be spraying rounds wildly with their eyes closed.
I was planning to look at a Sig, there is a gun show this weekend nearby, should be a full selection to look at. Lean towards Glocks, just because of my experience with their reliability, not because I have any problems with other manufacturers.
The daughter that lives at home is 22.
Considered it, but with 1, soon to be 2, daughters on the way, we needed all the money we had back then. And I look at firearms as tools, it was a tool that I didn't need, so there was not a reason to really keep it around. Keeping a gun for "personal protection" is generally a lot of bullshit if you live in a nice area (we do).
I also truly dislike people who need their guns to "compensate" for other things. There are more than enough GOOD reasons to own guns, the people who stride around with them to show how big and tough they are, and to intimidate others (compensating), are the ones that should NEVER be allowed to own one.
By todays standards possably , and most likely needed, by the standards of when the 2nd amendment was written , its a whole different animal in reality.
back then people were still sustinance hunting to put food on the table unlike today so they would have had a firearm not just for protection but to get food , and they would be knowledgable about the particular firearm they owned .
one of the first militia acts the government came up with only required that if called a person show up with their firearm , no gauge or cal mentioned , with a pound of powder and a pound of shot for said firearm, a bedroll eating utensils and a pack to carry it all in, anything else was left to the individuals discretion and one of the understandings of the word regulated had nothing to do with training , but had to do with equipment requirements being made the same
From then until the spanish -american war , the militia concept was pretty much left to the states and their own devices and choices which led to a lot of both logistical and supply problems .some were poorly equipped and some where better equipped dependent on how the state decided to fund its militia requirements
The modern militia we see today in the form of the NG is a construct of what happened trying to supply different state militias to government service in the S-A war. and as a result the feds pay for equipment and training in tactics and operation , while the state provides and pays for the officers and enlisted .
Here is where things can get a little more complicated depending on the state one lives in.
The NG is the accepted defacto known militia in every state, no arguments there and some states follow that is all they need. yet some states both in their constitutions and in their statutes allow for yet another form of militia under the states control only that has nothing to do with the states agreement with the federal government about militias.
And there is a pretty good reason people dont hear about them. the main one is they would compete for man power from the self same manpower pool as the NG and that if ever authorized and activated under state laws , they would have to be paid for entirely by the state with no federal moneys so lets jump into the way-back machine with mr peabody and go back to the time where these folk show up with what they possess, talk about a supply cluster on the state level.
Also imagine if both were options for a state resident , which they would choose with the way the NG has been deployed the last 20 years or so, NG get deployed at the feds discretion , state guard , cant be deployed past the states borders. kind of a no brainer to me. and the feds would bring back the draft real quick.
So they only exist in law and on paper unless a states executive or legislature decide to activate them for use and defense within the states borders. and without authorization from the Gov, its illegal in many states to call ones self or group a militia.
Currently , i am too old to be called back to active service by either the federal government or the NG.not withstanding any and all military obligations have been filled, active and reserve .
BUT, if the executive or state legislature authorize and activate a state guard (the usual name for the 3rd unknown militia afforded states if they have the provisions for them) outside the NG for the defense of the state and enforcement of laws ( they are not subject to Posse com) the state can call and conscript me until i reach the age of 72 in my states case. and keep in mind not all states have provisions that allow them to do so.
I would say if anyone doesnt know what their home states CAN do , they look it up and be sure for themselves . it can usually be found in either their home states constitutions , but is usually buried in state statutes and laws . like when can a county sherriff form a posse legally and some of those laws are still on the books and can be used even if they havent been for decades.
And all you're doing is altering the punctuation to change the meaning.
Supposition and opinion. Or, in other words, but but but but.............
Good for them! Has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
Because there was no standing military. No longer true, is it?
So, in your opinion, the right to own and bare arms is limited to the national guard since they are today's militia. That's an interesting concept.
Owned a high power back in the 70s and it was inaccurate and unreliable.
Had I been the gunsmith then that I am now, might have kept it.
Wrong, that is NOT my opinion , just what you wish to believe and push as the acceptable conclusion which I reject.
the other part of it being a personal right is self protection by the best mean available to ones self , the fact the militia was so vital due to the fact there was as you point out no standing army , nor any standing police force for that matter , couldnt call the sheriff during an indian raid now could one? not much has changed since then today either , yes its available to call the authorities that are maybe minutes and maybe hours away when mere seconds are whats being counted in possible life or death preferably the thugs life and death and not the targeted victim.
the 2 parts of the 2nd that need to be understood is that is in place to protect the state at the states call , and ones person and life individually .
if one wishes to believe the government is enough to protect itself and its citizens then they are doing a piss poor job in washington state and oregon , as well as what happened in DC, i think a lot of congress people realized that even though they budget for a capitol police to protect them and they had all the modern advancement of the day they found out rather rudely , they in their marble halls, paneled offices and ivory towers are still vulnerable no matter how much money they spent and that they are the only ones responsible for their own safety and well being in the end as it was they ended up being led around like a bunch of sheep.
Tools... you're talking to a "former" mechanic that's married to a mechanic. I would have to be pretty destitute to sell tools.
While we live in a good area, we're roughly 10 miles from Southwest Detroit. There's been break-ins here an there around here. And... when my daughter was in the 5th grade, two guys attempted to abduct her for sex trafficking. I'm just really glad that she was actually paying attention when we told her what she needed to do in a situation like that, because she did exactly what we taught her.
Agreed. I'm only 4'11"... I'm not compensating for my height, but many people think that they can take advantage of a short lady.
There's a 1911 compact now.
My Springfield is set up like that... with a palm safety.
My Kahr doesn't have a safety. Hence the fireproof safe.
You need your tools, we did not NEED our guns. If I were with the police I would NEED a gun, but I was not and so did not.
That concept is just horrifying, but it is good that they were caught and found out.
Kudos for you guys for being willing to broach the subject with her, and double kudos to her for remembering what you told her during a time when many would panic.
Bullies who prey on smaller and weaker people are poor excuses for human beings.
As I stated earlier, there are MANY reasons to own a gun, and feeling safer in your home is one of the biggest.
However the people that make statements like, "he better stay away from my house, I have a shotgun to teach him a lesson", or something similar, are the assholes who should never be allowed near any firearm. A gun is for your protection as an absolute last resort, too many gun owners act like now that they have a gun they can't wait to use it. You usually see them striding around wearing an American flag (thinking it makes them look patriotic), with bumper stickers about "prying it from their cold dead hands".
Like I said, compensating and not for height...
I know. I was just teasing.
Not caught, but yes horrifying... I was 25 miles away at work. My mom had to go to the But my daughter helped prevent them from continuing those attempts in our city. She was the only one out of the several girls they attempted to abduct to give a very clear description of the men AND THEIR VEHICLE. Bonus for having mechanics for parents... my kids know makes, models, and approximate years of vehicles.
I received a call from the lead detective about a week following the incident saying, "... we received an anonymous tip that you sent those men to pick your daughter up from school while you were at work at the Lighthouse Bar and Grill." I replied with, "Really? You received an anonymous tip? I have never worked in a bar and don't even know where that place is located. Why don't you do your job and go to that bar and ask some questions rather than call me with this crap? I've been working in automotive for years and that's easy enough to verify." I never received any calls after that. I'm pretty sure they stopped looking... if they ever looked. I was extremely disappointed, but there hasn't been any other attempts since then... it's been 7 years. Both my kids are still in school, so I would receive emails from the school district if any attempts were made.
I agree. I was joking about compensating for height.
Just curious, if not caught, how do you know the sex trafficking part?
I suppose it's an assumption on my part, but at the time, it was a serious problem in the area.
Is the militia made up of dogs? Cats? Elephants, buffalo, deer, unicorns?????
Well since 'the people' that the founders were talking about were overwhelmingly, white men. So they really weren't talking about ALL people.
Hahahahaha!!! That has to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.
They couldn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms", because the militia was not a standing army. Militia is closer to an old west posse. When needed, the call went out, and THEN the militia formed. If only the militia had that right, then nobody would be armed since the militia did not exist most of the time.
Not even close. Shouldn't you actually read my comments instead jumping in cold turkey? May help make you look less foolish. Or maybe not.....
It can't be proven because it is totally false.
You block quoted it yet you failed to recognize that my first sentence answers your second question and since it does, that answers your first question.
Once again you are trying to get me to prove something I've never stated. Can I translate my comments into a different language for you? You seem to be having problems comprehending what I've said.
I did. Your inability to recognize it is on you.
You missed a lot.
Okay. While this is shown as a reply to goose's comment, this reply is to goose, ozz and dulay:
Enough with the bickering please. It's now getting to the point of "no... I'm going to have the last word..." "no... I am..." "no... I am.." It's all very silly.
I have appreciated the dialogue throughout the entire list of comments. I've found it to be rather refreshing. So, please refrain from "last word tag."
I'm good with that. I've made my point and hate having to deal with people trying to twist what I say.
MsAubrey it has been a pleasure chatting with you. Have a wonderful day.
Same to you Ozz. This is obviously one subject that you and I actually agree on and that's nice.
I like when I can find the common ground between myself and others.
Where do you stand on antique military firearms?
I don't believe that there's any state that requires background checks or to even register an antique gun, including antique military firearms.
Used to compete in black powder shoots back in my Cripple Creek days.
No permits needed. Even the cannon competitors needed no permits at that time.
Wow! What was that like?
I think that’s a lot easier to do when you have a small town and people enter it slowly on horseback from the one road going into town. Such a policy would be impossible to enforce in modern towns.
There is a good intention somewhere in the desire to limit what kind of weapons people own, but restrictions need to be narrowly focused and not on something vague like “military style.” I think if you want to pursue this kind of limitation, it needs to be about military capability. To that end, it has been very difficult and expensive to acquire a fully automatic weapon for some time. The same is true for owning a grenade, a tank, or an RPG.
”Military style” usually refers to irrelevant superficial design features like folding stocks or the ability to mount accessories. Reasonable gun control in this vein should identify specific harm and then address specific methods for actually controlling that harm. And then that standard needs to apply to all weapons or it’s meaningless.
With respect to AR-type weapons, there is much talk of magazine sizes, but many handguns are available with large, easily swapped magazines, such that many rounds can be fired easily. Thus, only limiting magazine sizes for AR rifles seems kind of silly.
There is also a legitimate concern for the damage a .223 round can do when it hits a human body as compared to other weapons. But large caliber handguns, like .45s, .44s, or .357 magnums can also be devastating.
And the truth is that while a handful of dramatic killings are committed with AR guns, the vast majority of firearm murders in this country are committed with handguns, and with gun calibers that are smaller and less destructive than anything mentioned above.
Yep. A .22 rifle is pretty popular for distance and it will go in the body and bounce around, damaging all sorts of organs without ever exiting.
Just bought a .22 LR conversion kit for an AR-15. It shoots near 1 MOA and allows for very inexpensive target practice (It's all about getting used to the trigger).
If your shooting a cenier conversion kit in the ar , the trigger pull will be the same since all the kit replaces is the bolt assembly, you would be using the same lower and trigger as if you were shooting 5.56. i also have a cenier conversion kit for my 1911 to make it a clone of the colt ace same 1911 lower and trigger , all thats swapped out is the upper slide chambered in 22 LR. the trigger pull doesnt change simply because of the conversion kit , felt recoil does change though.
I do love how the Bushmaster Carbon 15 feels shooting .22LR. Don't even feel it. Makes touching off that glass smooth trigger so much easier. Good training!
Somewhere in the garage are two beat up M1 Garands that the girls used for drill team practice, one was real, one was a pump, both were layered with masking tape. My days of shooting rodents with a 22 long rifle or a pistol is long past. We use other animals or ultrasonic to deter them now.
You misplaced a military combat rifle? The Garand can shoot a grand accurately.
if one was real ,and used for drill teams , it was most likely demiled and had the chamber or barrel plugged , a simple bore inspection would tell.
i have seen many drill rifles like that , old garands ( back when they were a dime a dozen surplus through CMP ) and a few 03s in some of the VFWs and american legions and usually all demiled and non functioning. kinda sad , but better than being cut up for scrap.
Yep, kinda sad what happens to some really old/nice rifles.
Owned a WW11 Enfield once that filled nice groups at 500 meters.
yeah , when dad passed , me being the only "gun nut" of the 4 kids his guns came to me .
there were 2 unexpected treasures i didnt know he had or even when he got them.
one was a 1896 springfield side box , un cut and full length, wasnt cut down to a carbine or sportsterized .
and the other was a low serial numbered 03 springfield , intact and unsportsterized , it was however rebarreled in 1944, that one shoots SWEEEEEEEET. and the origional sights are accurate as marked out to 900 yards, though they take some getting use to.
I just have to say, the second thing that irks me.
The idea that gun control laws make it harder for legal owners while people can still get them illegally.
For me that is a bullshit argument. Should we have no speed zones because people speed? No seatbelt laws because some people refuse to wear them?
How about no laws against murder because criminals we still commit it.
Stupid argument.
I agree. That's why I'm for anyone that wants a gun, should have to go through background checks and be fingerprinted.
The reality is though, no matter the state’s laws, criminals will always find a way to obtain firearms, including those that are fully automatic. The law-abiding citizens that choose to own guns, should have that option to defend, even if it isn’t against the Federal Gov., but rather against those intending to do harm.
What's stupid is the gun grabbers belief that even more "common sense" gun laws and "universal" background checks will make a difference.
I don't know anybody that is a 'gun grabber'. I live in the real world and most Liberal people I know own a weapon or are against a total ban.
A criminal is going to find a way, no matter if it is a gun or a knife or any law they want to break.
As is true for any illegal activity.
No matter what the state laws against possession and/or dealing hard drugs, criminals will always find a way to obtain (and sell) them.
No matter what the state laws against forced sex with little kids, criminals will always find a way to do that.
In fact, no matter what the laws are regarding actual acts of terrorism, terrorists will always find a way to commit acts of terror-- and so on.
Exactly. That is why I say people that are screaming for almost no accountability as far as weapons are concerned have no leg to stand on.
So are what are realistic remedies?
To me, it's like locking the doors to your house, or car, or garage, etc... it keeps the honest people honest. Background checks are a good thing, because it helps separate the criminals from the law-abiding citizens.
I hate to say it but looking into mental illness. Some people should not be allowed to own.
Absolutely. Michigan checks to see if the person applying or renewing has been in court-mandated therapy, has any restraining orders against them, listed as former military with PTSD, domestic disturbance calls to their address, or any treatments for mental illness.
That is good.
I just don't get the attitude that nothing can be done so why do anything.
But can't even the strictest & most thorough background checks be avoided? For example, buy at a gun show?
(Not sure what the legal definition of a "gun show" is-- couldn't a few of your neighbours get together, rent a place, and declare themselves as having a "Gun Show"-- and usethat as a way to get around background checks?
I just don't get the attitude that nothing can be done so why do anything.
It does seem to be different regarding selling hard drugs, kiddie porn, etc. (There the "nothing can be done so why do anything" attitude doesn't seem to apply...???)
I agree, I mean, why have drunk driving laws? Why have seatbelt laws, or any laws at all for that matter?
/s
Accountability for starters. If you buy a gun and it is used in a crime, (for example, murder), you should be held accountable even if it wasn't you that was involved. That would force gun owners to keep track of and protect their firearms. That's a start.
So your ok with that if you buy a car and later sell it to someone and they kill someone driving drunk , your liable ?
same difference in my mind.
What's stupid is this belief. If you look at a state with strict gun acquisition laws, like NJ, 80% of the guns recovered at crime scenes come from out-of-state. In neighboring Pa, virtually all guns recovered at crime scenes come from in-state. We could keep a huge number of guns out of the hands of criminals, without restricting legitimate buyers, but we would need strict universal gun acquisition laws & universal background checks.
In the same vein, who knows what American ingenuity might be able to do if we put our minds to it. It's currently too risky job-wise for gov't employees to study gun violence because of politics. E.g. We decided that the vehicle fatality rate was too high, so we said what can we do about the machine, what can we do about the people who use these machines, what can we do about the environment in which these machines are used. We took action in all three areas and dropped the fatality rate an order of magnitude. I suggested the same path for another machine, the gun.
I would classify this one as a partial gun control myth, and for this reason.
Any licd dealer whom sells a firearm at any gunshow is required by law to do a BG check or they can lose their FFL,
the so called "gunshow loophole " comes about when a person not a licd dealer but a private citizen not in the business of making their living selling firearms sells one , federal law does not require someone not a dealer to do BG checks , there actually is no way a private citizen could do one anyway, you have to have a federal firearms lic to use the NICS, so if one private individual wishes to sell a gun to another private individual and the person selling doesnt make a living selling guns , there is no requirement at the federal level to do a BG check.
That does not mean the person selling gets off scott free , one provision of a private sale is no person can knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person, guy before buying says his ex is being a byotch , might be a good idea even though you dont know for sure , not to sell the gun to that person, there is likely a restraining order in place , someone says they have a felony in the course of discussion , time to tell them to piss off , person reaks of skunk weed , or booze , decline the sale . a lot of people dont know that use of grass specifically , or being a habitual drunk makes one prohibited from buying a gun, so when they try with a dealer they simply mark the form NO they dont use grass or get drunk which ends up becoming falsifying a government document
Now some states are closing that private sale loophole and requiring the sale to go through a licd dealer so that a BG check can be done and its being done on an individual state level , its done usually for a fee, anywhere from 20 to 50 bucks, no matter if it comes back good to go or denied . that cost is usually decided to be passed on to the buyer by the seller upping the cost of the firearm..
another thing some dont know , a person selling a gun can not sell a gun to a person that doesnt live in the same state as them in a private sale without going through a dealer for a BG check thats federal law.
another supposed loop hole is internet sales , that is patently false because if one goes to buy a gun online , it can not be shipped from seller to buyer directly legally , all internet sales require that they go through 2 licd dealers , one on the sellers end to ship and one on the buyers end to recieve and where the BG check is completed , anyone that does it without doing it that way , just commited a federal felony.
Not legally in some states. The "loopholes" some rely on are usually squashed by the seller, because the seller doesn't want fines or jail time. The sellers usually worry about liability. I suppose many of the states that don't require background checks for individual purchasers by individual sellers might have a different definition of gun show, but I also suppose there may not be too.
Quote from an article regarding these "gun show loopholes":
I was only able to buy from an individual because I have my CPL (because of how MI laws are written). There are still plenty of forms to fill out, but I was able to purchase legally, register the pistols in my name, and carry them in the same day. Someone in MI that goes to a gun show without a CPL, cannot walk in, purchase a pistol, and walk out with it legally.
I own a few firearms that never saw anything but cash a used lawnmower and a handshake.
Out here in the woods, that's how it's done.
Do you remember when your mother shot me in the leg while aiming at not me?
I have two weapons and a third that is unique is that the last one made was in the early 1930s. According to the serial number on mine it was manufactured in 1929, plus I knew the prior owner. It's fairly valuable not only because of the age and uniqueness but there is a name on it that is famous or infamous.
My other weapons are strictly for defense. A Stevens 520/30 trench gun and an S&W 38 (long barrel)
The Feds already DO define the laws for the entire nation, especially when it comes to fully automatic weapons.
That's not a law for legally carried guns.
Fully automatic firearms have been illegal in the US for as long as I'm aware that they've existed.
The Federal Government does not create laws regarding legal pistols, rifles / long guns for hunting, or shot guns; individual states do.
There are ways you can own one, but it’s usually difficult and expensive. For starters, I think it has to have been built before 1986.
Of course there are bump stocks out there, but if you can hit anything with that, you’re a much better shot than most people.
Bump stocks are illegal and if caught with one, it's a mighty hefty fine and jail time.
And yes, this is true; May of 1986 to be more precise.
They aren't 'illegal', they are regulated by Federal law.
And the comment above yours reflects that... I looked it up and I agree. It's very difficult and expensive and they have to have been built prior to May 1986.
Are weapons built before 1986 actually significantly less lethal?
I think they did it as a grandfathering thing. Otherwise, I think the government puts itself in the position of taking people’s property under the 5th Amendment and depriving someone of their right to bear arms they already had under the 2nd Amendemnt.
Wow! That's when my Rolex Panda Daytona was made.
Ordered it from the factory in 85. Took a long time to get it.
Screw bump stocks. Every round should be aimed.
with what else has been said , here is another line of thought to the "made before may 1986", fire arms wear out , parts get harder to obtain, so unless they were just status pieces and gun cabinet queens , if they are used even moderately eventually they will be shot out and basically become inoperable or unsafe for use with no way to replace them with newer ones .
which of course also makes the supply very limited outside government control and use, which in turn also drives the price of a "papered and documented" sellable full auto capable firearm.
Lowest price i have ever seen on a gun trading site for a papered and documented M-16 select fire firearm? $25,000 thats alotta money for a feature that likely wont get used often.
what does papered and documented mean ? it means all the origional makers papers state what the firearm is and not a conversion , documented means it was made prior to the cut off date and all relavent taxes have been paid and that it was never owned by the federal government.
Doubtful, but that's just what the law states.
I think that those types of people are few and far between, they do not represent anywhere close to the majority of liberals, progressives or Democrats as some on the right want to believe.
Fully automatic weapons are already banned for civilian use and few are advocating for them to be unregulated.
What I hear from most on the left is calling for reasonable gun safety measures such as a national database, universal background checks, bans on large capacity magazines, bans on bump stocks and bans or limits on military style assault rifles.
I have heard many make the excuse that you can get virtually identical semi-automatic hunting rifles as you can get in semi-automatic AR-15's and other military style assault rifles so there should be no need to ban those assault rifles simply because they look like they are for military use. But the fact is mass shooters in the past gravitate to military style assault rifles because they look like military weapons which is why few mass shootings have been with hunting style semi-automatic rifles, virtually all of them have been military style assault rifles. I believe this is because the shooters often imagine themselves as some "Rambo" or other rogue soldier who are looking for weapons that make them fit the part. It's part of their psychology to dress the part and likely plays some part in their psychosis. These military style assault weapons also have an effect on their victims other than the bullets themselves which is to cause terror. Seeing someone walking down the street with a hunting rifle is not as intimidating or fear inducing as seeing what appears to be a soldier in fatigues with what looks to most like an automatic weapon often equipped with a large capacity magazine intended for mass killings, not hunting or self defense. The only self defense some of these lunatics believe they need their military style weapons for is supposedly to defend against what they imagine is some fantasy "deep state" government military coming to take them or their guns away. Those folk are complete conspiracy theory nut balls much like the Qanon dumb shits. If the US military ever came to actually "take them away" no amount of AR-15's and stockpiled ammo is going to be able to go against the actual military weapons, drones and explosives at their disposal so being all paranoid about it is just silly and exposes those folk as the unhinged and often uneducated children playing Rambo they are.
I agree.
Again, agreed.
So, should we require bright colors on them to distinguish them from military style firearms? In reality, unless you've ever shot a semiautomatic hunting rifle and an AR15, you wouldn't know how similar they really are and quite frankly, if we're banning AR15s, then unless it's a lever or bolt action rifle, all rifles should be banned. While the following is from Wikipedia, there are also direct references to the sources.
From Wikipedia :
People are still allowed to buy and carry a .50 caliber desert eagle pistol. To me, the .50 caliber desert eagle, is a different animal altogether though and quite frankly, overkill. Hell, .44 magnum and .454 caliber pistols are both legal and legal to carry with a concealed pistol license, but in my opinion, overkill as well. However, if the US banned certain calibers, a .45 caliber would be lumped in with those other large calibers even though they're not as powerful as those other large caliber bullets. I've shot all except the .50 cal. desert eagle. I found that the .454 and .44 magnum rounds hurt my hands to shoot, but the 1911, which is a .45 caliber does not.
Perhaps. They require toy guns to come with a bright red end cap on the barrel, why shouldn't there be some sensible way to differentiate between a semi-automatic assault rifle and a fully automatic assault rifle? Maybe they should only allow them in hot pink, that would likely dissuade some of these ammosexuals from carrying them around pretending to be Rambo.
I wouldn't go that far, but banning rifle clips with more than 10 rounds would be a start. Why does anyone other than some wannabe Rambo yahoo need more than 10 rounds in a hunting rifle?
I would agree they're overkill, you don't need something like that unless you're living in bear country. However, I haven't heard of any mass shootings that involved either the .50 caliber or .44 caliber hand guns, they're likely just way too heavy with far too much kick back for the average wannabe psycho Dirty Harry and take some real training to handle without hurting oneself. But again, not many Americans are trying to ban any handguns as most are seen as home/personal protection and anyone carrying one on their person have to get concealed carry permit which does require a more extensive background check as you've pointed out. If they got one at a gun show and are carrying it concealed without a permit they are already breaking the law so we just need to enforce existing gun laws to deal with those types of dangerous persons. Also, universal background checks would go a long way to prevent that type of buyer as well requiring buyers at gun shows or from straw dealers to get a background check before being able to buy any gun. While universal background checks wouldn't completely eliminate criminals and the mentally incompetent from acquiring weapons, it would very likely make them more difficult to get and thus increase the cost and lower the availability of black market weapons that are often coming from the gun shows and straw purchasers buying legally and reselling at a huge mark up to buyers who know they can't pass background checks. Over 60% of the guns on the street in Chicago come from out-of-State where the gun laws are far more lax.
A lot of that can be coming from a couple of different factors , one being the type of gun,.44 and 454, usually come in the formof revolvers , they have more felt recoil, a 1911 , is a semi auto that uses some of the recoil to facilitate making the action work , in essence bleeding of some of the energy to make the firearm do what its designed to do to function.
Another factor could be the actual fit of the firearm in ones hands , they are all made to be pretty much the same in size and weight, uniform so to speak , someone with smaller hands can possably have trouble with a larger framed firearm because of hand size.
That would be awesome! And I agree that there should be something obvious that shows that the gun is a hunting rifle.
If it's a .22 caliber hunting rifle, you might want more than 10 rounds, but that could be regulated to reflect that.
Agreed. It would be pretty difficult for a 110lb kid to shoot a desert eagle pistol.
Agreed. It already has made it more difficult in MI, but I'm plenty fine with that. I don't mind going through the classes and background checks. I have nothing to hide and the classes gave me a chance to shoot a 1911.
Agreed. I do however, love a revolver. It's something that never jams and it's easy to clean. That's why I think my next pistol will be a Smith & Wesson .357 magnum snub-nose revolver.
That brought back a memory for me .
about 86 just after i got married , the base i was stationed at had an open house , there were static displays of different aircraft from all the branches of service and some from different countries as well. down at the end of the runway in an area we called the "north 40" , the base armory had set up a display of the weapons used to defend the base . And for a fee , some could actually fire some of the weapons using blanks or practice rounds in the case of the grenade launchers .
Due to my qualifications and rank i was what was called on base as a "pig wrangler", meaning i was usually assigned the old M-60 machine gun when on duty.
she looked over the array of weapons and asked which ones i used at work, i explained the different roles each played and all and pointed to the pig and told her thats what i was usually assigned .
she walked up paid the required fee, and was taken to the firing pit , and got to squeeze off 30 rounds of blanks .
now she was all of 5 ft 2 , weighted 105 soaking wet if that , the red hat placed a sand bag down at her feet before she began( she was in the prone position) and was told after a brief instruction , to letter rip.
after ,she walked back to me with a smile on her face that no one could wipe off for a week.
I like that story. Thank you for sharing... and thanks for serving.
I'm only 4'11" and the first time I shot pistols, I went to the range with my Marine friend that's no more than 5'4". Back then, I might have weighed 120lbs. and he probably only outweighed me by 10lbs. He's that guy that loved being in the Marines... his only real complaint is that he was stationed in Hawaii and he's so pale, he's almost see-through (Swedish ancestry) and had to use SPF100 (was really expensive to purchase too) and he still burned. Anyways... he was a bit peeved when I was hitting my marks better than he was and I'd never shot pistol before.
He started me out with a .22, then a 9mm, then a .357 standard, then a .45, then his .44 magnum "Dirty Harry" special, and last... his .454, which I shot once and that was more than enough for me. He decided to shoot his .50 desert eagle and it shook the place. Other people that were there peaked out from behind the barriers with utter shock on their faces... they looked like prairie dogs. I just laughed. I felt it in my chest! His crazy ass was shooting it ONE HANDED. It was hilarious though, because he would fire it, it would put him back onto his back leg and then he'd have to go back to position. I could fit my thumb in the barrel.
The CPL course I took... first let me say that I have small hands with short stubby fingers. The course was taught by a guy (Mike) that also sold Mac Tools and his police officer friend; I'd bought several tools and a really nice toolbox from him (still have them all too). Well, when we went to the range for the second portion of our training, we were to pick from the array of pistols they had. Almost all of them were Glocks. All of them had grips too big for my "baby paws".
Mike looked at me and said, "I'm going to let you do something that I've never allowed anyone to do... including my wife. I'm going to let you shoot my Kimber, but you have to pay for the ammo." Then he added, "I'm only allowing this because you bought a $6000 toolbox from me." OMG! It was so awesome! That's when I fell in love with a 1911.
I saw your wish list , all fine handguns with reputations of good fit and finish.
Something i learned early in life was dont pay for the name when shopping .
when the military adopted the berretta 9mil, the price was driven up.
being as petite and small handed as my then wife was , my smith 686 was a bit more than she could comfortably shoot even using down loaded 38 special rounds . i went to the local gun shop and looked at what they had and found a taurus berretta knock off of what the military had just adopted , basically the exact same gun with all the same parts , and it was available in 380 acp. I got that at a 3rd of the price of a similar berretta.
it fit the exes hands perfect , and due to cal didnt have the recoil that overwhelmed her , it also gave me the opertunity to become intimately familiar with the design of what was then a new handgun for the military in my own home.
My point is , dont be sold on a "name " or even pay for that name , pay for the quality fit and finish and as well as what its intended use will be.
The 1911 i have isnt even made in the US .but regularly keeps up and sometimes out preforms the names like colt or kimber and some custom guns at sometimes a forth of the price.
there are a couple other factors at play , one is is the state a may issue , meaning the state authority , usually the local cops have the authority to deny a permit at their leisure for any reason , or is it a shall issue state where unless a person comes back as a prohibited person the permit has to be issued .
i will let you in on a little secret , the Bg check used to purchase any firearm from a gun shop , and the BG check used at the state level to issue permits to carry, are exactly one and the same , about the only time the requirements change is if one is going for the federal permit to posess and own an automatic weapon , and that is why some states have gone to what is called constitutional carry within their borders for their own state residents , thinking is if they can pass the Bg check to buy it , they will pass the BG check to get a permit to conceal carry .
Now some states that permit also precludes a gunshop from having to run a bg check through nics, they have already passed the bg check to have the permit , the other way round without the permit a bg check is to be completed each time a gun is bought from a dealer.
and as has been pointed out , not every state requires a permit to carry concealed legally while they remain in the state. the permit requirement there is state residents dont need a permit , those from out of state have to have a valid permit from the state of their residence to carry concealed here , but thats just my state. and its your responsability to know how to conform to the law , no matter where you are. and the laws where you are , only apply , there , not to someone living somewhere else.
The AR-15 is the best ranch rifle.
Also own a Desert Eagle .44 just for the fun of it.
Also a Smith and Wesson 6".357 mag simply for the fun of it.
Still working at not flinching with the recoil on these pistols.
Kimber has come down in price [in my opinion, considerably] compared to what it was 10 years ago.
I've tried a Taurus and a Berretta... neither were a very good fit for me personally. I wasn't comfortable with them. I'm not a big fan of Colt or Glock either; two firearms brands that are extremely popular.
One of the most expensive 1911s currently is CZ / Dan Wesson.
That's why I can only speak to places I have been or the place I live.
I think i paid 260 bucks for my gi spec clone and if i got paid for my time and the parts i changed out probly spent another 200 at that time .
I have a bad habit of taking a mediocre firearm( one that does its job and does it well enoughin a pinch) and doing work on the action polishing and smoothing out what i call factory blemishes , as well as doing a little trigger work to get things smoothed out ( and made it better), of the extra 200 mentioned i spent maybe 70 bucks at that time on parts to swap out , full length guide rod , a set of different weight recoil and trigger springs , the rest i figure is if i was doing it as a profession and a living what i would have been paid. basically i fit the gun to fit my shooting style and how i went through the sequence of firing it . I can say that my particular 1911 doesnt have the usual drawback that everyone usually hears about gi speced or even some commercially made name brands , it doesnt have the browning rattle when shaken vigorously.that a lot of 1911 style have.
I can get a used Kimber 1911 for about $500 right now. Like I said, they've come way down in price.
I don't mind used firearms; especially if they're being sold by a licensed dealer. I know they've been gone through and tested after replacing worn parts. To me, they're just as good as new without the issue with regular jamming like new pistols.
Don't know what I'd do with a full auto firearm. Might be fun for a few minutes, but full auto gets expensive very quick.
I personally own a Bersa .380 and Mr Giggles just bought a 12 gauge pump action shot gun and a 9mm pistol.
Click click boom...
Hope you both hit the range until ya'll are extremely comfy with them.
A few hundred rounds is almost enough to break a new gun in to your hand
500 rounds gives a good confidence level.
I want to try the 9mm. I've been to the range with my .380. I like the way it handles
9mm aren't bad. If it's not a compact, there won't be a lot of kick.
I carry a 9mm and a .380 out among the insurrectionists. I have 2 of each. all loaded with hydra shok ammo.
Camp Perry, Ohio - National Rifle Championship - 100 yd Off-hand - 98 w/6 x's, 3 10's and 1 8 (first shot). Earned my Gold Distinguished that date with an overall 482 score. Yup, that's me. (You can see the ejected shell to the right of the rifle in the air - cool pic)
Dad, career Army, enrolled me in the Ft. Hood Jr. Marksmanship program when I was 12. He had been raised on a farm in SD and had been taught how to use weapons since he was age 6. He had quite a variety of handguns and rifles (4 shotguns, 1 .30-.30 Winchester Lever-action) and used to do plenty of hunting with his brothers and friends.
I've always - well, since age 22 - had at least 1 handgun (Walthers .38) and two rifles (.22, .30-.30). My first "rifle" (look out Ralphie, don't put your eyes out) was a Daisy Red Ryder BB gun at age 8. Yup, still got it and it still shoots quite well with its 65 years at paper targets and tin cans.
I was on the USMC Pistol and Rifle Team and the USCG Pistol and Rifle Team, so I absolutely love the M-1/M-14's and can not stand the AR-15/16. Would love to get back into competition shooting but - well, golf has raised it's ugly slicing/hooking head and, believe it or not, is less expensive.
Today, I've got a Browning High Power 9mm Competition pistol, two black powder Colts (.36 and .44), a Browning Competition .22, Dad's WWII .30 Cal rifle, Red Ryder's weapon and a 60 lb Long Bow.
Audra and Vicky (wife and daughter) know I have those weapons but they have no idea where I have them placed - nor will they unless they go through the Weapon's Safety courses offered. I mean, I know enough about the weapons and all the safety features/practices - even used to assist as an instructor for both teams - but - I don't feel confident enough to attempt giving them their education because of our emotional ties. As a husband/father, I know I would be prone to be overly aggressive/cautious/temperamental and less forgiving for any mistakes/errors on their part - and they don't need that while learning something as serious as firearms training.
Aubrey, I'm very impressed that your son recognized the round in the chamber scenario, 'specially at his age. Hell, I know a number of folks who I wouldn't trust with a weapon, simply because they wouldn't recognize that error.
I'm a stickler for firearms safety. On the range - ear plugs PLUS ear muffs, glasses, hat (hot, flying ejected shells do burn), shooting gloves, long-sleeved shirt and preferably long pants. I've been known to have the Weapon's Master/Safety Officer eject folks from the range for not strictly adhering to the safety protocols.
So damn many folks just don't recognize that, in the hands of an "uneducated" user/shooter, others, including themselves, can and do die or receive crippling injuries. I firmly believe that no one should be issued a license/permit without having completed a reputable weapon's safety program.
Just my $.02.
That's why I was pretty proud of that even though some people wouldn't recognize how important that is in the long run.
I am too. I have sensitive ears and always use both ear plugs AND muffs. I don't always wear a hat, but that's because I have a LOT of thick hair and hats give me a headache. I don't do shooting gloves, but yes to long sleeves and pants. However... with a decently sized pair of boobs... better make sure that there's no gap in the top of that shirt!!! YES, I learned that from experience.
And anyone not following the safety rules, should be ejected. The place I go usually sees it before anyone else and ejects them.
Absolutely! I don't understand the stories about someone shooting off their hand while cleaning their guns... why? BECAUSE IF THEY OWN THE GUN, THEY BETTER KNOW HOW TO CLEAR IT FIRST!!! My Kahr is completely different from my XD9 in regard to disassembling it for cleaning and I made sure that I was educated on that pistol before I purchased it so I could safely clear it, clean it, and reassemble it without mistakes.
Your qualifications outshine mine. All I could ever do was outshoot everybody in the county.
(big county but few folk).
Guns can be a good investment
This is true. Some will become worth more... especially if kept in good condition. I've noticed that watching Pawn Stars.
Used to have a disease called traiditis. Highly annoyed at trades that I regretted.
I’m less concerned about the weapons people have and more interested in how they use them, and the psychological relationship they have with guns and shooting. We still have many shooting injuries and deaths because of carelessness or anger.
To address those concerns, I would like to see more efforts at education and training on the safe handling of guns, but also on when it’s ok to go for your gun. Many people are shot by someone they live with or know because someone with a gun got angry and decided to force their position by pointing a gun.
There should be a mindset among gun owners (and cops as well, since we’re on the subject): Even just pointing a gun at someone, much less pulling the trigger, should be an absolute last resort, to be avoided if at all possible, and done only to protect your life or the life of someone else against imminent harm.
Those are the people that were never trained in gun safety.
That is one of many messages in the CPL course I took. That's kind of my point... if someone wants to own firearms, they should be required to take safety courses and have background checks... even for rifle / long gun, shotgun, and bow and arrow.
I think that kind of moral component is really important.
My dad was a cop, and I was given my own 10/22 when I was about 8. So, I received lots of training and practice growing up, and I know about gun safety.
But I think as a person - particularly a young man - grows up, he really needs to be taught to avoid his gun except in extreme emergencies. In my 20s, I had a moment when I wanted to point a gun at someone when I was angry, and it wasn’t really necessary. I feel fortunate that I didn’t take it further and kill someone, even if only by accident.
Yeah. I can't say that I've ever felt like that and I sure hope no one in my house hold ever feels like that at any point.
A lot of people don't have that kind of self control.
To be honest (and I've said this before) I think that there should be a class taught in school from kindergarten / first grade and running all thru primary and high school that teaches basic life skills. Too many children come out of school without the basic knowledge anymore. As part of this class they should be taught gun safety. Said training would be age appropriate of course, and there's really no need for hands-on training as the liability insurance would be rather high for most school districts. But children can be pointed to outside agencies for additional training including hands on. But to teach basic safety when dealing with guns, and doing it yearly to reinforce the lessons.
I would have no problems with schools bringing back shooting clubs and actually teaching how to handle / shoot a gun but as I said above most schools probably wouldn't do that due to the liability and costs involved.
You actually think that having 6 year olds learn about "gun safety" is a proper use of public schools? Without a doubt, if every kid is exposed to guns at a young age a certain percentage of them will over time develop an unhealthy preoccupation with them. Our society doesnt need any more of that then we already have.
No more than you probably think sex education or gender identification for 6 year olds is a proper use of public schools.
Don't forget some also learn from their own neighborhoods.
I hear Corn Pop taught a few.
[removed]
Age appropriate training, absolutely yes I do. And please note that I stated learning fun safety, not gun handling. How many six year old's already know about guns from watching TV and movies and comic books, much less playing video games or watching their siblings play video games. Every year we hear stories about very young children who found a gun at home or at a friends home and not knowing what a gun can really do they play with it like they see on TV. Some some child dies as a result of such play.
Would you rather have young children taught what a gun is, how dangerous it can be and for a six year old the proper response to finding a gun is to not touch it and to find an adult? Seems a better solution for education than just ignoring it in the hopes that nothing happens with it. And before you go down the path that an adult should never have left a gun out where a small child could find it, we do happen to agree. But not all adults are responsible. I would rather educate the child and hope they never need to use that lesson than ignore teaching the child and leave them without the ability to understand what can happen.
As your your worry about how a certain percentage of them will over time develop an unhealthy preoccupation with guns, do you really think that they won't be exposed to them elsewhere? Maybe, just maybe a little better education about guns and what they are and what they can do might reduce the possibility.
A response question to you would be why are you arguing against an idea that might possibly help? Is the only reason you argue against it is that it does nothing to advance the idea that guns must be banned?
Bugsy’s comment above made me realize that your argument is the same argument people make to try to keep sex education out of schools. i.e. Such education will promote actual use of the thing. It might or might not be true, but this is the choice we make on a number of topics: education vs. exposure.
that teaches basic life skills. Too many children come out of school without the basic knowledge anymore.
John - some schools actually TRY to teach basic life skills such as balancing a checkbook, uses of utilities (electric, gas, water), basic car care. But the parents scream that the schools are trying to raise their children for them. Well, if they can't/won't, who's going to teach them?
A number of years back , maybe 6-7 , john gave me a ration when i posted a picture of my very young grandson sitting in my lap while i held a 22 rifle and let him pull the trigger, grand son was about 3 . and he was just happy to be doing what the adults were , which to his mind at the time was "making noise".
he was use to watching his dad play video games with violent content so when he wanted to sit in my lap and pull the trigger , i didnt hesitate.
now for the rest of the story .
from that simple start his lessons in firearms safety started , i being a former LEO in the military already knew the thing that was killing kids when they encountered firearms was ignorance and i was determined my grandkids would not be ignorant of firearms .
i started out taking them seperately to go do alittle plinking , age appropriate rudimentary shooting with assistance and instruction at first , and as they grew the instruction became more detailed so that they understood what the end result should be ( not to just make a bunch of noise but to practice actually hitting a target where they aimed ) in a comfortable relaxed situation.
As they got older i would unravel a little more about how guns should be handled I also wanted to remove any curiosity or mystery that might have surrounded guns because of what they were exposed to in the media .
As they got older i not only went over safe gun handling while at the range , but slowly introduced what they should do if they encounter them outside the range , such as what they should do if they were at a friends and a gun was found , or if they were walking down the street and one was found , and how they should handle that situation .
about 2 years ago , the same grands son and i were out plinking , only this time i brought a couple old plastic milk jugs filled with water, and set them aside. i also had my 1911. a lesson was in the making and he i think did well.
after we got done with the 22s , i had him set the 2 milk jugs out , when he came back i made sure he was well back and drew the 45 and blasted both milkjugs and made one hell of a watery mess. I cleared the pistol and sat down and told him to sit down for a talk.
I told him ok , this is a big gun with a lot of power . its fun to plink and target shoot and you already know about hunting and what the end result is of that .
I told him here is what i want you to do , go to the milk jugs and get me the bullets i shot , and then put the milk jugs back together and fill them back up with the water .
he told me he couldnt do that and that i was being stupid.
i asked him why was i being stupid? he said once you pull the trigger you cant getthe bullets back .
i said and ? well i cant put the milkjugs back together and get the water back in them he told me
i said so its not like a video game or amovie where it can all be reset right and made like it was? he said no its not .
i told him i wanted him to remember that , that once he pulled any trigger, once he did that , he could never call things back to being the same as before he pulled the trigger.
The kids now 10 years old , he has no mystery or curiosity about firearms which is and does get kids his age killed .
he knows what they are and what they can do and how to be around them in a safe and responsible manner.
next lesson when i see him next is likely going to be letting him shoot my dads browning light 12 shotgun ( 12 ga) with the same warning i got at the same age he is now when my dad let me shoot it for the first time, which was dont you dare drop that gun.....
Depends on the instructor I suppose. My instructors hammered it into us. Our class was actually longer than most too. We even did surprise scenarios that involved airsoft pistols and surprise attacks. I shot my friend with an airsoft as he charged at me. I hit him in the chest twice. Our instructors did NOT play around.
Precisely why I curbed my children's interest / fascination by teaching them and allowing them to SAFELY hold my UNLOADED pistol... I also taught them that there might still be one in the chamber [as stated in my article]. Recognition of the ramifications is important.
Sometimes part of that responsibility is telling the parents of a child coming to your house to play, that you have guns in the house and that they're in a safe. I find that most parents do the same, but yes, there are irresponsible adults out there that don't think like I do.
Some people assume that educating a child on something makes them want to experience what they're being educated on; however, I don't hear about too many kids becoming enamored with history despite being taught history. Exposure quells the curiosity in most instances.
My daughter's math class is personal finance, which includes balancing checking accounts. My kids have seen struggles with finances and paying for utilities and food... and considering my husband and I are mechanics... we teach them basic car care. However, many kids don't have that advantage.
I'm proud to say that my kids understand why I'm trying to teach them, what I would consider, basic life skills.
Interesting how way back in the day the NRA taught me hunter safety. Now they're teaching kids self defense tactics and selling them combat pistols.
Eddie Eagle.
I've been thinking for a while now about picking up a 9mm and getting my carry permit. I'm do not think I'd be in favor of this trend reported yesterday -
In Utah - (bolding mine)
Similar bills that would allow or expand concealed carry without a permit have been introduced in Texas, South Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Alabama, Tennessee, Montana and Georgia.
I swear, some want it to be a free for all.
Asking for trouble letting anyone and everyone carry.
I sure as hell wouldn't want to be a cop if these laws pass.
My guess would be few or none.
I saw that yesterday myself .
what some people think about what is called "constitutional carry" within a state only applies to that states residents , not those from out of state .
i live in the middle of Wyo, a constitutional carry state , i CAN NOT cross the state line into another state and carry unless i have an actual state issued permit to carry , and the state i am going into recognizes my states permit. Not all states recognize another states permits
basically for as state resident that never plans to carry outside of the state boundries , its saving state residents the fee for getting that particular permit/lic. thus eliminating the chance that someone who can not afford the lic a right they retain, meaning no gun control because of economic status and being priced out of that particular right.
another argument i hear is that under such a situation , anyone even those prohibited will be carrying, thing is if one is prohibited and they get caught in the normal course of LEO interaction , they face the chance they will have to face the entire sentence for breaking the law with no chance to plea bargain the sentence down.
I live on the border of 2 states and need to take courses in both.
A felon isn't going to sign up for classes or apply for a permit anyway. I'm more concerned with the husband/ex-boyfriend that has a restraining order for domestic violence. I haven't had time to research it yet, but the article quoted someone claiming AK cases went up 71% since they changed their law.
Well the federal Lautenburg(Sp) law makes that moot , it already addresses the situation by making such individuals with restraining orders prohibited persons like convicted felons. so they would be breaking the law anyway.
Sounds like if you have to take courses in 2 different states , those 2 states do not recognize reciprocy(sp) , meaning one of the states or both do not recognize the others permits , which i pointed out in another post not all states recognize another states permit . Wyoming recognizes every states permit that i know of , but very few ( less than half i think last i checked years ago ) will recognize wyomings , so since i dont intend to carry outside the state i have no need to pay the fee to have a permit that wont be recognized.
That doesn't help the person(s) they just shot.
And that brings us back to what you pointed out about those prohibited not following the law anyway no matter what the law is
those with evil intent , wont care what the law is .
MI has far more reciprocal states than not.
It looks like Wyoming is not much different than MI.
Source:
Agreed. There's not restrictions on fertilizer or gasoline.
Haven't needed a permit in my state for years. Everybody carries and folk don't tend to shoot each other much.
I am a gun owner many times over and I support the 2nd Amendment. The problem is that many on the right are still thinking more guns means less crime. If that were true, (there are almost 2 guns per person in the USA right now), we should be crime free. We aren't. Our gun crime rates rival some 3rd world countries.
Obviously, guns ARE the problem.
Not guns, PEOPLE.
How can people shoot a gun if they don't have a gun?
A better question would be:
How can a gun fire without a human?
Can't fault that question.
When you can guarantee me that I am safe from all junkies and speed freaks.
I may consider leaving the gun and knife at home (never happen).
I don't live in a city. Live way out in the sticks where the nearest cop is 30 miles away. City criminals don't tend to bother us because we are all well armed.
I disagree. People are the problem, guns are just a tool.
IMO, a first step could be for the NICS system to have some meat put behind it to enforce reporting from states and agencies to insure that when someone buys a gun from a legal vendor the information is accurate and up to date. And start enforcing existing gun laws rather than allowing gun charges to be among the first options in a plea bargain. From there we can look at how the process is working, but work to hold the person accountable rather than broad brushing a tool.
slight exaggeratioin i think.
US population estimate as of dec 2020 331,002,651
# of guns in the US as of jan 2020 est 400 million
# of guns sold in the first 6 months of 2020 in the US 19 mil via NICS checks ran
from what i understand 2020 was a banner year for gun sales of all kinds , new or used .
and what surprised me was which state led the nation in sales by percentage and according to the FBI that was Illinois which accounted for 18-19 percent of total gun sales for the entire year, one state and almost 20% of total legal fire arms sales in the entire nation.
I havent seen the numbers for year end total sales nationally , i suspect they are somewhere in the range of 22-23 million total for the year accounting for some of the things that happened through out 2020.
the other thing that stuck out to me was it was more women and individuals of color making the majority of purchases.
In order for there to be 2 guns per person , there would have to be 662,005,302 functional and servicable firearms in civilian hands by todays estimated population . the estimate above is about 200 million short of the claim , but give it a few years and it might become true.
i do have to say , i was kind of shocked when i checked in nov how many firearms sales wyoming had verified by fbi data of NICS , just barely over 7000.
that made me think , either the market is saturated , or people are not trading in for the newest and coolest and holding on to what they have because they have the ammo for it that they need. could be any number of factors .
around here , forget trying to find ammo of any kind , even the older off the wall cals are gone .
sure glad i reload and recycle ......
Just counted and I own 18 firearms (counting a set of .22 short dueling pistols). At least one for every occasion. Haven't shot any of them in many months now. Seems I like collecting more than shooting.
Not 100% sure of this TBH. My parents were both single children so when their parents died all guns in both households came to my parents. When my parents died the guns were split up between me, my brother and one sister (the other sister did not want any of them). These were guns that were purchased many years back, maintained well and are still all in very serviceable condition. None of those guns have been registered anywhere. The only paper trail on any guns that may or may not be in my position come from the purchase of a Ruger 10/22 a few years back. So I'm not too sure of that estimate as I believe there are a lot of guns out there that were handed down over the years.
And for those who like to drool... I'm helping take care of an elderly couple (in their late 80's) who have been collectors / pack rats their entire lives. For example, the man got into model railroading a few years back and has track/trains/cars/etc for every size model railroad made. To the drooling part, I've been listing their assets so that I can get with their children to have them go thru before hand to determine what each child wants out of the estate (in an attempt to avoid fighting when emotions are already high due to the death of parents) and we have gotten to the gun collection. I've only gotten thru one safe so far, it was the smaller safe but had 49 pistols and long-guns jammed into it. Still have the bigger safe (I've already seen in it, I expect more than 60 in that safe) as well as an upstairs locked room where he has more sitting in a closet.
Can't believe how heavy a "tommy-gun" is. We've all seen in the movies where they can swing those tommy-guns around one handed shooting away... all I can say is Hollywood really knows how to build strong men. An empty one is something around 10 lbs, fully loaded is 14lbs. But it's a very long gun and the center of balance is nowhere hear the pistol grip. Attempting to hold one-handed will result in a lot of dirt at your feet being shot up.
Drool, drool, drool
true and fair enough, thats why when i made the post i included estimated , because theyre is never any verifiable numbers because they are always changing .
When it comes to fire arms , i some times think some people want to include every gun made on record by a company without taking into account how many are shredded in government posession down to scrap, or how many are destroyed in individual missadventure and the guns being rendered into piles of expensive clubs or paper weights, how many are lost to never be recovered and if they are are recovered many years later .
another thing i wonder is of all those firearms , how many are actually functional , AND how many are actually servicable , for me what that means do they function as they should through the action and can they also reliably be actually shot , if not they become just a paper weight or scrap metal .
So i have to ask a couple things , of all the guns made , and i grant they can last centuries if cared for,how many actually are still in existance , how many have been lost to any thing , how many actually could still be safely used by someone that shoots it?
so could there be 600 million firearms in the country? well the country has had over 200 years of time so its possable , could the 400 million estimate be high? it could be and it could be low , estimates are probable not actual i think a lot of differing factors have to be thought of
The only guns I ever had in my life were a water pistol and a cap gun, and I have never had the wish or felt the need to be a cowboy, so I'm very happy to be living where NOBODY has a gun except the military, armoured bank delivery van guards and special police forces (ordinary police do not heve them because they don't need them). I do worry about the safety of my son and his family who are iving in Wisconsin and I wish he would take a job in Canada rather than remain in the USA. So with that, I will leave you all with an American LOVE SONG.
Yep, some of us Americans are still living in the wild, wild west. I carry a pistol every day and the local cops are all my friends because I'm a retired paramedic but not so retired I don't help out.
Could a person like me survive in China without government support?
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you talking about financial support? If you're talking about the Chinese government, I get no support from them. As well, if you're talking about some kind of other support from the government here - again, they don't even know me, let alone support me in any way whatsoever. I do get travel advisories emailed to me by the Canadian government, and I get monthly Canada pension deposited into my account. I have no idea what support you get from your own government. I originally came here with a Foreign Expert visa as a teacher hired by a Chinese private high school, but since I'm no longer employed, entirely retired, I remain here with a three year renewable visa because I am maried to a Chinese national resident.
Am also retired and now live within 20 miles of where I was born.
Yep. You can go home again.
You're 20 miles from where you were born and I may as well be on the moon becasue I'm on the other side of the world from where I was born and I'm not going to move anywhere that my wife won't be alble to, so I'm not going anywhere, but then I really don't care to move again anyway.
What's amusing is the people who tend to be the most vocal about gun laws and passing ever more restrictions on gun ownership, are fully in bed with electing District attorneys who refuse to punish people convicted of gun crimes. The same people who donate to Bloomberg's anti- gun campaigns also support Soros funded DA's, who refuse to actually prosecute gun criminals.
It's comical how lenient District Attorneys are in the cities with the worst gun violence.
None of that rant was true. Why do you continually lie?
This liberal moderate owns a firearm or two for every occasion.
When police/agents broke into her home and pointed gunz at her kids, Rebekah Jones turned herself in to police to end the terrorization of her family, and to demonstrate that the COVID coverup is a fight that the great, lordly kakistocracy can't win. I just love youth that don't need gunz and can live out of a 'spit in the eye' attitude toward fascist police and agents who think that because they have side arms and government paychecks, they must own the world.
Guns is not spelled with a z.
In regards to the meme at the top:
We own many guns in my household, however I have a baseball bat next to my bed, just in case, because by the time I get to the gun - get it loaded I may already be in trouble. I figure if it is dark in my house - the alarm has alerted me of an intruder - I can grab my bat - make my way through the dark house that I know and the intruder doesn't and lay in wait. Just my take on it. My husband on the other hand would have no issue getting the gun, getting it loaded and taking care of business his way. BTW - I swing a mean bat...
We have a small bedside gun safe that uses a finger code that takes about 3 seconds for my husband to get into and said safe contains a loaded 9mm. Before my husband could get into it, my American Pit Bull Terrier will probably already have any intruder by the gonads.
I'm a cat lover - have 9 - my weapons are out of reach, so if we have/had an intruder, I'd get my "Red Dot" machine, point it at the intruder's chest/forehead and the cats would take care of the rest.
Good to see that she's a Chewy's fan too
She will blow out the sides of a Chewy box in about 6 months... she's about 1/2 way to needing a new one right now.
Had a Sealpoint Siamese that loved to sleep in a brown paper grocery bag. Always left one on the floor for her.
How long does it take for you to get into that gun safe? My Glock resides under my pillow.
Had a neighbor once who owned a pit bull. That dog loved me because I would play with it until my arms got tired. That dog wouldn't stop!
It takes my husband [small gun safe is on his side of the bed] about 3-5 seconds to get into it.
I don't want my pistol under my pillow... If I were to leave it out of the safe, I'd have it in the drawer of my night stand.
Studied Arnis and Escrima for many years so am comfortable with sticks and edged weapons but will always choose a firearm for home defense.
I choose a bat (cast iron skillet will do also) because I am not comfortable with a firearm. My hubby on the other hand - he will always take his gun.
My Glock, AR15 and Berretta shotgun are always loaded and close to hand (why not?).
Why not? Simply because I have been brought up to NOT have loaded firearms in the house. For me it is a safety issue.
The places that have the most guns have the most gun deaths. Often they are accidental or suicides.
Saw this and had to share.. hehe