Handgun in the 4R

[Gerdo]

Really? What state is that? So because you can't buy an "AR-15" your panties are all in a bundle and you feel you are being "infringed?"

What have you done prior to the Newtown shooting to protest the loss of your rights? You know what I thing; I bet you are just fine! My point to this is that some of us really need to get a grip...

No disrespect intended.

I'm guessing that you are not a gun owner.
What if the government was threatening to take away something you use regularly that can be dangerous?
Cars are very dangerous.
Alcohol can be deadly.
Mix the two, bad combo.
More people are killed with blunt objects than rifles.

Considering that there are somewhere between 250 -350 million guns in America. While the events are tragic, the percent of illegal use of firearms is incredibly low. Something like .0035% or less.

 

[Atlanta_man]

can't argue facts against emotion and ignorance

 

[Tengu]

can't argue facts against emotion and ignorance

Unfortunately, it's that ignorance and emotion that is ruling the day.

 

[McFly2003]

the tragedies that have occurred are indeed absolutely terrible. I lost friends at VA Tech. Shoot, my wife went to highschool with the shooter. The bottom line for me is this. infringing on my rights and coming to take away my legally owned and operated weapons and accessories will not stop the bad guys from getting their hands on firearms. Sure, it may slow them down slightly, if they can't just go buy them, but they will still find a way. What I feel needs to happen is a slight change in who is allowed to conceal, or in some cases open carry, and where they can do that.
After Aurora, I read an interview with a survivor who had said that he was glad nobody else in the theater had had a weapon and had tried to return fire. His argument was that the crossfire could have killed many more. I may be a gung-ho gun owner and a huge proponent of the 2nd amendment, but I actually agree.
In VA, where I am from, all you need for a CCW is an NRA certified class and something like an hour or two of range time. Then, after an application fee and a background check, you're good to go. Here in CO, it seems to be pretty similar. And since I'm military, all I need to do is bring my AF 522 to the courthouse and I'm good to go.
In my line of work (I am a Security Forces member of the AF), we have to go through very intense training for active shooter situations, much like those that have taken place. We do countless exercises on different situations and even play out situations where we are actually shooting at each other with our real weapons; just swap the barrels and bolt carrier groups and we use symunitions. No, it wont kill you, but it hurts like sh!t and definitely uncovers those who will not be the best responders under real world pressure.
As I've said, I am a huge proponent for the 2nd amendment and a persons right to carry as I know that an armed assailant is something like 3 times more likely to be met and stopped by and armed citizen than law enforcement (just due to the sheer numbers), but I feel that for those that truly want to carry everyday for defense of themselves and others, additional training along the lines of what I mentioned above is necessary, and should be recurring. I have been through it and continue to go through it on a pretty regular basis and I still can't tell you exactly how I'd respond if an individual just started popping people in a crowded place near me. And yes, I carry everywhere I can.

It's not the guns we need to control, its making people more qualified.

 

[Gerdo]

the tragedies that have occurred are indeed absolutely terrible. I lost friends at VA Tech. Shoot, my wife went to highschool with the shooter. The bottom line for me is this. infringing on my rights and coming to take away my legally owned and operated weapons and accessories will not stop the bad guys from getting their hands on firearms. Sure, it may slow them down slightly, if they can't just go buy them, but they will still find a way. What I feel needs to happen is a slight change in who is allowed to conceal, or in some cases open carry, and where they can do that.
After Aurora, I read an interview with a survivor who had said that he was glad nobody else in the theater had had a weapon and had tried to return fire. His argument was that the crossfire could have killed many more. I man be a gung-ho gun owner and a huge proponent of the 2nd amendment, but I actually agree.
In VA, where I am from, all you need for a CCW is an NRA certified class and something like an hour or two of range time. Then, after an application fee and a background check, you're good to go. Here in CO, it seems to be pretty similar. And since I'm military, all I need to do is bring my AF 522 to the courthouse and I'm good to go.
In my line of work (I am a Security Forces member of the AF), we have to go through very intense training for active shooter situations, much like those that have taken place. We do countless exercises on different situations and even play out situations where we are actually shooting at each other with our real weapons; just swap the barrels and bolt carrier groups and we use symunitions. No, it wont kill you, but it hurts like sh!t and definitely uncovers those who will not be the best responders under real world pressure.
As I've said, I am a huge proponent for the 2nd amendment and a persons right to carry as I know that an armed assailant is something like 3 times more likely to be met and stopped by and armed citizen than law enforcement (just due to the sheer numbers), but I feel that for those that truly want to carry everyday for defense of themselves and others, additional training along the lines of what I mentioned above is necessary, and should be recurring. I have been through it and continue to go through it on a pretty regular basis and I still can't tell you exactly how I'd respond if an individual just started popping people in a crowded place near me. And yes, I carry everywhere I can.

It's not the guns we need to control, its making people more qualified.

Well put.

 

[M1911]

Really? What state is that?

Cuomo is the governor of New York State.

So because you can't buy an "AR-15" your panties are all in a bundle and you feel you are being "infringed?"

Yes. What part of "infringed" don't you understand?

The so-called assault weapons ban is just one move in the anti-gun salami slicing strategy to ban all guns. One of the earliest moves was to ban so-called "Saturday Night Specials" - inexpensive handguns.

Another move was an executive action by President H. W. Bush to ban importation of certain semi-automatic rifles - the resulting regulation, 18 USC 922r will make your head spin. The basic gist of 922r is that if you buy an imported rifle that is compliant, but then put on a US-made part, it is now not compliant, unless you put on enough US-made parts, at which point it is compliant again. The federal 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was just as absurd, but I digress.

Here in MA, there are laws and regulations that ban "unsafe" handguns. As a result of those laws, we can't buy new Glocks because the Attorney General claims they are unsafe. Yes, the gun issued by most police agencies in MA can not be sold new to private citizens in MA because AG Coakley claims they are unsafe. The same is true of most new HKs, Springfield XDs, etc.

What have you done prior to the Newtown shooting to protest the loss of your rights?

I'm a life member of the NRA and the MA-based Gun Owner's Action League. I've also donated to Comm2a, a group that is suing the Commonwealth of MA. I'm an NRA-certified firearms instructor and safety officer. I'm also an IDPA safety officer. I served as Vice President or member of the board of my gun club for more than a dozen years. I have spoken with state and federal legislators or their staffs concerning proposed legislation on many occasions. I've organized show-and-tells to educate legislators about assault weapons bans on several occasions. I've volunteered on campaigns for pro-gun candidates, including working a phone bank, organizing volunteers for standouts, etc. I've invited candidates to attend our gun club's meetings to address the membership.

So I think I've done quite a bit.

My point to this is that some of us really need to get a grip...

My grip is just fine, thank you very much (although Ben Stoeger does tell me to squeeze the gun harder).

 

[M1911]

After Aurora, I read an interview with a survivor who had said that he was glad nobody else in the theater had had a weapon and had tried to return fire. His argument was that the crossfire could have killed many more. I man be a gung-ho gun owner and a huge proponent of the 2nd amendment, but I actually agree.

I disagree. In most of these situations, you have one person shooting at cowering victims. Every couple of seconds they shoot another person. In almost all of these situations, once they are confronted they either give up or kill themselves.

In my line of work (I am a Security Forces member of the AF), we have to go through very intense training for active shooter situations, much like those that have taken place. We do countless exercises on different situations and even play out situations where we are actually shooting at each other with our real weapons; just swap the barrels and bolt carrier groups and we use symunitions. No, it wont kill you, but it hurts like sh!t and definitely uncovers those who will not be the best responders under real world pressure.
As I've said, I am a huge proponent for the 2nd amendment and a persons right to carry as I know that an armed assailant is something like 3 times more likely to be met and stopped by and armed citizen than law enforcement (just due to the sheer numbers), but I feel that for those that truly want to carry everyday for defense of themselves and others, additional training along the lines of what I mentioned above is necessary, and should be recurring. I have been through it and continue to go through it on a pretty regular basis and I still can't tell you exactly how I'd respond if an individual just started popping people in a crowded place near me. And yes, I carry everywhere I can.

It's not the guns we need to control, its making people more qualified.

I have a fair bit of training -- over 200 hours, most recently in December with Ben Stoeger (a USPSA Grand Master). I compete regularly in IDPA (I'm classified expert in CDP and SSR) and USPSA (C-class single stack). I've had simunitions training.

Some of my fellow competitors are police officers -- a few are better than I but most aren't, and these folks are far better marksman than the average police officer. Many (possibly most) police officers only fire their guns during their annual qualification. So they are shooting a couple hundred rounds a year max. As a result, their marksmanship and safety frankly sucks. This is not my judgment, this the judgment of their fellow police officers. And this is widespread. I've spoken about this subject with officers (patrol officers, firearms instructors, and SWAT officers) from the Boston Police Department, Nashua Police Department, federal agencies, Orange County Sheriff's Department, suburban Boston agencies, etc., and they all say the same thing. Maybe 10 percent of police officers are gunnies who go to the range and shoot on a regular basis, and the vast majority of the rest of the officers just suck with a gun.

Not all people can afford the time or the money to get that sort of training and I don't think that they should not be allowed to protect themselves outside of their home because they can not meet an arbitrary standard.

Is there a problem here that needs to be solved? Millions of citizens across the country have concealed carry permits. Are there many situations where they draw their gun to shoot a bad guy, but miss and hit an innocent? If so, they can't happen very frequently because I never read about them. In the vast majority of the times that they draw their gun, no shots are ever fired.

In an active shooter situation, there is going to be a gun fight and bullets are going to be flying. The only choice we have is whether this is going to be a one-way gunfight, with people on their knees getting shot in the head, or whether it is going to be a two-way gunfight, with the perpetrator taking cover from incoming rounds while innocents have a chance to flee. Even if I'm not the one with the gun, I'd much rather it was a two-way gunfight as I think my odds of survival would be far better.

Let me be clear, I'm not against training. I've attended classes given by Mas Ayoob, SIG Academy, S&W Academy, Cumberland Tactics (Randy Cain), etc. What I'm against is state-mandated training.

 

[hube01]

No disrespect intended.

I'm guessing that you are not a gun owner.
What if the government was threatening to take away something you use regularly that can be dangerous?
Cars are very dangerous.
Alcohol can be deadly.
Mix the two, bad combo.
More people are killed with blunt objects than rifles.

Considering that there are somewhere between 250 -350 million guns in America. While the events are tragic, the percent of illegal use of firearms is incredibly low. Something like .001% or less.

Actually, I do own a few guns. Additionally, I head out to the range a few time a month. This year, I will be competing in some IDPA matches at the Metacon gun club and Springfield, MA.

As for the government taking away something I use regularly that is dangerous, not sure how to answer that. I will say that I would do everything within my power to stop the government from banning all guns! Which, may sound contradictory to our debate. Governor Malloy brought up a good point by noting the general public can't go out and buy machine guns. As such, we aren't seeing incidents with machine guns. Nor, I might add that no one in this forum is going nuts over it; including the NRA.

In short, I have no problems with the federal government making restriction on some weapons, removing loophole, such as back ground checks, and frankly, banning high capacity clips. Before the last ban, I bought an H&K compact .45 cal. The clip held 10 rounds (one of the best handguns I've ever had, but that a topic for another time). Last year when I bought my Springfield Armory XD/M tactical .45, the clips held 13 rounds. Now, if the restrictions are voted it, I can't buy any more clips, nor sell my handgun with the clips. well, that's life, and frankly I don't feel the government is turning on me or trying to take away my 2nd Amendment.

What is sad is that the extremist who eat, breath, and preach the NRA as the be all and end all are missing an opportunity. Specifically, when it's only one side at the table, they things are going to be one sided. Hence, the restrictions may be much harsher then of they were at the table trying to find common ground. Remember, before anyone holds up the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution, they need to realize that both were written with liberal and conservative principles.

 

[M1911]

Banning large capacity magazines is ridiculous. It is completely pointless and will make no one safer.

My magazine changes on my 1911 are rather slow -- I timed 2.5 seconds last weekend. I'm faster with a double-stack gun. No one is safer because I carry 10 round magazines in my Glock 23 rather than 13 rounds. No one is safer if a spree shooter has 10 round magazines rather than 30 round magazines -- changing magazines just doesn't take much time.

You seem to be under the impression that if we just throw a baby off the sleigh (like large capacity magazines) that the anti-gun wolves will be happy and will leave us alone. They won't. They won't be happy until we are disarmed completely. Every "compromise" we make just brings them closer to their final goal.

And by the way, if you bring those 13 round XDm magazines into Massachusetts, you will be committing a felony. That is an example of the terrible nature of these types of laws -- people with no intent to commit a crime and who have harmed no one can find themselves facing very long sentences. How would it improve society if you got put in jail for more than a year because you mistakenly brought one of those magazines into MA? And by the way, since this is a felony, if you were convicted of violating it, you would then be a federally prohibited person and could never possess a firearm or ammunition ever again.

 

[SigSense]

Facts

...making restriction on some weapons, removing loophole, such as back ground checks, and frankly, banning high capacity clips.

You (and millions of other Americans) really need to quit repeating the gun-grabber's mantra of the following:

1. Loophole regarding background checks. There is NO such loophole.
2. High capacity magazines causing MORE deaths.
3. Restricting certain weapons.

FACTS:

1. Federal law requires that each new/used weapon bought at a retail establishment results in a background check. This is accomplished 1000's of times a day in our nation. Problem is that criminals don't BUY their guns at retail establishments, they STEAL them or buy them from OTHER criminals. Do you REALLY think that passing a law requiring everyone to have a background check for every sale (private) is going to effect criminals? There are 1000's of laws against murder/rape/incest/child molestation/assault in this nation, so WHY are there murders, rapes, incest etc?

Under federal law:

• It is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison for the following people to receive, possess, or transport any firearm or ammunition:

someone convicted of or under indictment for a felony punishable by more than one year in prison, someone convicted of a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years in prison, a fugitive from justice, an unlawful user of any controlled substance, someone who has been ruled as mentally defective or has been committed to any mental institution, an illegal alien, someone dishonorably discharged from the military, someone who has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship, someone subject to certain restraining orders, or someone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor

2. High capacity magazines are available to the military and police, so they are available to the public. The intent of the 2nd Amendment had NOTHING to do with hunting. It was written to prevent TYRANNY. Do some research. Every time you give-in to the anti-gun rhetoric of restrictions on your RIGHT, you give them the platform to restrict.

3. Machine guns suck for shooting people. Did you know that US military CHANGED the M-4 to a three round burst because of this? I have used both automatic and semiautomatic weapons in actual ground combat. A smart marksman (or killer) will carefully aim and minimize the amount of ammo expended. Spraying 100's of rounds is not effective. So the restriction on fully automatic weapons does no good.

If this country is solely and seriously concerned with deaths, then we need to ban the following:

Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021 (32, 310 vehicle-related)
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

Derived from: FASTSTATS - Leading Causes of Death

We had 32K deaths from car wrecks in 2011. We had 17K suicides by gun, and about 9K murders. Last I checked, 9000 is a LOT less than 32000.


This site will assist those seeking gun facts: Gun Control - Just Facts

 

[Gerdo]

They should ban high capacity clips.

 

[reptevia]

I'm a retired LE professional and a weapons expert. I carry the Glock 26. It's 9mm, but with 15 rounds it doesn't matter. I like the size, and with proper cleaning, I have fired thousands of rounds with it without one jam.

'08 Tacoma
'13 T4R-Limited

 

[mikebontoft]

clip talk :I I don't care who it is, if they start talking about "clips" they have lost all credibility to me. With the exception of an actual clip fed weapon....lol.

On banning high capacity magazines... people that think this is a good idea must not understand how easy it is to swap them. "What about bullet buttons?" An inconvenience, and anyone that wants to go shoot up a place could easily bypass the function. Just buy 30 ten round mags and strap em on. there's your 300 rounds right there. On a pistol though, just eject and load...

Anyone else agree that the problem is the people these days? WHY are people my age shooting up a school and then committing suicide? I think it has something to do with how "politically correct" and sensitive this country/world is becoming.... and it drives these people crazy.

 

[scanny]

I can't understand why they want to ban "assault rifles". As I see it a shooter can do more damage in a crowded place liake a school or movie theater with a short shotgun an possible Molotov cocktails. An assault rifle is designed for engagements at 100-300 yards, so basically it's good for fighting a tyranyc governement with its police and army. And same with the large capacity magazines - to me it looks like people who wanted to ban them are out of touch. If a criminal can't change magazines fast enough who will stop him from removing pin from a magazine or make 1 big magazine from 2 small ones. In my opinion if somebody really want to prevent mass shootings they need first of all to make sure that press won't make a celebrity from a mass shooter. A poor looser pshyco shouldn't become a person who makes the President drop everything and make speeches about shooting and a person who all of a sudden becomes a center of the Nation attention. I guess those activist and politicians either don't really understand the issue or pursue their own goals while public goes emotional and listen to them.

 

[mikebontoft]

It's the same kind of selective words that a lawyer will use to sway a jury. It sounds scary to the uninformed public. Mark my parents as part of that group... they repeat the common misconception to the letter. I try to inform them but they just say "drop it." people are stubborn.

The media... that will never happen. I recall many stations saying the same thing during the Aurora incident: "We must stop giving these murderers press coverage and focus on the victims." Sure as hell didn't stick to the plan last time... and look where it brought us, with several more imitators.


I wish I had the answer. Changing times.... more mentally challenged or unstable people not getting the care they should etc.. Either way, these people's families need to keep a safe and have it locked!!

biggest thing, have we ever seen a mass murder by a CCW holder? And I don't know the answer to that so I'm curious. Make that with legally owned weapons by THAT person.

Take a look at the Trolley Square UT incident if you guys remember that. His spree was cut short by an off duty officer IIRC.

I just don't understand the course of action the government is taking. it's the same mentality of "In order to prevent home invasions, we must ban the ownership of homes."

 

[aspade]

What is sad is that the extremist who eat, breath, and preach the NRA as the be all and end all are missing an opportunity. Specifically, when it's only one side at the table, they things are going to be one sided. Hence, the restrictions may be much harsher then of they were at the table trying to find common ground.

We tried the compromise thing, when the NRA was an essentially apolitical organization for hunters and target shooters. That didn't work as any kind of a two sided table. There was one side at the table, their side, and with no opposition they could be as harsh as they wanted. The GCA of 68. The H Bush import bans. The Clinton bans. Uncountable local prohibitions.

The way they screwed us last time is exactly why the NRA became as strident as it is now. Not going to fool us twice.

Dumping on the NRA as extremists while owning and shooting guns that would put you in prison without the NRA's work - in many places in the US, would put you in prison even with the NRA's work - is more than a little hypocritical.

 

[M1911]

Here are some more data points about murder in the US.

In 2011, there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8583 were committed with firearms. 323 were committed with rifles, only a portion of which were semi-automatic, so-called "assault weapons." More than twice as many people (728) were killed with hands and fists than with rifles. And yet here we are looking to infringe on the liberty of millions of people to ban so-called "assault weapons".

Those numbers are from the 2011 FBI Uniform Crime Report: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

So we're going to ban guns used in maybe 150 murders? How is that going to do anything? About 30 kids per year drown in buckets. Should we therefore ban buckets?

In 2010, about 10,000 people died in auto accidents caused by the crime of drinking and driving. So should we ban cars and trucks?

 

[mikebontoft]

Exactly... but how do we get stubborn people to listen, especially when some media outlets purposely provide false info? Way too many people believe everything they see or hear.

Do we petition new media regulations?

 

[Stifler]

you are either pro 2nd amendment and gun ownership... ALL GUNS! or you are an idiot. No 2 ways around it no convincing this AMERICAN otherwise.

 

[Gerdo]

Of those, 8583 were committed with firearms.

With an estimated 250-350 million firearms in the US. We are talking about less than .0035% used in a shooting.