I Bought a Handgun in California Today(gun control opinions, please) (2 Viewers)

[NCCommish]

I hope you wont take this the wrong way but untrained people carrying a gun don't make me feel safer. Maybe you have had some experience in the military or law enforcement my notebook isn't always great but I don't recall you mentioning it.

If you haven't IMO you have no business carrying with the thought of using a gun in a public stress situation. None. You are far more dangerous to the bystanders than the bad guy if you actually pull it in 99.99% of all situations.

When I was younger I carried because I could but I outgrew it. At least I had military training and under fire experience. And still I recognized that the times when it would be prudent to fire that weapon in public were extremely limited.

Further despite the infotainment drenching us in violence each night the reality is violent crimes are way down nationally from when I did carry.

You want to keep it home to protect the family? Fair enough. Carrying it in public and facing the door just in case? Leave it home.

There is access to training outside military and law enforcement.

A few hours on a range is pretty meaningless. I have seen numerous test situations dome with "trained" gun owners. Once the pressure is on decision making goes to crap. Time and again. Heck even police scare me. Most firefights involving police take place at distances under 20 ft. Most, and sometimes all, of the shots fired end up missing the target. And they get more training than civilians. The reality is in most situations most people are a liability not a help when it comes to a shootout. They simply don't have the ability to stay calm under the pressure of live fire.

 

[[icon]]

There is access to training outside military and law enforcement.

The average range has some decent classes.. or there are places like this that I have used who provide SWAT-level instruction to civillians.

 

[NCCommish]

There is access to training outside military and law enforcement.

The average range has some decent classes.. or there are places like this that I have used who provide SWAT-level instruction to civillians.

Oh I didn't know they get a whole day of training, my bad.

 

[Chadstroma]

I hope you wont take this the wrong way but untrained people carrying a gun don't make me feel safer. Maybe you have had some experience in the military or law enforcement my notebook isn't always great but I don't recall you mentioning it.

I go shoot with a lot of cops. I'm not sure a random civillian with a dozen or so range hours is as step down.

When I worked in the city one of my customers is a Chicago PD officer. Extremely pro-gun rights. We would chat all the time and one time I said something about going to the range. He told me that the city gives them range time once a year. Once a year.

 

[Chadstroma]

I hope you wont take this the wrong way but untrained people carrying a gun don't make me feel safer. Maybe you have had some experience in the military or law enforcement my notebook isn't always great but I don't recall you mentioning it.

If you haven't IMO you have no business carrying with the thought of using a gun in a public stress situation. None. You are far more dangerous to the bystanders than the bad guy if you actually pull it in 99.99% of all situations.

When I was younger I carried because I could but I outgrew it. At least I had military training and under fire experience. And still I recognized that the times when it would be prudent to fire that weapon in public were extremely limited.

Further despite the infotainment drenching us in violence each night the reality is violent crimes are way down nationally from when I did carry.

You want to keep it home to protect the family? Fair enough. Carrying it in public and facing the door just in case? Leave it home.

There is access to training outside military and law enforcement.

A few hours on a range is pretty meaningless. I have seen numerous test situations dome with "trained" gun owners. Once the pressure is on decision making goes to crap. Time and again. Heck even police scare me. Most firefights involving police take place at distances under 20 ft. Most, and sometimes all, of the shots fired end up missing the target. And they get more training than civilians. The reality is in most situations most people are a liability not a help when it comes to a shootout. They simply don't have the ability to stay calm under the pressure of live fire.

I am not talking range time. There is actual training available. The differ in level but there is plenty out there including the same kind of training (and more) than what your average military or law enforcement gets.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

California sounds 100% identical to Minnesota. I think the background check needs to be much more expansive. Perhaps includong non-family references would be a start.

References?

I don't think that passes the smell test. We are talking about a Constitutional Right here.

 

[Chadstroma]

Here is my biggest problem with "Gun control" beyond the whole Constitution thingee. I have yet to hear anything that would really make a difference. I am not really opposed to many things that are typically brought up personally but the problem is this: Let's say we went ahead and did a wishlist of most non-insane liberals on gun control. It does nothing to stop gun violence. Then what? Do you think they will say "Well, shoot, that did not work. Let's try something that might actually work." or do you think they will say something along the lines of "OMG, think of the kids! We must have more gun control!!!" right up to the point where there is no longer a right to bear arms in this country. And guess what? It STILL would not do anything to stop the violence.

 

[[icon]]

There is access to training outside military and law enforcement.

The average range has some decent classes.. or there are places like this that I have used who provide SWAT-level instruction to civillians.

Oh I didn't know they get a whole day of training, my bad.

Good call.. probably should leave any gun carrying in the US to the couple thousand elite special forces types to be safe

 

[Rayderr]

I hope you wont take this the wrong way but untrained people carrying a gun don't make me feel safer. Maybe you have had some experience in the military or law enforcement my notebook isn't always great but I don't recall you mentioning it.

If you haven't IMO you have no business carrying with the thought of using a gun in a public stress situation. None. You are far more dangerous to the bystanders than the bad guy if you actually pull it in 99.99% of all situations.

When I was younger I carried because I could but I outgrew it. At least I had military training and under fire experience. And still I recognized that the times when it would be prudent to fire that weapon in public were extremely limited.

Further despite the infotainment drenching us in violence each night the reality is violent crimes are way down nationally from when I did carry.

You want to keep it home to protect the family? Fair enough. Carrying it in public and facing the door just in case? Leave it home.

There is access to training outside military and law enforcement.

A few hours on a range is pretty meaningless. I have seen numerous test situations dome with "trained" gun owners. Once the pressure is on decision making goes to crap. Time and again. Heck even police scare me. Most firefights involving police take place at distances under 20 ft. Most, and sometimes all, of the shots fired end up missing the target. And they get more training than civilians. The reality is in most situations most people are a liability not a help when it comes to a shootout. They simply don't have the ability to stay calm under the pressure of live fire.

I'm confused. You want people like Cho, Loughner and Holmes (all of whom got their guns legally) trained to be even better shots for when they go shooting up schools, movie theaters and the like?

 

[joffer]

Here is my biggest problem with "Gun control" beyond the whole Constitution thingee. I have yet to hear anything that would really make a difference. I am not really opposed to many things that are typically brought up personally but the problem is this: Let's say we went ahead and did a wishlist of most non-insane liberals on gun control. It does nothing to stop gun violence. Then what? Do you think they will say "Well, shoot, that did not work. Let's try something that might actually work." or do you think they will say something along the lines of "OMG, think of the kids! We must have more gun control!!!" right up to the point where there is no longer a right to bear arms in this country. And guess what? It STILL would not do anything to stop the violence.

"What will we do if we try this and it doesn't work?" is not a good argument for not trying it. Especially if there are legit arguments that it may work, and it's unlikely to make matters worse

 

[Chadstroma]

There is access to training outside military and law enforcement.

The average range has some decent classes.. or there are places like this that I have used who provide SWAT-level instruction to civillians.

Oh I didn't know they get a whole day of training, my bad.

Good call.. probably should leave any gun carrying in the US to the couple thousand elite special forces types to be safe

Well, the "No gun zone" signs seem to be doing a great job for our schools.

 

[NCCommish]

Here is my biggest problem with "Gun control" beyond the whole Constitution thingee. I have yet to hear anything that would really make a difference. I am not really opposed to many things that are typically brought up personally but the problem is this: Let's say we went ahead and did a wishlist of most non-insane liberals on gun control. It does nothing to stop gun violence. Then what? Do you think they will say "Well, shoot, that did not work. Let's try something that might actually work." or do you think they will say something along the lines of "OMG, think of the kids! We must have more gun control!!!" right up to the point where there is no longer a right to bear arms in this country. And guess what? It STILL would not do anything to stop the violence.

You know no one ever talks about the context of the Constitution thing. It was written by people who believed we should not have a standing army. None. Standing army's ate away at a nations finances and were the tool of dictators. So the amendment was put in so that there would be a militia to call up in times of war or rebellion. But here's the thing we have a standing army, which does eat at our finances. And each state has a well regulated militia called the National Guard.

The Second amendment has been twisted to satisfy an industry that wants to sell guns.

 

[Chadstroma]

Here is my biggest problem with "Gun control" beyond the whole Constitution thingee. I have yet to hear anything that would really make a difference. I am not really opposed to many things that are typically brought up personally but the problem is this: Let's say we went ahead and did a wishlist of most non-insane liberals on gun control. It does nothing to stop gun violence. Then what? Do you think they will say "Well, shoot, that did not work. Let's try something that might actually work." or do you think they will say something along the lines of "OMG, think of the kids! We must have more gun control!!!" right up to the point where there is no longer a right to bear arms in this country. And guess what? It STILL would not do anything to stop the violence.

"What will we do if we try this and it doesn't work?" is not a good argument for not trying it. Especially if there are legit arguments that it may work.

If the argument is "we have to do something because of the violence" and that something does not do anything to stop the violence than eventually there is a point where 'gun control' means 'gun ban'. That is a very dark place to go in the US.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I hope you wont take this the wrong way but untrained people carrying a gun don't make me feel safer. Maybe you have had some experience in the military or law enforcement my notebook isn't always great but I don't recall you mentioning it.

If you haven't IMO you have no business carrying with the thought of using a gun in a public stress situation. None. You are far more dangerous to the bystanders than the bad guy if you actually pull it in 99.99% of all situations.

When I was younger I carried because I could but I outgrew it. At least I had military training and under fire experience. And still I recognized that the times when it would be prudent to fire that weapon in public were extremely limited.

Further despite the infotainment drenching us in violence each night the reality is violent crimes are way down nationally from when I did carry.

You want to keep it home to protect the family? Fair enough. Carrying it in public and facing the door just in case? Leave it home.

There is access to training outside military and law enforcement.

A few hours on a range is pretty meaningless. I have seen numerous test situations dome with "trained" gun owners. Once the pressure is on decision making goes to crap. Time and again. Heck even police scare me. Most firefights involving police take place at distances under 20 ft. Most, and sometimes all, of the shots fired end up missing the target. And they get more training than civilians. The reality is in most situations most people are a liability not a help when it comes to a shootout. They simply don't have the ability to stay calm under the pressure of live fire.

I'm confused. You want people like Cho, Loughner and Holmes (all of whom got their guns legally) trained to be even better shots for when they go shooting up schools, movie theaters and the like?

I'm pretty sure his point was that he doesn't want Leviathan to accidentally shoot him in the face because some guy reached into his coat for a pack of bubble gum in a threatening manner.

But, assuming you read at least at a 3rd grade level, you already knew that and were just trying to make a ridiculous point, so carry on.

 

[[icon]]

Here is my biggest problem with "Gun control" beyond the whole Constitution thingee. I have yet to hear anything that would really make a difference. I am not really opposed to many things that are typically brought up personally but the problem is this: Let's say we went ahead and did a wishlist of most non-insane liberals on gun control. It does nothing to stop gun violence. Then what? Do you think they will say "Well, shoot, that did not work. Let's try something that might actually work." or do you think they will say something along the lines of "OMG, think of the kids! We must have more gun control!!!" right up to the point where there is no longer a right to bear arms in this country. And guess what? It STILL would not do anything to stop the violence.

You know no one ever talks about the context of the Constitution thing. It was written by people who believed we should not have a standing army. None. Standing army's ate away at a nations finances and were the tool of dictators. So the amendment was put in so that there would be a militia to call up in times of war or rebellion. But here's the thing we have a standing army, which does eat at our finances. And each state has a well regulated militia called the National Guard.

The Second amendment has been twisted to satisfy an industry that wants to sell guns.

DC Heller

 

[[icon]]

You hippies whining for gun control can always move to Canada

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Here is my biggest problem with "Gun control" beyond the whole Constitution thingee. I have yet to hear anything that would really make a difference. I am not really opposed to many things that are typically brought up personally but the problem is this: Let's say we went ahead and did a wishlist of most non-insane liberals on gun control. It does nothing to stop gun violence. Then what? Do you think they will say "Well, shoot, that did not work. Let's try something that might actually work." or do you think they will say something along the lines of "OMG, think of the kids! We must have more gun control!!!" right up to the point where there is no longer a right to bear arms in this country. And guess what? It STILL would not do anything to stop the violence.

"What will we do if we try this and it doesn't work?" is not a good argument for not trying it. Especially if there are legit arguments that it may work.

If the argument is "we have to do something because of the violence" and that something does not do anything to stop the violence than eventually there is a point where 'gun control' means 'gun ban'. That is a very dark place to go in the US.

So elementary school kids getting violently shot to death and watching the kid next to them bleed out is not a dark place, but not being able to own a gun is. Got it. Just want to make sure I had your priorities straight.

 

[joffer]

Here is my biggest problem with "Gun control" beyond the whole Constitution thingee. I have yet to hear anything that would really make a difference. I am not really opposed to many things that are typically brought up personally but the problem is this: Let's say we went ahead and did a wishlist of most non-insane liberals on gun control. It does nothing to stop gun violence. Then what? Do you think they will say "Well, shoot, that did not work. Let's try something that might actually work." or do you think they will say something along the lines of "OMG, think of the kids! We must have more gun control!!!" right up to the point where there is no longer a right to bear arms in this country. And guess what? It STILL would not do anything to stop the violence.

"What will we do if we try this and it doesn't work?" is not a good argument for not trying it. Especially if there are legit arguments that it may work.

If the argument is "we have to do something because of the violence" and that something does not do anything to stop the violence than eventually there is a point where 'gun control' means 'gun ban'. That is a very dark place to go in the US.

i don't want a gun ban, but we can't we agree that a better system of background checks and doing something about the gun show loophole is worth a try?

 

[NCCommish]

There is access to training outside military and law enforcement.

The average range has some decent classes.. or there are places like this that I have used who provide SWAT-level instruction to civillians.

Oh I didn't know they get a whole day of training, my bad.

Good call.. probably should leave any gun carrying in the US to the couple thousand elite special forces types to be safe

We should probably remember this nation wasn't always armed to the teeth. We should probably remember that the West was actually won by taking guns out of everyone's hands. We should probably note that more guns haven't made us one iota safer and in fact it's hard to argue the opposite isn't true. That's things we should probably do.

I have military training. I have been under fire. I don't carry because those experiences tell me that in a public stress situation I have little to add. Your one day class makes you think differently apparently. I would say that class failed.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Here is my biggest problem with "Gun control" beyond the whole Constitution thingee. I have yet to hear anything that would really make a difference. I am not really opposed to many things that are typically brought up personally but the problem is this: Let's say we went ahead and did a wishlist of most non-insane liberals on gun control. It does nothing to stop gun violence. Then what? Do you think they will say "Well, shoot, that did not work. Let's try something that might actually work." or do you think they will say something along the lines of "OMG, think of the kids! We must have more gun control!!!" right up to the point where there is no longer a right to bear arms in this country. And guess what? It STILL would not do anything to stop the violence.

You know no one ever talks about the context of the Constitution thing. It was written by people who believed we should not have a standing army. None. Standing army's ate away at a nations finances and were the tool of dictators. So the amendment was put in so that there would be a militia to call up in times of war or rebellion. But here's the thing we have a standing army, which does eat at our finances. And each state has a well regulated militia called the National Guard.

The Second amendment has been twisted to satisfy an industry that wants to sell guns.

This must be why so many otherwise liberal Constitutional scholars agree that it describes an individual right.

 

[NCCommish]

Here is my biggest problem with "Gun control" beyond the whole Constitution thingee. I have yet to hear anything that would really make a difference. I am not really opposed to many things that are typically brought up personally but the problem is this: Let's say we went ahead and did a wishlist of most non-insane liberals on gun control. It does nothing to stop gun violence. Then what? Do you think they will say "Well, shoot, that did not work. Let's try something that might actually work." or do you think they will say something along the lines of "OMG, think of the kids! We must have more gun control!!!" right up to the point where there is no longer a right to bear arms in this country. And guess what? It STILL would not do anything to stop the violence.

You know no one ever talks about the context of the Constitution thing. It was written by people who believed we should not have a standing army. None. Standing army's ate away at a nations finances and were the tool of dictators. So the amendment was put in so that there would be a militia to call up in times of war or rebellion. But here's the thing we have a standing army, which does eat at our finances. And each state has a well regulated militia called the National Guard.The Second amendment has been twisted to satisfy an industry that wants to sell guns.

This must be why so many otherwise liberal Constitutional scholars agree that it describes an individual right.

A limited individual right not what it has been stretched into. And I would even disagree with that interpretation but at least you could make a reasonable argument for it.And it should be mentioned they are not the majority or even close to it.

 

[lod01]

I haven't purchased a firearm in the Golden State for over 20 years. This is the process that I went through to do so. I personally do not have any objections to the requirements.

Looking for opinions regarding whether or not the requirements are enough, or should it be more difficult to do so.

1. Your ID (drivers lisense or state ID) plus proof of your physical address. Vehicle registration, utility bill qualifies.

2. A 30 question test. 10 questions are True or False. The remaining questions are multiple choice.

3. A thumbprint is required, followed by a federal background check.

4. 10 day waiting period.

Is there room for improvement?

That's it? Pretty sure a psycho mass murderer to be can get a gun pretty easily.

Forgot to add that you need to physically display how to load, fire, unload, eject the magazine and render the weapon to be in a safe condition.

...and they want to make sure psychos can get the job done. Awesome.

 

[lod01]

Seems fine to me. I'm surprised by the length of the waiting period but I think that's generally a good idea.

Love the waiting period. The psycho mass murderer has plenty of time to scout his location.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

And it should be mentioned they are not the majority or even close to it.

Intellectual honesty is a particularly rare commodity among zealots.

 

[NCCommish]

And it should be mentioned they are not the majority or even close to it.

Intellectual honesty is a particularly rare commodity among zealots.

And who would be the zealot? For example I would make a bad one. I haven't said we should ignore the courts decisions I have called them into question baaed on historical context and the words of those who wrote the second.I haven't called for gun confiscation merely their removal from the public square. I have called for universal background checks. I have called for laws to make finding and prosecuting straw purchasers more effective. I have called for better mental health care and finally the establishment of the community mental health centers JFK called for when he tried to clean up the asylums. If those things make me a zealot then we cheapened the definition or we are engaging in demagoguery.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

And it should be mentioned they are not the majority or even close to it.

Intellectual honesty is a particularly rare commodity among zealots.

And who would be the zealot? For exampleI would make a bad one. I haven't said we should ignore the courts decisions I have called them into question. I haven't called for gun confiscation merely their removal from the public square. I have called for universal background checks. I have called for laws to make finding and prosecuting straw purchasers more effective. I have called for better mental health care and finally the establishment of the community mental health centers JFK called for when he tried to clean up the asylums. If those things make me a zealot then we cheapened the definition or we are engaging in demagoguery.

I was specifically talking about the liberal Constitutional scholars who make absurd arguments that the 2nd Amendment wasn't intended as an individual right.

I disagree with you frequently, but I'd think you would know me well enough by now to know that I wasn't calling you a zealot. I guess not.

 

[NCCommish]

And it should be mentioned they are not the majority or even close to it.

Intellectual honesty is a particularly rare commodity among zealots.

And who would be the zealot? For exampleI would make a bad one. I haven't said we should ignore the courts decisions I have called them into question. I haven't called for gun confiscation merely their removal from the public square. I have called for universal background checks. I have called for laws to make finding and prosecuting straw purchasers more effective. I have called for better mental health care and finally the establishment of the community mental health centers JFK called for when he tried to clean up the asylums. If those things make me a zealot then we cheapened the definition or we are engaging in demagoguery.

I was specifically talking about the liberal Constitutional scholars who make absurd arguments that the 2nd Amendment wasn't intended as an individual right.

I disagree with you frequently, but I'd think you would know me well enough by now to know that I wasn't calling you a zealot. I guess not.

Just checking I sometimes make people mad. As for those scholars, you know the majority, that was the prevailing view in this country for a lot longer than the guns for all view of the minority. Over a century longer actually. Going back to jurists who were very close in time to the adoption of the Constitution. So not sure they are zealots as much as someone you disagree with.

 

[NCCommish]

While it's fun to debate constitutional law that ship has sailed. Unlike Kim Davis and the zealots, real ones, that support her I believe we must follow that law until it is changed. So you won't find me calling for confiscation. But even Scalia has said the state has the right to impose reasonable laws on gun ownership. There are reasonable things we could do, things the vast majority of people support, we should do them.

 

[cstu]

Here is my biggest problem with "Gun control" beyond the whole Constitution thingee. I have yet to hear anything that would really make a difference. I am not really opposed to many things that are typically brought up personally but the problem is this: Let's say we went ahead and did a wishlist of most non-insane liberals on gun control. It does nothing to stop gun violence. Then what? Do you think they will say "Well, shoot, that did not work. Let's try something that might actually work." or do you think they will say something along the lines of "OMG, think of the kids! We must have more gun control!!!" right up to the point where there is no longer a right to bear arms in this country. And guess what? It STILL would not do anything to stop the violence.

Ah, the old reliable slippery slope argument.

 

[Leviathan]

Shield in 40 S&W. I would describe the magazine as being a staggered stack. The pistol is less than an inch wide. Huge improvement over what I am currently carrying.

Are you sure you have a M&P shield, as it is definitely a single-stack magazine.I owned a Shield in 9mm and have shot it in 40cal. Solid little pistol that many really enjoy. For me, just not a fan. In my side by side range time with it, I found it to be less accurate than my G26 in my hands. Also I'm not a fan of the mag release, and I just prefer the trigger pull/release on the Sold mine off. That said... many love it, including a couple buddies.

Enjoy.. definitely a very nice carry piece!

Thanks. I own a Glock 19 and love it. I use it at the range all the time but would be nervous carrying one as the only safety is the trigger itself. This is the model that I purchased.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O81wSD7mg0c

 

[Chadstroma]

Here is my biggest problem with "Gun control" beyond the whole Constitution thingee. I have yet to hear anything that would really make a difference. I am not really opposed to many things that are typically brought up personally but the problem is this: Let's say we went ahead and did a wishlist of most non-insane liberals on gun control. It does nothing to stop gun violence. Then what? Do you think they will say "Well, shoot, that did not work. Let's try something that might actually work." or do you think they will say something along the lines of "OMG, think of the kids! We must have more gun control!!!" right up to the point where there is no longer a right to bear arms in this country. And guess what? It STILL would not do anything to stop the violence.

"What will we do if we try this and it doesn't work?" is not a good argument for not trying it. Especially if there are legit arguments that it may work.

If the argument is "we have to do something because of the violence" and that something does not do anything to stop the violence than eventually there is a point where 'gun control' means 'gun ban'. That is a very dark place to go in the US.

So elementary school kids getting violently shot to death and watching the kid next to them bleed out is not a dark place, but not being able to own a gun is. Got it. Just want to make sure I had your priorities straight.

A US that attempts to enact a gun ban will be a US that quickly devolves into revolt/civil war. That is a very dark place. I think there was a thread not too long ago asking if the US would be in another civil war. I don't see that happening at all short of an attempt by the Federal government to enact a gun ban and then, yes, absolutely- there would be some form of war. So, yes, you got that straight.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

And it should be mentioned they are not the majority or even close to it.

Intellectual honesty is a particularly rare commodity among zealots.

And who would be the zealot? For exampleI would make a bad one. I haven't said we should ignore the courts decisions I have called them into question. I haven't called for gun confiscation merely their removal from the public square. I have called for universal background checks. I have called for laws to make finding and prosecuting straw purchasers more effective. I have called for better mental health care and finally the establishment of the community mental health centers JFK called for when he tried to clean up the asylums. If those things make me a zealot then we cheapened the definition or we are engaging in demagoguery.

I was specifically talking about the liberal Constitutional scholars who make absurd arguments that the 2nd Amendment wasn't intended as an individual right.

I disagree with you frequently, but I'd think you would know me well enough by now to know that I wasn't calling you a zealot. I guess not.

Just checking I sometimes make people mad. As for those scholars, you know the majority, that was the prevailing view in this country for a lot longer than the guns for all view of the minority. Over a century longer actually. Going back to jurists who were very close in time to the adoption of the Constitution. So not sure they are zealots as much as someone you disagree with.

And at times closer to when the Constitution was written "people" was generally understood by jurists not to include non-whites.

The notion that the Bill of Rights had a single amendment in it that wasn't an individual right and wasn't a check on government power is pretty hard to understand. Unless there is a political motivation to understand it another way.

The bottom line is that it is settled law at this point.

 

[Leviathan]

California sounds 100% identical to Minnesota. I think the background check needs to be much more expansive. Perhaps includong non-family references would be a start.

Agree 100%. Background checks need to be much more detailed. Example: how did the press find out that the VT shooter had toys in the attic yet the DOJ didn't find that out when doing his background check?

 

[NCCommish]

Here is my biggest problem with "Gun control" beyond the whole Constitution thingee. I have yet to hear anything that would really make a difference. I am not really opposed to many things that are typically brought up personally but the problem is this: Let's say we went ahead and did a wishlist of most non-insane liberals on gun control. It does nothing to stop gun violence. Then what? Do you think they will say "Well, shoot, that did not work. Let's try something that might actually work." or do you think they will say something along the lines of "OMG, think of the kids! We must have more gun control!!!" right up to the point where there is no longer a right to bear arms in this country. And guess what? It STILL would not do anything to stop the violence.

"What will we do if we try this and it doesn't work?" is not a good argument for not trying it. Especially if there are legit arguments that it may work.

If the argument is "we have to do something because of the violence" and that something does not do anything to stop the violence than eventually there is a point where 'gun control' means 'gun ban'. That is a very dark place to go in the US.

So elementary school kids getting violently shot to death and watching the kid next to them bleed out is not a dark place, but not being able to own a gun is. Got it. Just want to make sure I had your priorities straight.

A US that attempts to enact a gun ban will be a US that quickly devolves into revolt/civil war. That is a very dark place. I think there was a thread not too long ago asking if the US would be in another civil war. I don't see that happening at all short of an attempt by the Federal government to enact a gun ban and then, yes, absolutely- there would be some form of war. So, yes, you got that straight.

No there won't. Most people aren't going to think it's better to die than to give up their guns in some kind of buyback like Australia did. Oh sure the loons will go off but Joe Suburbia isn't risking his life and the life of his family to keep a handgun. Especially if no one else is going to have one.

The problem is logistical. There is no way to really do it or wnfoce it so it's a nonstarter.

 

[Chadstroma]

Here is my biggest problem with "Gun control" beyond the whole Constitution thingee. I have yet to hear anything that would really make a difference. I am not really opposed to many things that are typically brought up personally but the problem is this: Let's say we went ahead and did a wishlist of most non-insane liberals on gun control. It does nothing to stop gun violence. Then what? Do you think they will say "Well, shoot, that did not work. Let's try something that might actually work." or do you think they will say something along the lines of "OMG, think of the kids! We must have more gun control!!!" right up to the point where there is no longer a right to bear arms in this country. And guess what? It STILL would not do anything to stop the violence.

"What will we do if we try this and it doesn't work?" is not a good argument for not trying it. Especially if there are legit arguments that it may work.

If the argument is "we have to do something because of the violence" and that something does not do anything to stop the violence than eventually there is a point where 'gun control' means 'gun ban'. That is a very dark place to go in the US.

i don't want a gun ban, but we can't we agree that a better system of background checks and doing something about the gun show loophole is worth a try?

Sure. As I stated before. I am not really against that but my concern is that once those fail to stop anything (which will happen) then calls for more and more 'gun control' to stop the violence will continue. Meanwhile, actual things that would stop the violence are ignored because they involved guns.

We protect almost everything in this country with guns. Why? Becuase it is common sense that if you want to stop bad people with guns then you need a good person with a gun nearby. But when it comes to our kids some people in this country think a sign that read "Gun Free Zone" is a good idea and then are dumbfounded when some f-ed up person comes in and kills people. And what do they do? Call someone with a gun to stop them. And in the time it takes them to respond the gunman has free range in the meantime. Why do you think these people target these places? They know no one can stop them and when the people who can stop them show up- what do most of them do? Kill themselves.

 

[[icon]]

I have military training. I have been under fire. I don't carry because those experiences tell me that in a public stress situation I have little to add. Your one day class makes you think differently apparently. I would say that class failed.

So i've only taken a one day class? Interesting. I guess it's groundhog day for real! Maybe I'll get to see Bill Murray!!!

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

While it's fun to debate constitutional law that ship has sailed. Unlike Kim Davis and the zealots, real ones, that support her I believe we must follow that law until it is changed. So you won't find me calling for confiscation. But even Scalia has said the state has the right to impose reasonable laws on gun ownership. There are reasonable things we could do, things the vast majority of people support, we should do them.

I don't disagree that it is settled law.

I agree that there are limits on gun ownership that are reasonable and that enacting such reasonable limits is within the purview of government. We already have lots of them.

Would more help? Perhaps.

But when it comes to added government regulation of anything (but especially further limitations on an ennunciated individual right) there should be some clear evidence that valid public policy goals will be well-served by the change before it is implemented. "We just need to do something!" is the on-ramp sign on the proverbial road to Hell that is paved with good intentions.

 

[Chadstroma]

Here is my biggest problem with "Gun control" beyond the whole Constitution thingee. I have yet to hear anything that would really make a difference. I am not really opposed to many things that are typically brought up personally but the problem is this: Let's say we went ahead and did a wishlist of most non-insane liberals on gun control. It does nothing to stop gun violence. Then what? Do you think they will say "Well, shoot, that did not work. Let's try something that might actually work." or do you think they will say something along the lines of "OMG, think of the kids! We must have more gun control!!!" right up to the point where there is no longer a right to bear arms in this country. And guess what? It STILL would not do anything to stop the violence.

"What will we do if we try this and it doesn't work?" is not a good argument for not trying it. Especially if there are legit arguments that it may work.

If the argument is "we have to do something because of the violence" and that something does not do anything to stop the violence than eventually there is a point where 'gun control' means 'gun ban'. That is a very dark place to go in the US.

So elementary school kids getting violently shot to death and watching the kid next to them bleed out is not a dark place, but not being able to own a gun is. Got it. Just want to make sure I had your priorities straight.

A US that attempts to enact a gun ban will be a US that quickly devolves into revolt/civil war. That is a very dark place. I think there was a thread not too long ago asking if the US would be in another civil war. I don't see that happening at all short of an attempt by the Federal government to enact a gun ban and then, yes, absolutely- there would be some form of war. So, yes, you got that straight.

No there won't. Most people aren't going to think it's better to die than to give up their guns in some kind of buyback like Australia did. Oh sure the loons will go off but Joe Suburbia isn't risking his life and the life of his family to keep a handgun. Especially if no one else is going to have one.

The problem is logistical. There is no way to really do it or wnfoce it so it's a nonstarter.

I disagree. I think many people who are not "loons" would fear a Federal ban on guns to the point that they would fight. Certainly enough to cause a war. I think the amount of people who would be against that are numerous enough to never let it get to that point. I also think that the Federal government would have a hard time in getting enforcement of that as most of the military/law enforcement I know are extremely pro gun rights.

 

[Kid_kong]

I haven't purchased a firearm in the Golden State for over 20 years. This is the process that I went through to do so. I personally do not have any objections to the requirements.

Looking for opinions regarding whether or not the requirements are enough, or should it be more difficult to do so.

1. Your ID (drivers lisense or state ID) plus proof of your physical address. Vehicle registration, utility bill qualifies.

2. A 30 question test. 10 questions are True or False. The remaining questions are multiple choice.

3. A thumbprint is required, followed by a federal background check.

4. 10 day waiting period.

Is there room for improvement?

The DOJ does a pretty deep dive. I have been through numerous background checks, but all failed to find I had a bench warrant for a failure to appear in college.

 

[Kid_kong]

Here is my biggest problem with "Gun control" beyond the whole Constitution thingee. I have yet to hear anything that would really make a difference. I am not really opposed to many things that are typically brought up personally but the problem is this: Let's say we went ahead and did a wishlist of most non-insane liberals on gun control. It does nothing to stop gun violence. Then what? Do you think they will say "Well, shoot, that did not work. Let's try something that might actually work." or do you think they will say something along the lines of "OMG, think of the kids! We must have more gun control!!!" right up to the point where there is no longer a right to bear arms in this country. And guess what? It STILL would not do anything to stop the violence.

"What will we do if we try this and it doesn't work?" is not a good argument for not trying it. Especially if there are legit arguments that it may work.

If the argument is "we have to do something because of the violence" and that something does not do anything to stop the violence than eventually there is a point where 'gun control' means 'gun ban'. That is a very dark place to go in the US.

So elementary school kids getting violently shot to death and watching the kid next to them bleed out is not a dark place, but not being able to own a gun is. Got it. Just want to make sure I had your priorities straight.

A US that attempts to enact a gun ban will be a US that quickly devolves into revolt/civil war. That is a very dark place. I think there was a thread not too long ago asking if the US would be in another civil war. I don't see that happening at all short of an attempt by the Federal government to enact a gun ban and then, yes, absolutely- there would be some form of war. So, yes, you got that straight.

No there won't. Most people aren't going to think it's better to die than to give up their guns in some kind of buyback like Australia did. Oh sure the loons will go off but Joe Suburbia isn't risking his life and the life of his family to keep a handgun. Especially if no one else is going to have one.

The problem is logistical. There is no way to really do it or wnfoce it so it's a nonstarter.

I disagree. I think many people who are not "loons" would fear a Federal ban on guns to the point that they would fight. Certainly enough to cause a war. I think the amount of people who would be against that are numerous enough to never let it get to that point. I also think that the Federal government would have a hard time in getting enforcement of that as most of the military/law enforcement I know are extremely pro gun rights.

A society that gives up a little freedom for a little security will lose both and deserve neither.

 

[NCCommish]

I have military training. I have been under fire. I don't carry because those experiences tell me that in a public stress situation I have little to add. Your one day class makes you think differently apparently. I would say that class failed.

So i've only taken a one day class? Interesting. I guess it's groundhog day for real! Maybe I'll get to see Bill Murray!!!

The site you linked had no class longer than 2 days and it was only one of the classes they offer all others were one day. So just going by your link as that's all the info you gave.

BTW even SWAT guys will tell you their training can't be compared to military training its not even close.

 

[[icon]]

I have military training. I have been under fire. I don't carry because those experiences tell me that in a public stress situation I have little to add. Your one day class makes you think differently apparently. I would say that class failed.

So i've only taken a one day class? Interesting. I guess it's groundhog day for real! Maybe I'll get to see Bill Murray!!!

The site you linked had no class longer than 2 days and it was only one of the classes they offer all others were one day. So just going by your link as that's all the info you gave.

BTW even SWAT guys will tell you their training can't be compared to military training its not even close.

it was tongue in cheek, but there are many degrees of every class they offer. They are highly customized and the classes I take are generally with the same group of guys. We know some of the instructors and some of them know us, meaning they aren't scripted by the book stuff.

The classes are generally tailor-made to where we are and what we're hoping to achieve. Be it threat assessment, self defense from inside a car, self defense pistol in a home/hot-house environment, speed/accuracy drills, accuracy drills under stress, etc. Most everything I take is centered around real-world self-defense pistol scenarios. I have no need for battleground tactics... urban rifle battle tactics...etc.

I'm under zero delusions that the overall training approaches that of military. However military is trying to master a very broad set of skills. Our group largely goes with very targeted training for very specific situations. Again, I'm not pretending we are some special forces badasses, but given the choice of not carrying, or carrying with the degree of comfort I have with a pistol... I'll take the latter. If you don't feel that way, that's certainly your prerogative.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I have military training. I have been under fire. I don't carry because those experiences tell me that in a public stress situation I have little to add. Your one day class makes you think differently apparently. I would say that class failed.

So i've only taken a one day class? Interesting. I guess it's groundhog day for real! Maybe I'll get to see Bill Murray!!!

The site you linked had no class longer than 2 days and it was only one of the classes they offer all others were one day. So just going by your link as that's all the info you gave.

BTW even SWAT guys will tell you their training can't be compared to military training its not even close.

Unless you are talking about somebody with a Tier 1 unit (or who is on the service pistol team) handgun training isn't really much of an emphasis in the military.

 

[NCCommish]

I have military training. I have been under fire. I don't carry because those experiences tell me that in a public stress situation I have little to add. Your one day class makes you think differently apparently. I would say that class failed.

So i've only taken a one day class? Interesting. I guess it's groundhog day for real! Maybe I'll get to see Bill Murray!!!

The site you linked had no class longer than 2 days and it was only one of the classes they offer all others were one day. So just going by your link as that's all the info you gave.BTW even SWAT guys will tell you their training can't be compared to military training its not even close.

it was tongue in cheek, but there are many degrees of every class they offer. They are highly customized and the classes I take are generally with the same group of guys. We know some of the instructors and some of them know us, meaning they aren't scripted by the book stuff. The classes are generally tailor-made to where we are and what we're hoping to achieve. Be it threat assessment, self defense from inside a car, self defense pistol in a home/hot-house environment, speed/accuracy drills, accuracy drills under stress, etc. Most everything I take is centered around real-world self-defense pistol scenarios. I have no need for battleground tactics... urban rifle battle tactics...etc.

I'm under zero delusions that the overall training approaches that of military. However military is trying to master a very broad set of skills. Our group largely goes with very targeted training for very specific situations. Again, I'm not pretending we are some special forces badasses, but given the choice of not carrying, or carrying with the degree of comfort I have with a pistol... I'll take the latter. If you don't feel that way, that's certainly your prerogative.

Have you ever been trained under live fire? Have you ever been in a hostile environment under fire? If so how did you respond? I have seen highly trained guys, special ops types, freeze up or worse get trigger happy especially the first time. I don't think there is any way to really simulate that. That's what worries me about Joe Q Public going Wyatt Earp. You may have had great training, you think you are ready. You won't know until it happens and I hate to think of that being in a crowded mall or restaurant. Especially if I am there. You don't make me feel one bit safer in fact I feel more endangered. Sorry that's what my life experience leads me to.

 

[Chadstroma]

And just being military really doesn't automatically mean you are better with weapons than someone who is not military.

I haven't even fired a weapon in 10 years and I can tell you right now that I am better with weapons than a friend of mine who was Air Force for the last 15 years in a logistics position and I know she has not even seen a weapon since her basic training no has any interest in seeing one, let alone handle one.

 

[NCCommish]

And just being military really doesn't automatically mean you are better with weapons than someone who is not military.

I haven't even fired a weapon in 10 years and I can tell you right now that I am better with weapons than a friend of mine who was Air Force for the last 15 years in a logistics position and I know she has not even seen a weapon since her basic training no has any interest in seeing one, let alone handle one.

No doubt this is correct. Simply being in is not all that when it comes to weapon use or training. Qualifying doesn't take much and you only do it once in the AF as I recall. Lots of us weren't desk jockeys though. I spent a lot of time with the 1st Special Ops Wing. In a lot of places I can't pronounce or even talk much about. A little different than logistics.

 

[Chadstroma]

And just being military really doesn't automatically mean you are better with weapons than someone who is not military.

I haven't even fired a weapon in 10 years and I can tell you right now that I am better with weapons than a friend of mine who was Air Force for the last 15 years in a logistics position and I know she has not even seen a weapon since her basic training no has any interest in seeing one, let alone handle one.

No doubt this is correct. Simply being in is not all that when it comes to weapon use or training. Qualifying doesn't take much and you only do it once in the AF as I recall. Lots of us weren't desk jockeys though. I spent a lot of time with the 1st Special Ops Wing. In a lot of places I can't pronounce or even talk much about. A little different than logistics.

Sure.

Obviously, there is a lot of training in the military in regards to weapons. Some branches and some MOS more so than others. The point was not directed at you or anyone in particular. Just to point out that just being in the military does not make an individual better trained than a civilian. And you can be a civilian and get high level and quality training if so inclined.

 

[[icon]]

Have you ever been trained under live fire? Have you ever been in a hostile environment under fire? If so how did you respond? I have seen highly trained guys, special ops types, freeze up or worse get trigger happy especially the first time. I don't think there is any way to really simulate that. That's what worries me about Joe Q Public going Wyatt Earp. You may have had great training, you think you are ready. You won't know until it happens and I hate to think of that being in a crowded mall or restaurant. Especially if I am there. You don't make me feel one bit safer in fact I feel more endangered. Sorry that's what my life experience leads me to.

I hear ya... but the reality is that if you refuse to live anywhere but a place where live under fire training is the standard of being able to defend yourself a pistol, maybe moving is the right play? Don't know what to tell ya... but that's not a realistic standard.

I can tell you that I am far from a trigger happy individual who is looking for an excuse to pull out my pistol. If it comes out, it's a life or death situation.... and of course considering line of fire is something I'd keep in mind in that scenario.

EDIT: Regardless... I will add that I think the current testing for CCW is pretty insufficient in TN. The standards for the written and range tests are woefully inadequate. There is definitely room for improvement. I just am not willing to go as far as NCC in limiting what citizens are qualified to be able to protect themselves.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Here is my biggest problem with "Gun control" beyond the whole Constitution thingee. I have yet to hear anything that would really make a difference. I am not really opposed to many things that are typically brought up personally but the problem is this: Let's say we went ahead and did a wishlist of most non-insane liberals on gun control. It does nothing to stop gun violence. Then what? Do you think they will say "Well, shoot, that did not work. Let's try something that might actually work." or do you think they will say something along the lines of "OMG, think of the kids! We must have more gun control!!!" right up to the point where there is no longer a right to bear arms in this country. And guess what? It STILL would not do anything to stop the violence.

"What will we do if we try this and it doesn't work?" is not a good argument for not trying it. Especially if there are legit arguments that it may work.

If the argument is "we have to do something because of the violence" and that something does not do anything to stop the violence than eventually there is a point where 'gun control' means 'gun ban'. That is a very dark place to go in the US.

So elementary school kids getting violently shot to death and watching the kid next to them bleed out is not a dark place, but not being able to own a gun is. Got it. Just want to make sure I had your priorities straight.

A US that attempts to enact a gun ban will be a US that quickly devolves into revolt/civil war. That is a very dark place. I think there was a thread not too long ago asking if the US would be in another civil war. I don't see that happening at all short of an attempt by the Federal government to enact a gun ban and then, yes, absolutely- there would be some form of war. So, yes, you got that straight.

Oof.

 

[larch]

Good for you on buying a handgun.