DansDeals.com Forums

DansDeals Forum => Just Shmooze => Topic started by: churnbabychurn on December 16, 2012, 04:08:56 PM

Title: Guns Master Thread
Post by: churnbabychurn on December 16, 2012, 04:08:56 PM
Starting to seriously believe that we would all be safer if guns would be nearly non existent-like in the UK- if a guy losses his marbles all he has is a cricket bat and a steak knife.
I know that its part of the US culture and constitution but seriously, things have changed since then- I would like to declare a war on guns. Whose on board?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Side incomer on December 16, 2012, 04:10:32 PM
I would like to declare a war on guns.

Good luck
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Dan on December 16, 2012, 04:14:15 PM
Yup, because if you ban them then every criminal will just hand them in and will never be able to obtain another one on the black market.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 16, 2012, 04:19:57 PM
Yup, because if you ban them then every criminal will just hand them in and will never be able to obtain another one on the black market.

+1
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: sky121 on December 16, 2012, 04:22:05 PM
I have my pros and cons with each side but I feel at this point we'd be better off having more of the "good guys" carry guns so they could take care of situations quicker if/when necessary, like in Israel for example.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 16, 2012, 04:40:27 PM
You would need to change the Constitution in order to ban guns.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 16, 2012, 04:43:08 PM
You would need to change the Constitution in order to ban guns.

I know, slight problem there... the d*** constitution keeps on getting in the way.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChAiM'l on December 16, 2012, 05:02:54 PM
Yup, because if you ban them then every criminal will just hand them in and will never be able to obtain another one on the black market.

I personally don't think that that guns should be banned, and people should be allowed to own guns to protect themselves and their families.

That being said, your point about criminals not handing in guns, and criminal access to guns on the black market, is not entirely relevant. Here in the UK, any criminal/gangster that wants to obtain a firearm, could do so if they wanted it bad enough. I, on the other hand wouldn't have a clue as to where to start looking for one. In the US, I would Google the closest gun shop, walk in with my drivers licence (in applicable states) and walk out 5 minutes later with whatever gun I fancied.

From my understanding, most of the major massacres that took place in recent history (Columbine, Virginia Tech etc.) were perpetrated by individuals with no criminal links/history. My guess is, that in a place like the UK, these individuals would not have been able to gain access to these weapons, thus preventing them from carrying out these atrocities.

My point is that, yes, criminals would still have access to guns, but we should be more afraid of your "average Joe" that goes crazy and takes an AK-47 to a building full of children.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: AJK on December 16, 2012, 05:05:39 PM
Starting to seriously believe that we would all be safer if guns would be nearly non existent-like in the UK- if a guy losses his marbles all he has is a cricket bat and a steak knife.
I know that its part of the US culture and constitution but seriously, things have changed since then- I would like to declare a war on guns. Whose on board?

Yes, ban guns ::)

Just look how effective our ban on drugs has been.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 16, 2012, 05:09:04 PM
Just look how effective our ban on drugs has been.
Did you think legalizing drugs will make the situation better?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Bp on December 16, 2012, 05:18:34 PM
I think they should just ban automatic and semi automatic guns, let the gun nuts have hand guns,
these massacres are done and can only be done with automatic guns.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChAiM'l on December 16, 2012, 05:19:01 PM
these massacres are done and can only be done with automatic guns.

-1
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: churnbabychurn on December 16, 2012, 05:21:23 PM
I personally don't think that that guns should be banned, and people should be allowed to own guns to protect themselves and their families.

That being said, your point about criminals not handing in guns, and criminal access to guns on the black market, is not entirely relevant. Here in the UK, any criminal/gangster that wants to obtain a firearm, could do so if they wanted it bad enough. I, on the other hand wouldn't have a clue as to where to start looking for one. In the US, I would Google the closest gun shop, walk in with my drivers licence (in applicable states) and walk out 5 minutes later with whatever gun I fancied.

From my understanding, most of the major massacres that took place in recent history (Columbine, Virginia Tech etc.) were perpetrated by individuals with no criminal links/history. My guess is, that in a place like the UK, these individuals would not have been able to gain access to these weapons, thus preventing them from carrying out these atrocities.

My point is that, yes, criminals would still have access to guns, but we should be more afraid of your "average Joe" that goes crazy and takes an AK-47 to a building full of children.
+100
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 16, 2012, 05:24:15 PM
I think they should just ban automatic and semi automatic guns, let the gun nuts have hand guns,
these massacres are done and can only be done with automatic guns.
AFAIK all these massacres where done with semi-auto weapons.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: churnbabychurn on December 16, 2012, 05:32:45 PM
These masacres are done by middle class white kids who know nothing about obtaining illegal weapons. The only viable way to prevent further massacres is to eliminate the millions of legal guns from the homes and hands of these kids. You have a better solution?
The fact that in urban areas they are shooting at each other with illegal weapons is irrelevant. We need to stop the mass slaughters.,
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Bp on December 16, 2012, 05:39:25 PM
AFAIK all these massacres where done with semi-auto weapons.
+1
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: AJK on December 16, 2012, 05:46:39 PM
Did you think legalizing drugs will make the situation better?

That's irrelevant to the discussion.

What is relevant is that outlawing guns would not make an iota of difference when it comes to these issues. 

OP's Utopian belief that it will is sheer refusal to face the facts. 
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Moishebatchy on December 16, 2012, 05:49:53 PM
That's irrelevant to the discussion.

What is relevant is that outlawing guns would not make an iota of difference when it comes to these issues. 

OP's Utopian belief that it will is sheer refusal to face the facts.

+1,000
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 16, 2012, 05:51:08 PM
That's irrelevant to the discussion.

What is relevant is that outlawing guns would not make an iota of difference when it comes to these issues.
Of course it is relevant. Anytime you make something harder to get the less of that item will be available.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: AJK on December 16, 2012, 06:01:24 PM
Of course it is relevant. Anytime you make something harder to get the less of that item will be available.

Even assuming you're right, so what?

I guess you must also agree that the war on/ban on drugs has been a wholesale success, eh?

I must be completely uninformed about the degree to which coke and meth are readily available to those people sufficiently inquisitive.

With all due respect, what country do you live in?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: L'Chaim on December 16, 2012, 06:06:06 PM
I personally don't think that that guns should be banned, and people should be allowed to own guns to protect themselves and their families.

That being said, your point about criminals not handing in guns, and criminal access to guns on the black market, is not entirely relevant. Here in the UK, any criminal/gangster that wants to obtain a firearm, could do so if they wanted it bad enough. I, on the other hand wouldn't have a clue as to where to start looking for one. In the US, I would Google the closest gun shop, walk in with my drivers licence (in applicable states) and walk out 5 minutes later with whatever gun I fancied.

From my understanding, most of the major massacres that took place in recent history (Columbine, Virginia Tech etc.) were perpetrated by individuals with no criminal links/history. My guess is, that in a place like the UK, these individuals would not have been able to gain access to these weapons, thus preventing them from carrying out these atrocities.

My point is that, yes, criminals would still have access to guns, but we should be more afraid of your "average Joe" that goes crazy and takes an AK-47 to a building full of children.
And like you said that if it wouldn't be so easy to obtain any firearm then your average Joe - not the criminal in the black market - wouldn't have access to it. (the criminals in general don't do these kind of shooting, they have better things to occupy themselves with)
That's irrelevant to the discussion.

What is relevant is that outlawing guns would not make an iota of difference when it comes to these issues. 

OP's Utopian belief that it will is sheer refusal to face the facts. 
Facts are that in most countries that have a ban on guns, you don't hear stories of youngsters with no criminal record whatsoever that goes nuts and starts shooting at kids/crowds with a gun that he got in some stupid way. I'm not saying that people don't go crazy in other places, what I am saying is that it usually had a different outcome.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChAiM'l on December 16, 2012, 06:08:54 PM
And like you said that if it wouldn't be so easy to obtain any firearm then your average Joe - not the criminal in the black market - wouldn't have access to it. (the criminals in general don't do these kind of shooting, they have better things to occupy themselves with)

So you agree or disagree with me?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 16, 2012, 07:02:49 PM
Even assuming you're right, so what?
Assuming I am correct then next logical progression would be that fewer crimes would be committed with guns since less of them are available.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: AJK on December 16, 2012, 07:06:00 PM
Assuming I am correct then next logical progression would be that fewer crimes would be committed with guns since less of them are available.

You seem to have developed a penchant for only quoting a portion of my posts.

For your reference:

I guess you must also agree that the war on/ban on drugs has been a wholesale success, eh?

I must be completely uninformed about the degree to which coke and meth are readily available to those people sufficiently inquisitive.

With all due respect, what country do you live in?


Use the above and answer your own post.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 16, 2012, 07:07:49 PM
You seem to have developed a penchant for only quoting a portion of my posts.


+100
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 16, 2012, 07:12:00 PM
You seem to have developed a penchant for only quoting a portion of my posts.
Let me answer your other two questions then.

The war drugs have made fewer drugs available to use.

I live in the US.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 16, 2012, 07:17:21 PM

The war drugs have made fewer drugs available to use.


Is that a fact?
I actually beleive it's similar to the  prohibition era where the rate went up.
And the war on drugs has handed over hundreds of millions of dollars to drug cartels and terroists like hezbollah
and Has filled our prisons which has ruined millions of families and is costing the taxpayers millions of dollars.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: AJK on December 16, 2012, 07:19:38 PM
Let me answer your other two questions then.

The war drugs have made fewer drugs available to use.

I live in the US.

OK so let me get this straight.

The ban on drugs has made fewer drugs available to use, but in no meaningful way prevents people seeking out those drugs from obtaining them.

And a ban on guns will make fewer guns available to use, but unlike the ban on drugs, the gov't will somehow implement a plan whereby the people seeking out those guns will be prevented from obtaining them.

La la land.
Title: Re: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChAiM'l on December 16, 2012, 07:22:38 PM
OK so let me get this straight.

The ban on drugs has made fewer drugs available to use, but in no meaningful way prevents people seeking out those drugs from obtaining them.

And a ban on guns will make fewer guns available to use, but unlike the ban on drugs, the gov't will somehow implement a plan whereby the people seeking out those guns will be prevented from obtaining them.

La la land.

Did you miss my post?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 16, 2012, 07:27:50 PM
The ban on drugs has made fewer drugs available to use, but in no meaningful way prevents people seeking out those drugs from obtaining them.
Let’s look at teenagers. Do more use alcohol or drugs? Which one is easier to get?
Title: Re: Re: Ban guns
Post by: AJK on December 16, 2012, 07:29:17 PM
Did you miss my post?

I guess?  ???

Let’s look at teenagers. Do more use alcohol or drugs? Which one is easier to get?

No idea. You tell me.
Title: Re: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 16, 2012, 07:31:38 PM
No idea. You tell me.
From what I see it is alcohol that is the major problem.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 16, 2012, 07:31:44 PM
Let’s look at teenagers. Do more use alcohol or drugs? Which one is easier to get?

Alcohol.
So what's your point?
Title: Re: Re: Ban guns
Post by: AJK on December 16, 2012, 07:44:25 PM
From what I see it is alcohol that is the major problem.

You keep on making me guess your point.

So here goes:

Assuming you're correct, and alcohol is a bigger problem than drugs, therefore:

Because alcohol is a bigger problem than drugs and is legal*, therefore, if we--like drugs--ban alcohol, it will become a smaller issue.

* Except it isn't legal for <21 year olds to drink...

Am I getting that, right?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 16, 2012, 07:55:03 PM
Short answer, yes.

My point has been the same. When you make something harder to get it will not be used as much. If you ban guns then they will be harder to obtain and use. The problem is banning guns I believe is against the Constitution. How much of our 2nd amendment rights are we willing to give up?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: AJK on December 16, 2012, 07:59:10 PM
Short answer, yes.

My point has been the same. When you make something harder to get it will not be used as much. If you ban guns then they will be harder to obtain and use. The problem is banning guns I believe is against the Constitution. How much of our 2nd amendment rights are we willing to give up?

I'm not sure I agree. I don't believe a material part of the population would begin snorting cocaine in the back bathroom of a diner simply because it's now legal. I'd venture to say that overwhelming majority of people don't do drugs because it's harmful, not because it's against the law.

However, even if drugs are used less because they're "harder to get" because they're illegal, my point is the a ban on guns won't accomplish what it sets out to, namely, stop school shootings. If people want to get a gun, they'll get a gun, just like a druggie who wants a fix will find a fix.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 16, 2012, 08:02:07 PM
Short answer, yes.

My point has been the same. When you make something harder to get it will not be used as much. If you ban guns then they will be harder to obtain and use. The problem is banning guns I believe is against the Constitution. How much of our 2nd amendment rights are we willing to give up?

The prohibition era disproves that point.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 16, 2012, 08:10:59 PM
The prohibition era disproves that point.
Not the first two years and data points are hard to pin down from this era.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Dan on December 16, 2012, 08:27:06 PM
I think they should just ban automatic and semi automatic guns, let the gun nuts have hand guns,
these massacres are done and can only be done with automatic guns.
I agree that there's no reason not to ban semi-automatic weapons.
But there have been killings without them and to think that we'll be safe from these incidents in the future without them is foolish.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: churnbabychurn on December 16, 2012, 08:35:09 PM
I agree that there's no reason not to ban semi-automatic weapons.
But there have been killings without them and to think that we'll be safe from these incidents in the future without them is foolish.
Unless we are considering airport type of security, for every shopping mall and school (Israel?), the only viable solution seems to be less guns period.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Bp on December 16, 2012, 08:43:19 PM
But there have been killings without them and to think that we'll be safe from these incidents in the future without them is foolish.
agreed, but with the constitution and NRA and gun loving people its impossible to ban guns in this country,  lets at least ban automatic weapons,
the problem with this country there is no middle ground.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Dan on December 16, 2012, 08:45:36 PM
agreed, but with the constitution and NRA and gun loving people its impossible to ban guns in this country,  lets at least ban automatic weapons,
the problem with this country there is no middle ground.
Fair enough, but I just don't see a right answer to this problem.  I don't think any regulation will solve the problem away, though seemingly banning semi-automatic would be a decent compromise.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: meshugener on December 16, 2012, 08:51:17 PM
I personally don't think that that guns should be banned, and people should be allowed to own guns to protect themselves and their families.

That being said, your point about criminals not handing in guns, and criminal access to guns on the black market, is not entirely relevant. Here in the UK, any criminal/gangster that wants to obtain a firearm, could do so if they wanted it bad enough. I, on the other hand wouldn't have a clue as to where to start looking for one. In the US, I would Google the closest gun shop, walk in with my drivers licence (in applicable states) and walk out 5 minutes later with whatever gun I fancied.

From my understanding, most of the major massacres that took place in recent history (Columbine, Virginia Tech etc.) were perpetrated by individuals with no criminal links/history. My guess is, that in a place like the UK, these individuals would not have been able to gain access to these weapons, thus preventing them from carrying out these atrocities.

My point is that, yes, criminals would still have access to guns, but we should be more afraid of your "average Joe" that goes crazy and takes an AK-47 to a building full of children.
+1
A valid point, I must say.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Dan on December 16, 2012, 08:55:51 PM
A valid point, I must say.
-1.
Anyone with a few hundred bucks can and likely always will be able to get their hands on firearms if they really want to seek it out.

And most of these people steal the guns from non-official sources as it is, but even the ones that get through legal channels doesn't prove they wouldn't have been able to find an underground source as well.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 16, 2012, 09:03:20 PM
Fair enough, but I just don't see a right answer to this problem.  I don't think any regulation will solve the problem away, though seemingly banning semi-automatic would be a decent compromise.
It is not that simple. Would you rather get shot with a S&W 629 44 magnum revolver or a Ruger 22 semi-autmatic pistol?

I think we all agree something has to be done and we should start with are schools. We need highly trained plain clothes individuals at every school. These could be teachers if they so desire.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Dan on December 16, 2012, 09:15:30 PM
It is not that simple. Would you rather get shot with a S&W 629 44 magnum revolver or a Ruger 22 semi-autmatic pistol?
Neither :P

I think we all agree something has to be done and we should start with are schools. We need highly trained plain clothes individuals at every school. These could be teachers if they so desire.
True.  But then people here start whining what if the teacher goes nuts...

But my favorite was when people went nuts that we were arming pilots. :D
Irony is just lost on some folks.
Title: Re: Re: Ban guns
Post by: smurf on December 16, 2012, 09:23:10 PM
Neither :P
True.  But then people here start whining what if the teacher goes nuts...

But my favorite was when people went nuts that we were arming pilots. :D
Irony is just lost on some folks.
True, but teachers looking to get armed will have to undergo extensive background checks and they can also be continually screened to make sure they are not going off the handle. Making them a much more controlled risk ,rather than to leave the school vulnerable to outsider lunatics
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 16, 2012, 09:23:39 PM
But my favorite was when people went nuts that we were arming pilots. :D
It is bad enough they are flying the plane drunk. Now you want to give them a gun also?  :)
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: MarkS on December 16, 2012, 10:51:54 PM
Seen on Google+
In the last few days, gun enthusiasts have pointed out and asked "If gun control works, what happened in China?".
Well, they survived.
(http://i46.tinypic.com/r8w5k9.jpg)
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: churnbabychurn on December 16, 2012, 11:49:00 PM
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/16/article-2249185-168BE173000005DC-875_634x408.jpg
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 17, 2012, 01:57:35 AM
Not the first two years and data points are hard to pin down from this era.

So in other words,  the Prohibition era disproves your theory but....
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 17, 2012, 02:05:40 AM
For some reason no one is talking about this, but guns also save many lives every year. This fact should clearly be in the debate.
Some Statistics:

http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?action=post;quote=363196;topic=23146.0 (http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?action=post;quote=363196;topic=23146.0)

http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?action=post;quote=363201;topic=23146.0 (http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?action=post;quote=363201;topic=23146.0)
Title: Re: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChAiM'l on December 17, 2012, 03:54:02 AM
For some reason no one is talking about this, but guns also save many lives every year. This fact should clearly be in the debate.
Some Statistics:

http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?action=post;quote=363196;topic=23146.0 (http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?action=post;quote=363196;topic=23146.0)

http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?action=post;quote=363201;topic=23146.0 (http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?action=post;quote=363201;topic=23146.0)


True, but they wouldn't have needed to defend themselves, had the perps not had guns.
Title: Re: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 17, 2012, 06:24:41 AM

True, but they wouldn't have needed to defend themselves, had the perps not had guns.

http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=23146.msg363196#msg363196 (http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=23146.msg363196#msg363196)

"Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban(1982), the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.

In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns"

These were illegal handguns, The perps would of had them either way.

And then there are also many crimes which are commited without guns.

"Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms"
and how about the other 33% that were commited without guns.

"Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun"

Banning guns is not the solution. I believe de-regulation is.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 17, 2012, 07:00:49 AM
So in other words,  the Prohibition era disproves your theory but....
::) ::) ::) Consumption went down the first two years.
Title: Re: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 17, 2012, 07:17:06 AM
"Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban(1982), the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.

In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns"

You love to use stats but refuse to answer questions about them. So I will try again.

Do you have any idea what is going on in Chicago? Where are the guns that are used in these crimes coming from?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 17, 2012, 08:03:47 AM
::) ::) ::) Consumption went down the first two years.

 ::)
Title: Re: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 17, 2012, 08:05:56 AM
You love to use stats but refuse to answer questions about them. So I will try again.

What are you trying to imply? that the criminals got them elsewhere? And what makes you beleive that?

Either way, you missed the point. which is that after the handgun ban  "the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect" Who cares where they illegally aquired their handguns?! Don't you think that the reason murders were higher had something to do with the lack of legal handguns by good citizens and that the criminals had less to fear?!
Title: Re: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 17, 2012, 08:13:06 AM
What are you trying to imply? that the criminals got them elsewhere? And what makes you beleive that?
I asked two simple questions about something you posted. If you can't answer them then stop posting stats that you know nothing about.
Title: Re: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 17, 2012, 08:28:37 AM
I asked two simple questions about something you posted. If you can't answer them then stop posting stats that you know nothing about.

You are trying to imply something with your questions which I can't exactly figure out what it is.
And your right, I should stop posting factual statistics in order for people to see the facts for themselve, because it dosen't fit into your agenda (like a typical democrat)  ::)
If you have statistics to contrary POST THEM. Don't try to unfairly imply otherwise by questioning without any proof.

Let the facts and statistics speak for themselves!!
Title: Re: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 17, 2012, 09:28:26 AM
You are trying to imply something with your questions which I can't exactly figure out what it is.
I am not implying anything. I asked two simple questions.  Any five year old can use Google and post stats. Try thinking for yourself. Now can you answer the two simple questions or not?
Title: Re: Re: Ban guns
Post by: YankyDoodle on December 17, 2012, 12:55:19 PM
You are trying to imply something with your questions which I can't exactly figure out what it is.
And your right, I should stop posting factual statistics in order for people to see the facts for themselve, because it dosen't fit into your agenda (like a typical democrat)  ::)
If you have statistics to contrary POST THEM. Don't try to unfairly imply otherwise by questioning without any proof.

Let the facts and statistics speak for themselves!!

Just wanted to point out that facts and statistics are two vastly different things...

For example;
More statistics:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

It is unfair to compare Chicago to the US generally. one can make statistical comparisons only within the sampled population... In other words you did not take any other factors into account, such as gang potential, unemployment, and other pertinent data points.

For a better understanding read Freakonomics... In fact I believe there is a movie now as well.
Title: Re: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 17, 2012, 01:23:20 PM
For a better understanding read Freakonomics... In fact I believe there is a movie now as well.
Another good read is:
Proofiness: The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: churnbabychurn on December 17, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Good idea for a thread- gr8 books. I like "Traffic"
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Dan on December 19, 2012, 05:03:00 PM
It seems that the assault style weapons are likely to be banned sometime in 2013.

My question is will this actually change anything?  Would Sandy Hook or Aurora have been less deadly if the nut-jobs only had a shotgun? Or is this just a feel-good change?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 19, 2012, 05:10:30 PM
It seems that the assault style weapons are likely to be banned sometime in 2013.

My question is will this actually change anything?  Would Sandy Hook or Aurora have been less deadly if the nut-jobs only had a shotgun? Or is this just a feel-good change?

Well, Aurora definitley would have been different. But overall this is a feel good change, the bigger picture needs to include more access to mental health, a Serious debate of the violence on TV and in Games and a discussion on making guns more accessible in schools etc;
The percentage of these automatic weapons used in crimes is very very very slim.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 19, 2012, 05:13:24 PM
The percentage of these automatic weapons used in crimes is very very very slim.
What crimes have an automatic weapon been used in?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 19, 2012, 05:15:46 PM
My question is will this actually change anything?  Would Sandy Hook or Aurora have been less deadly if the nut-jobs only had a shotgun? Or is this just a feel-good change?
1 - In the short run no but long term it will.
2 - Most likely.
3 - At first it will be.

Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: AJK on December 19, 2012, 05:17:46 PM
1. No. (a crazed maniac with 6 loaded shotguns and endless ammo for his Sig Sauer isn't meaningfully different than a dude with an assault rifle in terms of the amount dead.)
2. No, not really. (a crazed maniac with 6 loaded shotguns and endless ammo for his Sig Sauer could kill just as many people as were killed).
3. Absolutely.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Dan on December 19, 2012, 05:18:14 PM
1 - In the short run no but long term it will.
2 - Most likely.
3 - At first it will be.
How would Sandy Hook have played out if he only had a shotgun?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 19, 2012, 05:46:57 PM
How would Sandy Hook have played out if he only had a shotgun?
It is hard to say. Shotguns hold a lot less and take more time to reload. Would this have given someone the opportunity to subdue him? We also need to remember with such young children involved almost any gunshot wound can be fatal.

I guess the way I look at it is what we have been doing is not working. We just can’t keep going down this road. I am willing to give up some of my guns rights to give it a try. The problem is many believe the end game is a total ban on all guns. That is something I could never support.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 19, 2012, 05:51:40 PM
It seems that the assault style weapons are likely to be banned sometime in 2013.


When you write "Assault style" does that include semi-automatic?
Because in Aurora he used a semi-auto AR15 and if that had been banned obviously the outcome would have been different.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 19, 2012, 05:55:52 PM
When you write "Assault style" does that include semi-automatic?
Do you know of any "assault style" rifle that is not semi-auto? It seems there is a misunderstanding between semi-auto and auto.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Dan on December 19, 2012, 05:59:17 PM
The problem is many believe the end game is a total ban on all guns. That is something I could never support.
I do think that is the eventual goal.  If the Ds still had a supermajority they might have even tried to pull that off now while the iron is hot...
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 19, 2012, 06:05:24 PM
I do think that is the eventual goal.  If the Ds still had a supermajority they might have even tried to pull that off now while the iron is hot...
I don't believe it is the end game either but many do. No matter what the Dems want we have a thing called the Constitution. I don't think even the liberals on the court would uphold a total gun ban law.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 19, 2012, 06:05:24 PM
I do think that is the eventual goal.  If the Ds still had a supermajority they might have even tried to pull that off now while the iron is hot...

It would never pass, serious constitutional issues.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Dan on December 19, 2012, 06:07:13 PM
I don't believe it is the end game either but many do. No matter what the Dems want we have a thing called the Constitution. I don't think even the liberals on the court would uphold a total gun ban law.
Little things like that  ( ;) ) can be changed with a supermajority.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 19, 2012, 06:07:53 PM
Little things like that  ( ;) ) can be changed with a supermajority.

Not a costitutional ammendment.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 19, 2012, 06:42:34 PM
Once were on the topic of Aurora, here are some pics I took of the scene.

(http://i1341.photobucket.com/albums/o750/u-no-me/th_IMG_1316_zps8684b388.jpg) (http://s1341.beta.photobucket.com/user/u-no-me/media/IMG_1316_zps8684b388.jpg.html)


(http://i1341.photobucket.com/albums/o750/u-no-me/th_IMG_1319_zps2961ee4f.jpg) (http://s1341.beta.photobucket.com/user/u-no-me/media/IMG_1319_zps2961ee4f.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: mclovin on December 19, 2012, 07:22:53 PM
There seems to be a lack of clarity about semi auto guns. All (vast majority) pistols are semi auto. Many revolvers are semi auto. Some shotguns are also but most aren't. But if you are using buckshot in a crowded room it doesn't make much of a difference bec it really doesn't take long to pump a shotgun. Rifles are bolt action (takes some time between shots) or the so called assault style rifle. That just means u don't have to do anything between shots. It still only shoots one bullet at a time. It is basically a pistol with better accuracy. But again you don't really need that if you are shooting in a crowded room.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 19, 2012, 07:25:35 PM
"Mass shootings are not unique to America. But for civilian massacres outside of wartime, we have more than all other nations combined. Of the 25 worst mass shootings of the past 50 years listed in Time this past July, months before Sandy Hook, 15 occurred in the U.S. Of the other nations, only Finland, with two entries, had more than one shooting ranked."
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Dan on December 19, 2012, 07:27:59 PM
15 occurred in the U.S.
How many of those people belonged in a mental asylum?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 19, 2012, 07:30:10 PM
Many revolvers are semi auto.
Not correct. A semi-auto revolver is extremely rare. Revolvers are single or double action.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 19, 2012, 07:31:31 PM
How many of those people belonged in a mental asylum?
I would say most if not all of them.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Dan on December 19, 2012, 07:36:16 PM
I would say most if not all of them.
Well then that's the real question, how can we improve there and what are other countries doing better in that regard?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: AJK on December 19, 2012, 07:37:10 PM
Who says they're doing anything better?

Perhaps we're just crazier? :P
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 19, 2012, 07:39:09 PM
Who says they're doing anything better?

Perhaps we're just crazier? :P
You might be right but it is part of the big picture.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: AJK on December 19, 2012, 07:42:54 PM
You might be right but it is part of the big picture.

Of course it is, I'm just not sure what we can do if Americans are naturally crazier for reasons that cannot be helped...
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: mclovin on December 19, 2012, 08:18:33 PM
Not correct. A semi-auto revolver is extremely rare. Revolvers are single or double action.
isn't a double action essentially semi auto
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 20, 2012, 12:28:46 AM
isn't a double action essentially semi auto
No, there are semi-auto revolvers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_revolver
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: mclovin on December 20, 2012, 01:09:16 AM
No, there are semi-auto revolvers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_revolver
I know. I mean in the sense that to fire another bullet you just have to pull the trigger ([almost] just like a pistol)
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 20, 2012, 01:25:33 AM
I know. I mean in the sense that to fire another bullet you just have to pull the trigger ([almost] just like a pistol)
yes
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: churnbabychurn on December 20, 2012, 04:52:55 PM
I recently checked out some video games- they are really really violent. I thought Pack Man was kinda vicious growing up.... Definitely something to look into. Kids need not be exposed to such mayhem-it cant have any positive affects.   
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 20, 2012, 06:16:53 PM
I recently checked out some video games- they are really really violent. I thought Pack Man was kinda vicious growing up.... Definitely something to look into. Kids need not be exposed to such mayhem-it cant have any positive affects.   

+1

Definitely more of an imporatnt first step than banning  assault weapons IMO. Outlawing the guns is equivilant of looking for the bomb and not the suicide bomber. If you only look for the bomb the "bomber" will constantly find some other way to inflict carnage.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: mclovin on December 20, 2012, 06:18:00 PM
+1

Definitely more imporatnt than banning semi automatic weapons IMO.
ftfy
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: U-no-me! on December 20, 2012, 06:20:58 PM
ftfy

Thanks. I meant to write assault weapons.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 20, 2012, 06:30:04 PM
I recently checked out some video games- they are really really violent. I thought Pack Man was kinda vicious growing up.... Definitely something to look into. Kids need not be exposed to such mayhem-it cant have any positive affects.   
Don’t these video games exist in other countries? Why are almost all the mass massacres committed in the US?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: churnbabychurn on December 20, 2012, 06:49:02 PM
Don’t these video games exist in other courtiers? Why are almost all the mass massacres committed in the US?
It's all pointing towards a lethal combo: mentally ill individual's who's major source of entertainment is creating virtual mayhem plus millions of real guns. We gotta eliminate some of these things.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 20, 2012, 06:50:31 PM
It's all pointing towards a lethal combo: mentally ill individual's who's major source of entertainment is creating virtual mayhem plus millions of real guns. We gotta eliminate some of these things.
Maybe try and curb all three?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Moishebatchy on December 20, 2012, 07:02:22 PM
It's all pointing towards a lethal combo: mentally ill individual's who's major source of entertainment is creating virtual mayhem plus millions of real guns. We gotta eliminate some of these things.
Maybe try and curb all three?

I love when people try and play G-d...
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 20, 2012, 07:04:31 PM
I love when people try and play G-d...
Ok, I give. What am I missing?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Moishebatchy on December 20, 2012, 07:05:59 PM
Ok, I give. What am I missing?

Nothing, nothing. Carry on...
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 20, 2012, 07:12:13 PM
It has to start somewhere.
http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=842aeb0c-62d8-47f4-954c-e9d0a44478de
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 20, 2012, 07:23:26 PM
Will it make a difference?
http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=c55d74ec-76ca-400d-a336-d6dddd9619e2
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Moishebatchy on December 20, 2012, 07:32:55 PM
Will it make a difference?

Doubtful.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Lamdan on December 20, 2012, 11:09:52 PM
I believe that as hard as a pill it is to swallow, the reality is that there's nothing we can realistically do to stop these mass murders, and we're gonna have to live with it, just as we have to live with hurricanes and tsunamis. There are evil/crazy people out there.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Dan on December 20, 2012, 11:33:16 PM
I believe that as hard as a pill it is to swallow, the reality is that there's nothing we can realistically do to stop these mass murders, and we're gonna have to live with it, just as we have to live with hurricanes and tsunamis. There are evil/crazy people out there.
There has to be a better way to lock the real crazies up.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: churnbabychurn on December 20, 2012, 11:52:22 PM
Maybe try and curb all three?
+1
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Lamdan on December 21, 2012, 12:31:44 AM
There has to be a better way to lock the real crazies up.
What grounds would there be to lock up - for example - Levi Aron, before his horrific act?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 21, 2012, 06:02:30 AM
I believe that as hard as a pill it is to swallow, the reality is that there's nothing we can realistically do to stop these mass murders, and we're gonna have to live with it, just as we have to live with hurricanes and tsunamis. There are evil/crazy people out there.
There are many things that have been done over the years to save untold amount of lives from hurricanes and tsunamis. The same can and must be done about these mass massacres!!!
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Moishebatchy on December 21, 2012, 06:45:26 AM
There are many things that have been done over the years to save untold amount of lives from hurricanes and tsunamis. The same can and must be done about these mass massacres!!!

-1

Man has free will, nature does not. Nature can be predicted, and thus prepared for; man can make unpredictable decisions.

Let's say you ban guns... what's gonna happen when some idiot goes nuts with a buzz saw in a McDonalds? You're gonna ban that, too? What if someone drives an SUV onto a sidewalk crowded with children, G-d forbid? Will you then ban vehicles? How about using fertilizer and fuel to make a homemade bomb? The list goes on and on...

People can get very creative and very crazy. To compare a murderer to a storm is ludicrous. You can predict what a storm will do, and guard against it. But unless your want to live in a police state where owning so much as a hammer will require a license, you can't predict what a person can do if he flies off the handle, and thus can't defend yourself from a madman as easily as you can from a storm.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 21, 2012, 09:40:57 AM
-1
Do not take every example as a 1 to 1 correlation. It seems you are just accepting the current situation as the status quo. I guess I am just naďve to believe changes can be made to help the current situation.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Lamdan on December 22, 2012, 11:40:55 PM
Do not take every example as a 1 to 1 correlation. It seems you are just accepting the current situation as the status quo. I guess I am just naďve to believe changes can be made to help the current situation.
If there is no solution, then accepting the status quo is wise.
If there would be no guns in this world, and you G-D forbid wanted to kill 20 children, you could figure out a way to do it very easily. It's a scary world, for this problem I'm afraid all we can do is pray to The Protector.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: YankyDoodle on December 23, 2012, 08:26:17 AM
If there is no solution, then accepting the status quo is wise.
If there would be no guns in this world, and you G-D forbid wanted to kill 20 children, you could figure out a way to do it very easily. It's a scary world, for this problem I'm afraid all we can do is pray to The Protector.

Yes but Adam Lanza's goal wasn't necessarily to kill 20 children... It was more likely an attempt to act out and guns made it that much more accesible and devastating.
There are many things that have been done over the years to save untold amount of lives from hurricanes and tsunamis. The same can and must be done about these mass massacres!!!

+1 there must be some precautions that can be taken... Which of those will be successful, only time and effort will tell.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 23, 2012, 10:26:52 AM
Watching Meet the Press with Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. This guy is like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. He has lost touch with reality. Not sure if the first time in 30 years I will not be renewing my NRA membership.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: mclovin on December 23, 2012, 10:44:45 AM
Watching Meet the Press with Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. This guy is like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. He has lost touch with reality. Not sure if the first time in 30 years I will be renewing my NRA membership.
I think you mean not renewing
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 23, 2012, 10:49:40 AM
I think you mean not renewing
I think you are right!!
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: mclovin on December 23, 2012, 10:55:55 AM
I think you are right!!
so what do I win?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 23, 2012, 10:58:40 AM
so what do I win?
...a thank you?  :)
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: mclovin on December 23, 2012, 12:13:57 PM
...a thank you?  :)
can I get one of those NRA stickers they send every year
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 23, 2012, 01:17:25 PM
can I get one of those NRA stickers they send every year
Here you go.  :)
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?campaignid=bonusgiftwy&EK=Y3ARPPBD&pubID=148.30&hid=19889795

When I renew it is yours.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: mclovin on December 23, 2012, 01:20:12 PM
Here you go.  :)
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?campaignid=bonusgiftwy&EK=Y3ARPPBD&pubID=148.30&hid=19889795

When I renew it is yours.
ill take the rosewood handle knife. (my father didnt get any of these when he signed up >:()
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: HelpMe on December 26, 2012, 06:32:51 PM
http://news.msn.com/politics/dc-police-investigating-meet-the-press-incident
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Achas Veachas on January 02, 2013, 02:58:22 PM
http://boingboing.net/2013/01/02/tom-the-dancing-bug-the-nra-o.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: churnbabychurn on March 01, 2014, 07:57:20 PM
Ban knives!
 http://www.vosizneias.com/156823/2014/03/02/1927-china-28-killed-113-injured-in-train-station-terrorist-knife-attack/
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: henche on March 01, 2014, 08:08:19 PM
Ban knives!
 http://www.vosizneias.com/156823/2014/03/02/1927-china-28-killed-113-injured-in-train-station-terrorist-knife-attack/

That's scary. I think I'd rather the guns...
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: CountValentine on March 01, 2014, 08:11:19 PM
That's scary. I think I'd rather the guns...
Arm them with Uzi's and you would be talking about hundreds dead.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Ergel on March 01, 2014, 08:27:40 PM
Arm them with Uzi's and you would be talking about hundreds dead.
There you go again with your crazy common sense
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: CountValentine on March 01, 2014, 08:53:48 PM
There you go again with your crazy common sense
Sat night, Hawks playing outside and plenty of Corona. What would you expect?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: chevron on March 01, 2014, 10:56:56 PM
I real all 9 pages, what I did not see mentioned, maybe because I will assume its a frum convo.

You need to read on the constitutional convention on what the founding fathers intended, read the federalist and anti federalist papers.

Personal liberty, freedom of tyranny, to protect home and hearth. Its crazy that the heimishe world never gets this, after hitler and stalin you figure people would believe in the right to bear arms.

Self defense was the vital aspect in the foundation of the nation, whether from government intrusion or individuals.

We live in a society of law and order, actually the masses having been bought off by free stuff having given up their freedom.

Free food, free shelter, free health care, free phone.. wards of the state, watch what happens if food stams are stopped.. riots will abound.

The fact is, as horrific as mass murders are, they pale in comparison to the killings of the 20th century by organized leaders

From Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol pot, African genocide and so on..

Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: dovidb on March 05, 2014, 11:53:40 AM

(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/06/upe5u7yb.jpg)
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: sky121 on March 05, 2014, 11:56:02 AM
Not to make light of a serious issue but that's pretty funny.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Achas Veachas on March 05, 2014, 12:12:35 PM
Not to make light of a serious issue but that's pretty funny.
True dat
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Expert Flyer on March 05, 2014, 01:24:28 PM
Can we ban cars because some people engage in drunk driving?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: henche on March 05, 2014, 01:44:04 PM
Can we ban cars because some people engage in drunk driving?

Can we ban nuclear weapons because some people use them to blow up countries?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Achas Veachas on March 05, 2014, 01:45:31 PM
Can we ban nuclear weapons because some people use them to blow up countries?
As opposed to others who use them to threaten to blow up countries? :P
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Expert Flyer on March 05, 2014, 01:46:27 PM
Can we ban nuclear weapons because some people use them to blow up countries?

The argument is not the same. And yes, I will give this argument more credibility when all countries give up their nuclear weapons (not that I'd be in favor of it)

Nobody has a right to tell me how to defend myself
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: lfas25 on March 05, 2014, 02:35:59 PM
Can we ban nuclear weapons because some people use them to blow up countries?

Other people just threaten to blow them up and then back down  :o
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Myccrabbi on March 05, 2014, 03:26:32 PM
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/06/upe5u7yb.jpg)
hahahahaha, this made me ALOL real hard!
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Expert Flyer on March 05, 2014, 04:56:45 PM
And making good people defenseless won't make bad people harmless
Title: Gun Ownership
Post by: Yehuda25 on February 24, 2015, 05:17:40 PM
I haven't done it yet, but I plan on getting a license and gun. How may people here own guns?
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Achas Veachas on February 24, 2015, 05:23:00 PM
You can try looking in one of the 3 other threads on the topic and see...
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: ShlockDoc on February 24, 2015, 05:26:28 PM
You can try looking in one of the 3 other threads on the topic and see...

Looks like it's been a while since the topic has been raised and it is always a fun discussion... 

I own (and carry).
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Chapshnell on February 24, 2015, 05:48:47 PM
Location?
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Emkay on February 24, 2015, 06:12:51 PM
I haven't done it yet, but I plan on getting a license and gun. How may people here own guns?
I have 2 built in ones,  and they don't require bullets
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Yehuda25 on February 24, 2015, 07:05:03 PM
Looks like it's been a while since the topic has been raised and it is always a fun discussion... 

I own (and carry).
Lucky you, not NY I assume?
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: DMYD on February 24, 2015, 07:22:04 PM
Lucky you, not NY I assume?
Why not? I know enough people in Brooklyn that have, if you have a good reason to have one you can get a license.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Yehuda25 on February 24, 2015, 07:23:50 PM
Why not? I know enough people in Brooklyn that have, if you have a good reason to have one you can get a license.
And what constitutes a good reason?
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: DMYD on February 24, 2015, 07:24:57 PM
And what constitutes a good reason?
Own a jewelry store, or a check cashing place.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Yehuda25 on February 24, 2015, 07:26:04 PM
Own a jewelry store, or a check cashing place.
And for those of us that don't own those kind of stores?
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: DMYD on February 24, 2015, 07:27:10 PM
And for those of us that don't own those kind of stores?
Then you will have to stick with a pocket knife
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Achas Veachas on February 24, 2015, 07:27:36 PM
And for those of us that don't own those kind of stores?
Come on. Who doesn't own a jewelry store on the side...? :P
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Yehuda25 on February 24, 2015, 07:37:40 PM
Then you will have to stick with a pocket knife
Seriously, there is no other way?...
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: DMYD on February 24, 2015, 07:38:57 PM
Seriously, there is no other way?...
No idea I don't own one
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Toasted on February 24, 2015, 07:49:30 PM
Own a jewelry store, or a check cashing place.
Carry a quarter of a million of credit in each pocket.  :)
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Yehuda25 on February 24, 2015, 07:51:31 PM
Carry a quarter of a million of credit in each pocket.  :)
Lol, is there any point in even applying in NY without a valid reason?
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: solls108 on February 24, 2015, 07:55:21 PM
Following
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: jaywhy on February 24, 2015, 08:18:00 PM
Curious how long this thread will take to go OT.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: ShlockDoc on February 24, 2015, 09:15:09 PM
Carry a quarter of a million of credit in each pocket.  :)

Do VGCs count? 
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Freddie on February 24, 2015, 09:19:58 PM
I love this. Here we have people who figure out every "khap" in the book when it comes to airlines and credit card companies and they can't figure out how to deal with strict NY gun laws? Where there's a will, there's a way. Use your "gemara kop" the same way you figured out how to get 5 Sapphires in a year.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Aj3042 on February 24, 2015, 09:37:08 PM
Lol, is there any point in even applying in NY without a valid reason?
Depends on where. NYC has crazy liberal government and so gun control laws are extremely strict. You need to provide reasons etc. However leave the city and already in Rockland county it's a different world. NY  is a "may issue" state which means that the local gov has discretion with whether or not to give a license but usually they grant it to someone even "just for" home defense. Besides needing signatures from everyone living with you (don't lie on that if you know what's good for you) it's actually quite easy.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: JayR on February 24, 2015, 10:40:19 PM
I haven't done it yet, but I plan on getting a license and gun.
Why?

And what constitutes a good reason?
Your first answer should answer this.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Yehuda25 on February 24, 2015, 10:56:46 PM
Why?
Your first answer should answer this.
Yes I think its a good reason, However I don't know if its good enough for the government (I don't own a jewelry store/check cashing biz etc...)
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Yehuda25 on February 24, 2015, 10:57:35 PM
Depends on where. NYC has crazy liberal government and so gun control laws are extremely strict. You need to provide reasons etc. However leave the city and already in Rockland county it's a different world. NY  is a "may issue" state which means that the local gov has discretion with whether or not to give a license but usually they grant it to someone even "just for" home defense. Besides needing signatures from everyone living with you (don't lie on that if you know what's good for you) it's actually quite easy.
Signatures from everyone living with you?
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: noturbizniss on February 24, 2015, 11:45:51 PM
Is a hassle and expensive to get a license to own in NYC. The real challenge is a carry permit
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: noturbizniss on February 24, 2015, 11:46:49 PM
Following
This isn't like Facebook where you get notifications of every post after you comment. You can just click the notify me link on the top and you'll get email alerts to new posts.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Yehuda25 on February 24, 2015, 11:47:21 PM
Is a hassle and expensive to get a license to own in NYC. The real challenge is a carry permit
Right. I read that only current/former law enforcement can get. Is that true?
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on February 24, 2015, 11:48:40 PM
Survey should be how many.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: noturbizniss on February 24, 2015, 11:48:51 PM
Right. I read that only current/former law enforcement can get. Is that true?
Nope. As mentioned above valid reason can get. Jewelry store owner. High profile target like celebrity or big ceo might.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Yehuda25 on February 25, 2015, 12:12:20 AM
I love this. Here we have people who figure out every "khap" in the book when it comes to airlines and credit card companies and they can't figure out how to deal with strict NY gun laws? Where there's a will, there's a way. Use your "gemara kop" the same way you figured out how to get 5 Sapphires in a year.
we arent just talking about terms and conditions here :)
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: ShlockDoc on February 25, 2015, 12:33:32 AM
Location?

Out of trouble-state area. In a "shall issue" state.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Aj3042 on February 25, 2015, 04:32:47 AM
Signatures from everyone living with you?
Yes that's the law in some upstate counties of The People's Republic of NY (though it kind of makes sense, and I believe it's everyone 18 and above).
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: noturbizniss on February 25, 2015, 09:51:32 AM
Out of trouble-state area. In a "shall issue" state.
FL or TX?
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: jaywhy on February 25, 2015, 10:28:43 AM
For those that answered that they plan on getting one eventually, what factors are preventing you from getting now instead of eventually?
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Yehuda25 on February 25, 2015, 10:31:28 AM
For those that answered that they plan on getting one eventually, what factors are preventing you from getting now instead of eventually?
I have to figure out the process first. There is no point in applying just to get denied. I was going to apply in NJ (I have a NY License) But a friend got denied for having an out of state license. Now it seems that I'll have to go for a NY one, which is much harder.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: jaywhy on February 25, 2015, 11:04:30 AM
FL or TX?
42/50 states are shall issue.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: noturbizniss on February 25, 2015, 11:15:41 AM
42/50 states are shall issue.
But not big Jewish communities
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Aaaron on February 25, 2015, 11:17:20 AM
I own and carry here in MD, one of the few "may issue" states. You need "good and substantial" reason.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: solls108 on February 25, 2015, 12:55:07 PM
What are good substantial reasons in NYC? What if you work in Harlem?
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: noturbizniss on February 25, 2015, 12:55:51 PM
What are good substantial reasons in NYC? What if you work in Harlem?
HA!
your not gonna get a carry permit in NYC.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Yehuda25 on February 25, 2015, 01:12:57 PM
HA!
your not gonna get a carry permit in NYC.
Why not?
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: smee123 on February 26, 2015, 12:35:08 AM
I own and carry here in MD, one of the few "may issue" states. You need "good and substantial" reason.
Such as?
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: hvaces42 on February 26, 2015, 12:49:21 AM
Why not?
There are less than 6000 non-law enforcement full carry permits issued in NYC. They made the process nearly impossible. I went to graduate school with the former head of the NYPD gun permit unit. Trust me. Unless you show a need e.g. celebrity + stalker/documented death threats, or cash business (with bank deposits to back it up) you're not getting a personal carry. You may get a business, premises or limited carry. But full carry is a select few individuals other than active or former LE.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Yehuda25 on February 26, 2015, 07:32:27 AM
There are less than 6000 non-law enforcement full carry permits issued in NYC. They made the process nearly impossible. I went to graduate school with the former head of the NYPD gun permit unit. Trust me. Unless you show a need e.g. celebrity + stalker/documented death threats, or cash business (with bank deposits to back it up) you're not getting a personal carry. You may get a business, premises or limited carry. But full carry is a select few individuals other than active or former LE.
liberals
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: jaywhy on February 26, 2015, 08:19:30 AM
Move to Florida :)
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: ShlockDoc on February 26, 2015, 08:27:09 AM
Move to Florida :)

Move almost anywhere else beside NY, NJ and CA.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Aj3042 on February 26, 2015, 01:47:37 PM
We got to figure out a way to buy guns and ammo on points. These guns can be just as if not more expensive than flights!
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: ShlockDoc on February 26, 2015, 01:50:00 PM
We got to figure out a way to buy guns and ammo on points. These guns can be just as if not more expensive than flights!

Not if you shop smart. I got my carry 9mm for less than $250. 
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Aj3042 on February 26, 2015, 02:26:42 PM
Not if you shop smart. I got my carry 9mm for less than $250.
Well yes it depends on model and whether it's used or new. I'm a fan of Glock and I think their good handguns start at 500-600 new. And either way the ammo still costs you. Do you practice often? Do you pay membership for a range? These things add up quickly.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on August 26, 2015, 10:07:09 AM
Bumping old thread to say that my opinion on guns has evolved. I believe that 2nd Amendment rights has gotten out of hand and has been taken to an extreme. Even if there is only one bad guy with a gun for every 100 good guys with guns, it's still too many. I guess Thomas Jefferson didn't foresee this mess...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/26/active-shooter-reportedly-attacks-tv-crew-in-virginia/?intcmp=hpbt1

Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: clear thinker on August 26, 2015, 10:15:44 AM
Bumping old thread to say that my opinion on guns has evolved. I believe that 2nd Amendment rights has gotten out of hand and has been taken to an extreme. Even if there is only one bad guy with a gun for every 100 good guys with guns, it's still too many. I guess Thomas Jefferson didn't foresee this mess...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/26/active-shooter-reportedly-attacks-tv-crew-in-virginia/?intcmp=hpbt1
Sorry you're just wrong!
You can't govern by emotions.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on August 26, 2015, 10:20:44 AM
Sorry you're just wrong!
You can't govern by emotions.

Can I expect a logical explanation, or are you content with simply stating that I am wrong?

Let me ask you this: if theoretically there was an easy way to have all guns removed from citizens, good and bad, would you accept that?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: clear thinker on August 26, 2015, 10:22:58 AM
You and me both know what banning guns will accomplish.
Good people will not have guns, Bad people like that villain from today or Roof will get guns.
We all know this.
Whoever would think that a criminal wouldn't get a firearm because it's illegal??!
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Aaaron on August 26, 2015, 10:31:23 AM
Can I expect a logical explanation, or are you content with simply stating that I am wrong?

Let me ask you this: if theoretically there was an easy way to have all guns removed from citizens, good and bad, would you accept that?

Yes, if you can magically remove all guns from everywhere, America would be safer.  Is that possible?  No.  Is it legal?  No.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: clear thinker on August 26, 2015, 10:32:34 AM


Can I expect a logical explanation, or are you content with simply stating that I am wrong?

Let me ask you this: if theoretically there was an easy way to have all guns removed from citizens, good and bad, would you accept that?

There are 2 reasons for my belief.
 The first and main reason is:
You and me both know what banning guns will accomplish.
Good people will not have guns, Bad people like that villain from today or Roof will get guns.
We all know this.
Whoever would think that a criminal wouldn't get a firearm because it's illegal??!
So for that reason on this question: if theoretically there was an easy way to have all guns removed from citizens, good and bad, would you accept that?

Then you're probably right.

But my 2nd reason is our country was founded on/by a constitution and we have to follow it, if we don't where are we stopping?
Gay marriage, twisting the "anchor baby" law?
Where are we stopping?
Our nation has to be based on some type of special something.
So for that reason I 'might' oppose it.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on August 26, 2015, 10:32:52 AM
You and me both know what banning guns will accomplish.
Good people will not have guns, Bad people like that villain from today or Roof will get guns.
We all know this.
Whoever would think that a criminal wouldn't get a firearm because it's illegal??!

Nope, Roof had a legal gun. There is no proof that he would have gone out of his way to obtain one illegally. Same goes for the Virginia Tech massacre.

The criminals with illegal guns you are referring to are 95% gangs and drug dealers.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: clear thinker on August 26, 2015, 10:34:12 AM



There are 2 reasons for my belief.
 The first and main reason is:So for that reason on this question: if theoretically there was an easy way to have all guns removed from citizens, good and bad, would you accept that?

Then you're probably right.

But my 2nd reason is our country was founded on/by a constitution and we have to follow it, if we don't where are we stopping?
Gay marriage, twisting the "anchor baby" law?
Where are we stopping?
Our nation has to be based on some type of special something.
So for that reason I 'might' oppose it.

And for this reason

Yes, if you can magically remove all guns from everywhere, America would be safer.  Is that possible?  No.  Is it legal?  No.

Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: clear thinker on August 26, 2015, 10:36:10 AM
Nope, Roof had a legal gun. There is no proof that he would have gone out of his way to obtain one illegally. Same goes for the Virginia Tech massacre.

The criminals with illegal guns you are referring to are 95% gangs and drug dealers.
Uhu, your point being?
I didn't say they didn't.
I said they would get it even if it would be illegal and you and me both know it, please don't try fooling me that you believe differently.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on August 26, 2015, 10:39:13 AM
Yes, if you can magically remove all guns from everywhere, America would be safer.  Is that possible?  No.  Is it legal?  No.

Correct. My opinion isn't that we should go door-to-door and confiscate guns. My opinion is that America would probably be safer today if the 2nd Amendment was removed after the Revolutionary War. In other words, I believe that we have a serious gun problem in America today.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: clear thinker on August 26, 2015, 10:39:33 AM
Btw they just identified the guy as a disgruntled TV worker.
Although it doesn't make sense.
At least not from that station.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on August 26, 2015, 10:41:39 AM
Btw they just identified the guy as a disgruntled TV worker.
Although it doesn't make sense.
At least not from that station.

Do you agree that this man shouldn't have been allowed to own a gun? (assuming that it was legal?)
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: clear thinker on August 26, 2015, 10:43:08 AM
Do you agree that this man shouldn't have been allowed to own a gun? (assuming that it was legal?)
Is there anyway we could have known?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: whYME on August 26, 2015, 10:46:18 AM


Quote from: zale
Let me ask you this: if theoretically there was an easy way to have all guns removed from citizens, good and bad, would you accept that?
[/quote
many great leaders such as Stalin, Hitler, and Castro would definitely agree with you on this one.
Ordinary citizens should not be allowed to own guns...

Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Achas Veachas on August 26, 2015, 10:55:47 AM

[quote author=zale
Let me ask you this: if theoretically there was an easy way to have all guns removed from citizens, good and bad, would you accept that?
many great leaders such as Stalin, Hitler, and Castro would definitely agree with you on this one.
Ordinary citizens should not be allowed to own guns...


Cheap argument, there are many countries with strict gun laws who's leaders are nowhere in that league...
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on August 26, 2015, 10:59:14 AM
many great leaders such as Stalin, Hitler, and Castro would definitely agree with you on this one.
Ordinary citizens should not be allowed to own guns...

If I had a dime for every time I heard that argument, I wouldn't have to churn credit cards anymore.

First, if you are worried about a sudden change in our government to a fascist dictatorship, then you best be stocking up on AR-15's with loads of ammo. You should also stock up on grenades and RPG's. It wouldn't hurt to also acquire a couple of Black Hawk helicopters.

If the United States Third Infantry shows up on your lawn, I'm not sure how long your 9mm handgun is going to hold them off for.

Second, how many people are buying guns specifically for this reason?

Third, what are the probabilities of this happening, and is it worth the deaths of daycare children because of this paranoia?

Fourth, why do Jews still live in the UK where guns are banned? They should be running for their lives in case another Hitler takes over!
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Aaaron on August 26, 2015, 11:01:10 AM
If I had a dime for every time I heard that argument, I wouldn't have to churn credit cards anymore.

First, if you are worried about a sudden change in our government to a fascist dictatorship, then you best be stocking up on AR-15's with loads of ammo. You should also stock up on grenades and RPG's. It wouldn't hurt to also acquire a couple of Black Hawk helicopters.

If the United States Third Infantry shows up on your lawn, I'm not sure how long your 9mm handgun is going to hold them off for.

Second, how many people are buying guns specifically for this reason?

Third, what are the probabilities of this happening, and is it worth the deaths of daycare children because of this paranoia?

Fourth, why do Jews still live in the UK where guns are banned? They should be running for their lives in case another Hitler takes over!

Some of us are  ;D
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on August 26, 2015, 11:04:15 AM
Some of us are  ;D

What are you going to do when an M1 Abrahams tank shows up in your driveway? Did you stock up on anti-tank missile launchers? Do you have a howitizer in your garage?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Yammer on August 26, 2015, 11:08:30 AM
What are you going to do when an M1 Abrahams tank shows up in your driveway? Did you stock up on anti-tank missile launchers? Do you have a howitizer in your garage?
The point isn't your driveway. It's the point of them going all over the country and doing it, and it can't be done if you have an armed country.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Aaaron on August 26, 2015, 11:10:59 AM
What are you going to do when an M1 Abrahams tank shows up in your driveway? Did you stock up on anti-tank missile launchers? Do you have a howitizer in your garage?

Yes.  With my Blackhawk and F-22 in my backyard.

In all seriousness, I'm not a "prepper" but I - and a good portion of my friends/neighbors - believe in being prepared.  Would I die by being outgunned if the government went tyrannical?  Most probably.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Yammer on August 26, 2015, 11:11:23 AM
The point isn't your driveway. It's the point of them going all over the country and doing it, and it can't be done if you have an armed country.
It doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate points on both sides of the debate, but that's the reason why the law was created.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: clear thinker on August 26, 2015, 11:14:24 AM


And is it worth the deaths of daycare children because of this paranoia?

Again a criminal will get guns anyways and we all know it!
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: jj1000 on August 26, 2015, 11:23:57 AM
What are you going to do when an M1 Abrahams tank shows up in your driveway? Did you stock up on anti-tank missile launchers? Do you have a howitizer in your garage?
Question: Would more Jews have survived the Holocaust if they all had AR-15's?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: clear thinker on August 26, 2015, 11:26:22 AM
Btw they just identified the guy as a disgruntled TV worker.
Although it doesn't make sense.
At least not from that station.
It looks like a hate crime.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 26, 2015, 11:29:12 AM
Question: Would more Jews have survived the Holocaust if they all had AR-15's?

Who knows but it would have been a heck of a fight for the Nazis to round them up...
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: whYME on August 26, 2015, 11:29:23 AM


If I had a dime for every time I heard that argument, I wouldn't have to churn credit cards anymore.

First, if you are worried about a sudden change in our government to a fascist dictatorship, then you best be stocking up on AR-15's with loads of ammo. You should also stock up on grenades and RPG's. It wouldn't hurt to also acquire a couple of Black Hawk helicopters.

If the United States Third Infantry shows up on your lawn, I'm not sure how long your 9mm handgun is going to hold them off for.

Second, how many people are buying guns specifically for this reason?

Third, what are the probabilities of this happening, and is it worth the deaths of daycare children because of this paranoia?

Fourth, why do Jews still live in the UK where guns are banned? They should be running for their lives in case another Hitler takes over!

1. Of course if they showed up on "my" lawn I'd be no match for them, but if the knowledge that every lawn they showed up on they'd be met with gunfire would help keep things in check.
But you're right, citizens should be able to own RPGs if that's what it takes for them to have a fighting chance.

And no, I don't expect to see this in my lifetime, but if you think it can't happen...

2. That's irrelevant.

3. The first step in answering this question is determining how many "deaths of daycare children" (I assume that would deaths which wouldn't have occurred had there been no guns minus lives saved by guns)

4. Why is this a Jewish issue? Jews are a tiny fraction of those killed by murderous dictatorships in the last century.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on August 26, 2015, 11:32:02 AM
Question: Would more Jews have survived the Holocaust if they all had AR-15's?

Impossible to know. The Jews weren't expecting to be exterminated. By the time they realized what was going on it was too late to do anything about it. There were Jews who believed everything would be fine.

In order for the Jews to set up a successful resistance, they would have to do it before they were herded into ghettos. Even so, it's clear from the Warsaw Ghetto uprising that at some point or another they would lose the battle against a full blown Nazi army. Partisan groups did very little to stop the Nazi war machine.

If entire armies surrendered to the Nazis, like the Polish and the French, it would be logical to assume that lightly armed Jews would eventually lose the battle. 
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on August 26, 2015, 11:43:23 AM

1. Of course if they showed up on "my" lawn I'd be no match for them, but if the knowledge that every lawn they showed up on they'd be met with gunfire would help keep things in check.
But you're right, citizens should be able to own RPGs if that's what it takes for them to have a fighting chance.

And no, I don't expect to see this in my lifetime, but if you think it can't happen...


You brought up the argument of Hitler and Stalin, and then you pretty much admit that it's unlikely to happen. As you yourself admit, if it "could" happen, then your little gun isn't going to help you anyway. Thus the Hitler argument is a dead-end.

Would you be afraid to live in the UK? What if you were offered a great job there?

Quote
2. That's irrelevant.

Of course it is. Weren't YOU the one who just stated that we need guns because Hitler would have loved gun control?

Quote
3. The first step in answering this question is determining how many "deaths of daycare children" (I assume that would deaths which wouldn't have occurred had there been no guns minus lives saved by guns)

We know that a crazed lunatic took a gun from his home that was legally owned by his mother and killed 20 children in a daycare. Please show me where twenty children were saved by a armed citizen with a gun. (not "could have been saved", but actually saved.)

Quote
4. Why is this a Jewish issue? Jews are a tiny fraction of those killed by murderous dictatorships in the last century.

You are correct.  I brought up Jews because they have been targeted throughout history.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Aj3042 on August 26, 2015, 11:48:55 AM
Question: Would more Jews have survived the Holocaust if they all had AR-15's?
Absolutely. Anybody worth his salt knows the Nazis hid their goals from the Jews because had they known it wouldn't have happened on the scale it did. If the Warsaw ghetto uprising happened 3 years earlier, and it happened not only in Warsaw but all over (both in ghettos and before they were forced into them) the Holocaust wouldn't have gotten anywhere near where it did.
I was asked to chime in but I'm going to let @clearthinker deal with this one. :D

IMO every shul, yeshiva, and Jewish school should have multiple armed people (teachers and maybe students too if they're old enough) walking around. In addition every sane and responsible American has a right to own a gun given the tenuous situation the world is in. If anything was to happen and this country would descend into anarchy nobody would be able to protect us except ourselves. And don't think it can't happen-read congressional assessments about nuclear EMP, cyberterrorism and more-our enemies can do it and are waiting for the chance. In addition, the threat of the gov going tyrannical is absolutely real and GUNS DO GUARD AGAINST THAT like with that rancher in Nevada that organized a militia and the gov backed off to avoid a firefight.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on August 26, 2015, 12:12:53 PM
Absolutely. Anybody worth his salt knows the Nazis hid their goals from the Jews because had they known it wouldn't have happened on the scale it did. If the Warsaw ghetto uprising happened 3 years earlier, and it happened not only in Warsaw but all over (both in ghettos and before they were forced into them) the Holcaust wouldn't have gotten anywhere near where it did.
I was asked to chime in  ;) but I'm going to let @clearthinker deal with this one. :D


Quote
IMO every shul, yeshiva, and Jewish school should have multiple armed people (teachers and maybe students too if they're old enough) walking around.

I agree that trained armed guards should be placed in every Jewish facility. The cost is unfortunately too high.

Quote
In addition every sane and responsible American has a right to own a gun given the tenuous situation the world is in.

Agreed in theory. In reality there is no way to truly know unless the person has a clear history of mental illness, and even then people slip through.

Quote
If anything was to happen and this country would descend into anarchy nobody would be able to protect us expect ourselves. And don't think it can't happen-read congressional assessments about nuclear EMP, cyberterrorism and more-our enemies can do it and are waiting for the chance.

The great zombie apocalypse.

Your AR-15 won't help you. You will need an underground shelter and 25 years worth of food supplies. How are you going to daven with a minyan? can you fit ten Jews and their families in your shelter? Will you have enough food for everyone? Where are you going to get medical supplies from... ahh, nevermind.. too many questions.

Quote
In addition, the threat of the gov going tyrannical is absolutely real and GUNS DO GUARD AGAINST THAT like with that rancher in Nevada that organized a militia and the gov backed off to avoid a firefight.

They backed off to avoid a firefight because they didn't want to kill civilians! If they WANTED to kill civilians they could have obliterated them in ten minutes flat.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: whYME on August 26, 2015, 12:19:25 PM
You brought up the argument of Hitler and Stalin, and then you pretty much admit that it's unlikely to happen.
Unlikely doesn't mean it won't happen.  And having an armed population is part of what makes it so unlikely.

As you yourself admit, if it "could" happen, then your little gun isn't going to help you anyway. Thus the Hitler argument is a dead-end.
I think you missed my point.
Even if "my" gun won't help "me" as an individual, having a well armed citizenry is a deterrent against a tyrannical government and helps the population as a whole.

Would you be afraid to live in the UK? What if you were offered a great job there?
How is that relevant? right now I live in NYC where only criminals are allowed to have guns...

Of course it is. Weren't YOU the one who just stated that we need guns because Hitler would have loved gun control?
The reason why people (I'm talking about those who buy/own them legally, not criminals) are buying their guns is irrelevant to this argument, it's the fact that they have them that matters.

And it's not that Hitler "would have loved" gun control, it's that he was smart enough to know that that's where he needed to start.

We know that a crazed lunatic took a gun from his home that was legally owned by his mother and killed 20 children in a daycare. Please show me where twenty children were saved by a armed citizen with a gun. (not "could have been saved", but actually saved.)
I was hesitant to get into this part because it's a whole parshah of it's own, I probably shouldn't have...
Are the only lives that matter to this question daycare children? or are we talking about any innocent lives?

OK, that's it for me for now. No time for this crap. I'll check back in again tonight...

Note to self: don't comment on controversial topics on the internet on a day you're planning on getting work done.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Shauly101 on August 26, 2015, 12:28:20 PM
Quote
right now I live in NYC where only criminals are allowed to have guns...

big time.

when will Dov Hikind start pushing "being a jew in the city" for a good reason to carry a weapon?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: noturbizniss on August 26, 2015, 12:31:42 PM
Nope, Roof had a legal gun. There is no proof that he would have gone out of his way to obtain one illegally. Same goes for the Virginia Tech massacre.

The criminals with illegal guns you are referring to are 95% gangs and drug dealers.
I don't have the stats with me now, but those criminals account for 99%+ of all gun related violence, including the killing of children. You just hear about the big stories when someone goes nuts in a school or like today's story. Remove all legal guns and you'll still have tons of illegal guns and then even more people will get hurt when legal gun owners can't pull out their guns to stop a criminal. 
Don't be blinded by how the media presents the stories (or chooses to ignore them).
How's the gun situation in Shallot's town and DC?  No gun violence there  eh?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on August 26, 2015, 12:52:10 PM
You guys just can't wait until Friday can you? Anyone who keeps talking about an AR-15 doesn't know jack about guns. I wouldn't use one of those pieces of sh*t if it was free.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: whYME on August 26, 2015, 12:54:11 PM
Anyone who keeps talking about an AR-15 doesn't know jack about guns. I wouldn't use one of those pieces of sh*t it was free.

ummm
You just can't wait until Friday can you?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on August 26, 2015, 12:55:28 PM
You guys just can't wait until Friday can you? Anyone who keeps talking about an AR-15 doesn't know jack about guns. I wouldn't use one of those pieces of sh*t it was free.

Are these any good? (Guy on the right is a Chabadnik).

Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: jj1000 on August 26, 2015, 01:25:47 PM
You guys just can't wait until Friday can you? Anyone who keeps talking about an AR-15 doesn't know jack about guns. I wouldn't use one of those pieces of sh*t if it was free.
But you would use it if you needed it and it's cheap and affordable. I'd take 3 people with an AR over 1 person with an M-16 any day.

Also AR's are so customizable I don't see how you can lump them into one category.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on August 26, 2015, 01:30:44 PM
But you would use it if you needed it and it's cheap and affordable. I'd take 3 people with an AR over 1 person with an M-16 any day.

Also AR's are so customizable I don't see how you can lump them into one category.
Because it is not the actual gun that I hate. It is the caliber it shoots.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Aaaron on August 26, 2015, 01:33:07 PM
You guys just can't wait until Friday can you? Anyone who keeps talking about an AR-15 doesn't know jack about guns. I wouldn't use one of those pieces of sh*t if it was free.

Next time you're in Baltimore come shoot some of mine; you'll change your tune.  Unless you're one of those hard-core AK guys or ban-em-all guys.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Aaaron on August 26, 2015, 01:34:09 PM
Because it is not the actual gun that I hate. It is the caliber it shoots.

Yeah, but not all ARs are chambered in 5.56.  And anyway, if SHTF, I guarantee there are warehouses all over the country stocked full of the stuff compared to 7.62 or 308.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: jj1000 on August 26, 2015, 01:34:49 PM
Because it is not the actual gun that I hate. It is the caliber it shoots.
I hear. But when talking about arming civilians the AR is an easy choice due to cost and will always be a part of the topic.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on August 26, 2015, 01:41:56 PM
Next time you're in Baltimore come shoot some of mine; you'll change your tune.  Unless you're one of those hard-core AK guys or ban-em-all guys.
I am partial to the AK. The most solid gun I ever shot was a BAR.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: whYME on August 26, 2015, 01:46:41 PM
Personally I prefer the AR over the AK, though my overall favorite is the MP5
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on August 26, 2015, 01:51:44 PM
Personally I prefer the AR over the AK, though my overall favorite is the MP5
AR shooting .308 I could handle. When I was in OK a shot a full auto w/silencer MP5. It was sweet. Keeping with my name I do own a couple Uzi's.  :)
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: GTR on August 26, 2015, 01:51:59 PM
Unfortunately, it's difficult for most to assess the value of the 2nd amendment because it's the value of something NOT occurring, namely oppression by our own government.  As hard as it is for most to say I believe that loss of life caused by guns, both accidental and intentional, is an acceptable price to pay to secure us this freedom.  This is even separate and apart from the utility guns provide as tools for recreation, protection and survival. 
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on August 26, 2015, 01:55:21 PM
The point is guns are out of control. Something has to been done and not just lip service.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Aaaron on August 26, 2015, 01:56:21 PM
AR shooting .308 I could handle. When I was in OK a shot a full auto w/silencer MP5. It was sweet. Keeping with my name I do own a couple Uzi's.  :)

AR-10 is 308.  :D

I have some suppressors too.  Serious offer, btw.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Aj3042 on August 26, 2015, 02:00:00 PM
The point is guns are out of control. Something has to been done and not just lip service.
Not every problem has a solution.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: whYME on August 26, 2015, 02:00:44 PM
Serious offer, btw.
Only for CM?  ;D
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on August 26, 2015, 02:02:00 PM
Only for CM?  ;D
You want to get shot also?  :)
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: whYME on August 26, 2015, 02:02:35 PM
The point is guns are out of control. Something has to been done and not just lip service.
If only that something was aimed at the criminal use of guns rather than disarming innocent law-abiding civilians...
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 26, 2015, 02:04:27 PM
The point is guns are out of control. Something has to been done and not just lip service.

Guns are under quite a bit of control. The exceptions are statistical blips but amplified by media and emotions.  Very similar to plane crashes actually.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 26, 2015, 02:06:08 PM
If only that something was aimed at the criminal use of guns rather than disarming innocent law-abiding civilians...

You'd be referring to mandatory sentencing which is fiercely opposed as racist.  All other gun control laws only impact the law-abiding by definition.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on August 26, 2015, 02:08:13 PM
Guns are under quite a bit of control. The exceptions are statistical blips but amplified by media and emotions.  Very similar to plane crashes actually.
Unless you live by a major city where someone gets killed every day.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Aj3042 on August 26, 2015, 02:09:30 PM
Unless you live by a major city where someone gets killed every day.
Often by illegal guns.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 26, 2015, 02:10:22 PM
The point is illegal violence guns are out of control. Something has to been done and not just lip service.

FTFY
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: whYME on August 26, 2015, 02:11:40 PM
You'd be referring to mandatory sentencing which is fiercely opposed as racist.
I'm not referring to any specific law(s.) I'm referring to the idea that when people talk about increasing gun control they generally are talking about placing limits on law-abiding citizens, they're not talking about limiting criminals. (well, maybe they talk about criminals but anything they propose is typically aimed at the law-abiding.)
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 26, 2015, 02:13:57 PM
I'm not referring to any specific law(s.) I'm referring to the idea that when people talk about increasing gun control they generally are talking about placing limits on law-abiding citizens, they're not talking about limiting criminals. (well, maybe they talk about criminals but anything they propose is typically aimed at the law-abiding.)

Right, the only way to curb gun violence is by imposing stronger minimum sentences.  Right now if the ganbanger gets caught with a gun he's back on the street the next day.  Put him away for 10 years and things will change.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on August 26, 2015, 02:16:59 PM
Often by illegal guns.
I guess it would make the person getting killed feel better if it was a legal gun?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: whYME on August 26, 2015, 02:25:13 PM
I guess it would make the person getting killed feel better if it was a legal gun?
It rarely is a legal gun.
Most murders (At least in high-crime cities, I assume that's what we're still talking about) are gangbangers killing each other.

And the ones that are legal guns, I'll bet most of them are cases where the victim was specifically targeted and the murderer would probably try some other method if he didn't have a gun.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on August 26, 2015, 02:30:03 PM
Most murders (At least in high-crime cities, I assume that's what we're still talking about) are gangbangers killing each other.
It is those that are caught in the crossfire that I am worried about.

Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Aaaron on August 26, 2015, 02:39:16 PM
Only for CM?  ;D

Nope, I'm down for a Baltimore Gun Range DO.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 26, 2015, 02:42:48 PM
Nope, I'm down for a Baltimore Gun Range DO.

Come down farther south. Everyone carries safely and legally. The ranges are fantastic fun.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: jj1000 on August 26, 2015, 02:44:45 PM
Come down farther south. Everyone carries safely and legally. The ranges are fantastic fun.
+1 there is a big DD fan that owns a range in MIA that has basically every legal gun you can shoot in the US.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Aaaron on August 26, 2015, 02:58:14 PM
I'm down for a MIA Gun Range DO.  I can bring some toys too, although I'd need ATF permission...
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on August 26, 2015, 03:01:11 PM
I'm down for a MIA Gun Range DO.  I can bring some toys too, although I'd need ATF permission...

lol. Arranging a shooting range DO in a "ban guns" thread!
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on August 26, 2015, 03:02:40 PM
lol. Arranging a shooting range DO in a "ban guns" thread!
Where is CBC when you need him?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: A3 on August 26, 2015, 03:35:52 PM
Another shooting..... This time in a courthouse...

I wish my FL permit would work in NY
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: jj1000 on August 26, 2015, 03:39:17 PM
Another shooting..... This time in a courthouse...

I wish my FL permit would work in NY
No there wasn't. Unless you call cops killing someone with a gun a shooting.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: A3 on August 26, 2015, 03:40:31 PM
No there wasn't. Unless you call cops killing someone with a gun a shooting.

Druggie shot himself in a courthouse
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on August 26, 2015, 03:41:00 PM
Unless you call cops killing someone with a gun a shooting.
Sometimes that is the case.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: jj1000 on August 26, 2015, 03:55:43 PM
Druggie shot himself in a courthouse
So how's that a shooting? It's a suicide.

Sometimes that is the case.
Indeed. But not this one.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: aygart on August 26, 2015, 04:21:06 PM
Sometimes that is the case.
not one which would be helped by banning guns
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Achas Veachas on August 26, 2015, 04:44:53 PM
Unfortunately, it's difficult for most to assess the value of the 2nd amendment because it's the value of something NOT occurring, namely oppression by our own government.  As hard as it is for most to say I believe that loss of life caused by guns, both accidental and intentional, is an acceptable price to pay to secure us this freedom.  This is even separate and apart from the utility guns provide as tools for recreation, protection and survival. 
I'm not really part of this debate, but you do know that comment just made you sound like a total a$$...
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: GTR on August 26, 2015, 05:38:23 PM
Yes.  I realize expressing that sentiment is unpopular.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Achas Veachas on August 26, 2015, 07:36:20 PM
Yes.  I realize expressing that sentiment is unpopular.
Of only that's the only thing that was wrong with that sentiment...
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: grodnoking on August 26, 2015, 07:52:45 PM


right now I live in NYC where only criminals are allowed to have guns...


Actually is pretty easy to get a gun if youwith for the gov in NY.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Yammer on August 27, 2015, 01:49:43 AM
Unless you live by a major city where someone gets killed every day.
Many of the city's are in states that have some of the toughest gun control laws.

When you do statistics though, none of the sides get supported
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Freddie on August 27, 2015, 02:21:19 AM
Someone said MIA gun range DO?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on August 27, 2015, 02:22:51 AM
Someone said MIA gun range DO?
You know what would really be fun is everyone brought there spouse. I would love to see some of the women shoot.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Freddie on August 27, 2015, 02:27:33 AM
You know what would really be fun is everyone brought there spouse. I would love to see some of the women shoot.

My wife is a good shot.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 27, 2015, 02:36:10 AM
You know what would really be fun is everyone brought there spouse. I would love to see some of the women shoot.

My wife is one of the best trap shooters that I've ever seen in person but won't touch a handgun.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 27, 2015, 02:37:47 AM
Someone said MIA gun range DO?

If you ever come back to ATL we can show you a good time. 
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on August 27, 2015, 02:49:04 AM
My wife is one of the best trap shooters that I've ever seen in person but won't touch a handgun.
DW is just the opposite. Browning 9mm is her weapon of choice. She did shoot my SW 629 with no fear.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 27, 2015, 03:29:57 AM
DW is just the opposite. Browning 9mm is her weapon of choice. She did shoot my SW 629 with no fear.

Lol. My wife won't even shoot my Browning .22
Although her father recently gifted me with his collectors Luger 22.  I was polite but it was too Nazi for my taste. Put it in storage.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on August 27, 2015, 07:29:41 AM
I was polite but it was too Nazi for my taste. Put it in storage.
You looking to sell?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Achas Veachas on August 27, 2015, 07:33:48 AM
Can this OT discussion please be moved to the right thread (http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=23146.0)... ::)
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on August 27, 2015, 07:38:39 AM
Can this OT discussion please be moved to the right thread (http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=23146.0)... ::)
So what is U-no-me! new nic?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: GTR on August 27, 2015, 08:55:50 AM
I'm not really part of this debate, but you do know that comment just made you sound like a total a$$...

Of only that's the only thing that was wrong with that sentiment...

Can this OT discussion please be moved to the right thread (http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=23146.0)... ::)

You're not really part of this debate.  You're just interested in coming in here to 1) name call, 2) express your feeling that certain beliefs are wrong, without offering any additional commentary on what you believe is right, and 3) make sure there is no debate by calling for discussion of contrary positions to be moved.

Thanks for you're contributions to a meaningful discussion on the issue.  It's been a delight. 
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: jj1000 on August 27, 2015, 09:05:44 AM
You're not really part of this debate.  You're just interested in coming in here to 1) name call, 2) express your feeling that certain beliefs are wrong, without offering any additional commentary on what you believe is right, and 3) make sure there is no debate by calling for discussion of contrary positions to be moved.

Thanks for you're contributions to a meaningful discussion on the issue.  It's been a delight. 
He never stated his opinion. I'd bet he believes people should be allowed to have guns.

He commented on your tone in that post, where you talked as if everyone else had no brain and only you know how the laws and country really work.

CMIIW Achas.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Yammer on August 27, 2015, 09:18:51 AM
You looking to sell?
Wow. This thread went from pro anti gun laws to... Selling arm's???
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: GTR on August 27, 2015, 09:44:21 AM
That's exactly my point.  He never stated his opinion, only to address "the tone of my post."  I'm sorry I didn't riddle the statement with "my opinion" "i feel" "i believe" but I thought it was implied that statements on substantive issues/discussions are riddled with opinion and interpretation. I'm sorry more was read into it.

Instead of addressing the substance of MY OPINION he name called, then separately alluded to something more than "the tone" being off.  I believe my opinion is the correct one, don't we all?  I'd love to hear the counterpoints, instead of just being called an a$$ for expressing it.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: jj1000 on August 27, 2015, 09:47:12 AM
That's exactly my point.  He never stated his opinion, only to address "the tone of my post."  I'm sorry I didn't riddle the statement with "my opinion" "i feel" "i believe" but I thought it was implied that statements on substantive issues/discussions are riddled with opinion and interpretation. I'm sorry more was read into it.

Instead of addressing the substance of MY OPINION he name called, then separately alluded to something more than "the tone" being off.  I believe my opinion is the correct one, don't we all?  I'd love to hear the counterpoints, instead of just being called an a$$ for expressing it.
There is etiquette on a forum, and when you break it a member will probably call you out. Just how it is.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 27, 2015, 10:05:41 AM
You looking to sell?

I would love to but I know he's going to ask me about it next time he visits...  I have others that I want to sell.  Think I should start a thread in the buying/selling forum?   ;)
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: clear thinker on August 27, 2015, 12:44:05 PM
You guys just can't wait until Friday can you? Anyone who keeps talking about an AR-15 doesn't know jack about guns. I wouldn't use one of those pieces of sh*t if it was free.
It's nice to finally see someone agreeing with you.....


http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0QV26520150826

Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Achas Veachas on August 27, 2015, 12:49:22 PM


CMIIW Achas.
That I will do, I had nothing against his tone, I have everything against what he said that innocent people dying is an "acceptable price" to pay. I can understand the argument that having guns around saves lives, but if it endangers more lives than it saves than no, a life of not an "acceptable price" for some ambiguous notion of "Freedom".
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on October 01, 2015, 05:00:57 PM
I'm doubling down on my earlier statement. If Thomas Jefferson were able to see into the future he would have put an expiration date on the 2nd Ammendment.

http://q13fox.com/2015/10/01/reports-shooter-at-oregon-community-college-mutiple-fatalities-reported/

Sorry gun lovers.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on October 01, 2015, 05:13:48 PM
I'm doubling down on my earlier statement. If Thomas Jefferson were able to see into the future he would have put an expiration date on the 2nd Ammendment.

http://q13fox.com/2015/10/01/reports-shooter-at-oregon-community-college-mutiple-fatalities-reported/

Sorry gun lovers.

It's a good thing we don't make laws based on time machine magic...
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on October 01, 2015, 05:19:10 PM
It's a good thing we don't make laws based on time machine magic...

You misunderstood me. I'm not a gun control advocate. I am very aware that it is impossible to put any kind of gun control into effect without hurting good people. I just have a philosophy that if the 2nd Amendment would be repealed in the 1800's, we would probably be a safer country today.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: jj1000 on October 01, 2015, 05:21:51 PM
You misunderstood me. I'm not a gun control advocate. I am very aware that it is impossible to put any kind of gun control into effect without hurting good people. I just have a philosophy that if the 2nd Amendment would be repealed in the 1800's, we would probably be a safer country today.
Or we would have lost WWII to the Germans.

Hard thing telling the future is.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: churnbabychurn on October 01, 2015, 05:22:04 PM
I thought the second amendment is in case the government forces start breaking the laws. Nothing to do with safety.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on October 01, 2015, 05:22:41 PM
You misunderstood me. I'm not a gun control advocate. I am very aware that it is impossible to put any kind of gun control into effect without hurting good people. I just have a philosophy that if the 2nd Amendment would be repealed in the 1800's, we would probably be a safer country today.

It's possible.  Or it's possible that the ban on guns would have been a failure like the War on Drugs.  Then only the bad people would have guns and no good people.  That would be a bad scenario.  Who knows what would have been...
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on October 01, 2015, 05:24:43 PM
I thought the second amendment is in case the government forces start breaking the laws. Nothing to do with safety.

SCOTUS ruled in DC vs Heller that the second amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on October 01, 2015, 05:27:11 PM
Or we would have lost WWII to the Germans.

Hard thing telling the future is.

Banning guns has nothing to do with the military. We didn't fight WWII with personal home weapons.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on October 01, 2015, 05:28:54 PM
It's possible.  Or it's possible that the ban on guns would have been a failure like the War on Drugs.  Then only the bad people would have guns and no good people.  That would be a bad scenario.  Who knows what would have been...

It's pretty clear from countries like the UK that making guns illegal all across the board does indeed work. Mexican cartels are happily using US made weapons.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 01, 2015, 05:31:21 PM
It's pretty clear from countries like the UK that making guns illegal all across the board does indeed work. Mexican cartels are happily using US made weapons.
It would have to be a 100% ban. That is never going to happen so what it is the next best step?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on October 01, 2015, 05:34:38 PM
It's pretty clear from countries like the UK that making guns illegal all across the board does indeed work. Mexican cartels are happily using US made weapons.

Apples and oranges for many reason.   The gun culture in the US, both legal and illegal is far more pervasive than it was in other places. Also, the US, by its nature, doesn't accept government control as obediently.  Think Prohibition and drugs. 

There are already SO many gun laws on the books.  Gun deaths with decrease when we start stricter enforcement of the existing ones not making new ones.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: jj1000 on October 01, 2015, 05:36:02 PM
Banning guns has nothing to do with the military. We didn't fight WWII with personal home weapons.
Companies that develop guns spend a lot of money on research which is profitable because of the public purchasing firearms.

Point is you don't know all the effects one decision can have.

And your time machine example is very short sighted. You meant to say if he had a time machine and only looked at today it may have changed his decision. But what about centuries from now etc.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on October 01, 2015, 05:36:35 PM
It would have to be a 100% ban. That is never going to happen so what it is the next best step?

1.  Anyone caught with an illegal gun, 10 years in prison minimum, no parole. 
2.  More suicide prevention/education.

90% of gun deaths eliminated...
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: David Smith on October 01, 2015, 05:39:30 PM
Legal guns help counteract illegal guns, which will be obtained illegally anyways.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 01, 2015, 05:44:36 PM
1.  Anyone caught with an illegal gun, 10 years in prison minimum, no parole. 
2.  More suicide prevention/education.

90% of gun deaths eliminated...
You are dreaming. You can have the penalty be life in prison and it will no effect on inner city violence or mass killings.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: jj1000 on October 01, 2015, 05:51:14 PM
1.  Anyone caught with an illegal gun, 10 years in prison minimum, no parole. 
2.  More suicide prevention/education.

90% of gun deaths eliminated...
3. The prison system is overwhelmed and the government goes bankrupt.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 01, 2015, 05:53:30 PM
3. The prison system is overwhelmed and the government goes bankrupt.
Put a fence around NY and send them all there. Gives me an idea for a movie.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: David Smith on October 01, 2015, 05:54:40 PM
3. The prison system is overwhelmed and the government goes bankrupt.
Forget about the stinking government going bankrupt, those are PEOPLE in there we're talking about!
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: jj1000 on October 01, 2015, 06:09:48 PM
Forget about the stinking government going bankrupt, those are PEOPLE in there we're talking about!
So?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: jj1000 on October 01, 2015, 06:10:17 PM
Put a fence around NY and send them all there. Gives me an idea for a movie.
Now we are getting somewhere :)
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 01, 2015, 06:12:14 PM
Now we are getting somewhere :)
Can you say Snake Plissken?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on October 01, 2015, 06:13:29 PM
You are dreaming. You can have the penalty be life in prison and it will no effect on inner city violence or mass killings.

I disagree, it would have a very significant impact on inner city violence.  Perpetrators would either already be in jail or would fear getting caught with a gun if there were zero tolerance.  Non-urban mass killings is a tougher nut to crack but it's a tiny percentage of gun deaths.  It needs to involve mental health professionals working with lawmakers to make new policies, I just don't know what the solution is to that...
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on October 01, 2015, 06:16:28 PM
3. The prison system is overwhelmed and the government goes bankrupt.

The government is already bankrupt but spends anyway on its priorities.  It can keep passing laws that only restrict those that keep laws or it can put bad guys in jail.  If the prison system can't hold all the bad guys, build more prisons, don't let bad guys stay on the street to kill more people...
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Yammer on October 01, 2015, 06:16:36 PM
3. The prison system is overwhelmed and the government goes bankrupt.
If the drug laws get revamped and we stop the massive incarceration for drugs then we"'ll have over enough room
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Yammer on October 01, 2015, 06:19:11 PM
Or we would have lost WWII to the Germans.

Hard thing telling the future is.
Exactly why would we have lost!?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 01, 2015, 06:33:59 PM
President talking about the shooting and national news breaks away to get there ratings. So sad.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: David Smith on October 01, 2015, 06:37:59 PM
President talking about the shooting and national news breaks away to get there ratings. So sad.
President blamed it on the republicans. What else is new?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on October 01, 2015, 06:38:09 PM
President talking about the shooting and national news breaks away to get there ratings. So sad.

Why does he only speak and get emotional when white people get shot?  Why doesn't he come out and talk about urban violence that kills FAR more than these maniacal mass shootings.   Why didn't he speak after:

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-labor-day-2015-weekend-violence-shootings-324747211.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-weekend-violence-20150720-story.html

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/14-People-Shot-in-15-Hours-in-Chicago-Following-Violent-Weekend-329949051.html

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/08/5_dead_10_wounded_over_bloody.html

http://wreg.com/2015/08/31/17-shot-3-fatally-during-bloody-weekend-in-memphis/

http://wreg.com/2015/06/21/13-people-shot-during-violent-holiday-weekend-in-memphis/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/7-people-shot-in-dc-as-labor-day-weekend-comes-to-a-bloody-end/2015/09/08/bc1f3f36-55e0-11e5-b8c9-944725fcd3b9_story.html

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/08/violence-explodes-in-dc-over-the-weekend-with-10-shot-10-stabbed/

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-gang-violence-20150727-story.html

#BlackLivesMatter
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: David Smith on October 01, 2015, 06:42:04 PM
Why does he only speak and get emotional when white people get shot?  Why doesn't he come out and talk about urban violence that kills FAR more than these maniacal mass shootings.   Why didn't he speak after:

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-labor-day-2015-weekend-violence-shootings-324747211.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-weekend-violence-20150720-story.html

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/14-People-Shot-in-15-Hours-in-Chicago-Following-Violent-Weekend-329949051.html

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/08/5_dead_10_wounded_over_bloody.html

#BlackLivesMatter
You racist, those were black shooters. How dare you mention them!
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 01, 2015, 06:42:42 PM
President blamed it on the republicans. What else is new?
You only heard what you wanted to hear.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 01, 2015, 06:44:41 PM
Why does he only speak and get emotional when white people get shot? 
I can ask the same question in a slightly different way about DDF.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: David Smith on October 01, 2015, 06:44:57 PM
You only heard what you wanted to hear.
What did you hear?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 01, 2015, 06:47:33 PM
What did you hear?
That something has to be done or expect the same thing every few months. That even gun owners understand something has to be done.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on October 01, 2015, 06:54:12 PM
That something has to be done or expect the same thing every few months. That even gun owners understand something has to be done.

That's what I heard.  But he keeps saying that people don't want gun control or "common sense measures".  The flaw is that there already is gun and control and many many measures.  Those that disagree with him don't want MORE gun control.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: David Smith on October 01, 2015, 06:57:10 PM
That something has to be done or expect the same thing every few months. That even gun owners understand something has to be done.
And you're calling ME selectively deaf?!
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on October 01, 2015, 07:00:44 PM
And you're calling ME selectively deaf?!

CM is right.  If anything, he placed the blame squarely on the NRA and congress.  It was both the Rs and the Ds that blocked his legislative push  after Sandy Hook.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: David Smith on October 01, 2015, 07:06:39 PM
CM is right.  If anything, he placed the blame squarely on the NRA and congress.  It was both the Rs and the Ds that blocked his legislative push  after Sandy Hook.
That's what I meant. He utilized the opportunity to blame his opponents.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Achas Veachas on October 01, 2015, 07:41:17 PM
As usual, The Onion nails it in their headline:

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-prevent-says-only-nation-where-regularly-ha-51444?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on October 01, 2015, 09:56:27 PM
That something has to be done or expect the same thing every few months. That even gun owners understand something has to be done.

Nothing can be done. I have never seen a detailed plan to successfully get guns out of the hands of criminals. Every plan put forth by anti-gun advocates is vague and useless. When I see a logical plan put forward on the table I will embrace and support it.

"Gun free zones" are a direct result of anti-gun advocates. How's that working out? Gun free cities have more gun violence than cities where you can buy guns in a vending machine.

Almost all mass murderers appear perfectly normal when they do their gun shopping and many times have an immaculate record.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Yammer on October 01, 2015, 11:38:42 PM
That's what I meant. He utilized the opportunity to blame his opponents.
Without getting into the Gun issue, you are 100% right.

 POTUS utilizes these events for his political agendas.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2015, 12:33:54 AM
POTUS utilizes these events for his political agendas.
What political agenda does he have at this point. You and others spew this BS because you disagree with him.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ShlockDoc on October 02, 2015, 12:37:55 AM
Well this is interesting. I can't imagine the emotions involved so I can't judge the guy, but if he had the training and equipment to stop the massacre and didn't, he shouldn't be so proud in his interviews.

Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Emkay on October 02, 2015, 03:26:27 AM
I'm doubling down on my earlier statement. If Thomas Jefferson were able to see into the future he would have put an expiration date on the 2nd Ammendment.

http://q13fox.com/2015/10/01/reports-shooter-at-oregon-community-college-mutiple-fatalities-reported/

Sorry gun lovers.
What does Jefferson have to do with it?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on October 02, 2015, 08:40:10 AM
What does Jefferson have to do with it?


The "Founding Fathers". The Constitution had several authors, Jefferson was one of them.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: noturbizniss on October 02, 2015, 09:17:59 AM
Well this is interesting. I can't imagine the emotions involved so I can't judge the guy, but if he had the training and equipment to stop the massacre and didn't, he shouldn't be so proud in his interviews.

From the twitter feed there are implcations he was in the area, not near the active shooter. If that's the case then he woul dbe an idiot to go looking to be a hero.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: jaywhy on October 02, 2015, 01:08:09 PM
Well this is interesting. I can't imagine the emotions involved so I can't judge the guy, but if he had the training and equipment to stop the massacre and didn't, he shouldn't be so proud in his interviews.

The facts on that are very sparse but it seems he did the right thing.
If he wasn't anywhere near the shooter, it would be a very bad idea to go looking for him especially once SWAT had already responded. He could easily have been mistaken as the shooter and targeted by SWAT.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: henche on October 02, 2015, 01:14:11 PM
The facts on that are very sparse but it seems he did the right thing.
If he wasn't anywhere near the shooter, it would be a very bad idea to go looking for him especially once SWAT had already responded. He could easily have been mistaken as the shooter and targeted by SWAT.

Yeah, I doubt he thought of that excuse until afterwards.  At the time, I bet he only thought he didn't want to get shot by the shooter.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2015, 01:16:16 PM
So much for arming citizens to stop gun violence.  ::)
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: henche on October 02, 2015, 01:17:58 PM
So much for arming citizens to stop gun violence.  ::)

Nobody said to arm liberals. Now arming the ex-military dude who was shot 7 times trying to tackle the shooter, that may have been a good idea.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: jaywhy on October 02, 2015, 01:21:20 PM
So much for arming citizens to stop gun violence.  ::)
I don't think that defeats the argument.
I imagine if him and his group of CCW vets were in the same building as the shooter, the outcome would've been different.
It's just stupid for a CCW holder to go looking for an heavily armed active shooter with SWAT already deploying.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2015, 01:23:12 PM
Nobody said to arm liberals.
So now it is the liberals carrying concealed guns? That is the problem with you guys. You can never get your story straight.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: jj1000 on October 02, 2015, 01:24:29 PM
So much for arming citizens to stop gun violence.  ::)
The problem was there weren't enough armed.

#AGunInEveryHand
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2015, 01:26:33 PM
It's just stupid for a CCW holder to go looking for an heavily armed active shooter with SWAT already deploying.
The so called active shooter was at such a disadvantage it is laughable.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2015, 01:27:42 PM
#AGunInEveryHand
Until you pull one of your stunts to cut someone off.  :P
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: jj1000 on October 02, 2015, 01:38:04 PM
Until you pull one of your stunts to cut someone off.  :P
Ha!
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Achas Veachas on October 02, 2015, 03:01:42 PM
That's what I meant. He utilized the opportunity to blame his opponents.
http://www.theonion.com/article/man-cant-believe-obama-would-use-tragedy-push-anti-51455?
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: ADG on November 10, 2015, 10:07:41 AM
I have to figure out the process first. There is no point in applying just to get denied. I was going to apply in NJ (I have a NY License) But a friend got denied for having an out of state license. Now it seems that I'll have to go for a NY one, which is much harder.

Do i need a NY DL to apply ( I have one from Cali)?
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: yochiek93 on November 10, 2015, 10:29:10 AM
Another good reason would be security guard you can become a volunteer security guard and get a carry permit
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: ShlockDoc on November 10, 2015, 10:40:11 AM
Another good reason would be security guard you can become a volunteer security guard and get a carry permit

IIRC, the carry permit for armed security guards requires quite a bit of effort to get and does not allow carrying when off duty. 

Source: 
http://www.securityguardtraininghq.com/how-to-become-an-armed-security-guard-in-new-york/
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: yochiek93 on November 10, 2015, 01:02:56 PM


IIRC, the carry permit for armed security guards requires quite a bit of effort to get

Source: 
http://www.securityguardtraininghq.com/how-to-become-an-armed-security-guard-in-new-york/

Even if you have a security guard company?
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: ADG on November 10, 2015, 01:12:02 PM
Do shomrim/shmira get these permits
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: jj1000 on November 10, 2015, 01:18:55 PM
Do shomrim/shmira get these permits

Hopefully not  :-X
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Aaaron on November 10, 2015, 01:53:46 PM
Hopefully not  :-X

+1
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on November 10, 2015, 02:06:16 PM
For those that voted "I plan on getting one eventually" you should have voted no.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: jj1000 on November 10, 2015, 02:17:13 PM
For those that voted "I plan on getting one eventually" you should have voted no.
Why?
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Yehuda25 on November 10, 2015, 02:26:43 PM
Why?
+1 ??
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on November 10, 2015, 02:31:27 PM
Why?
Most likely not going to happen. If I had a penny every time I heard that I would ...
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: jj1000 on November 10, 2015, 02:41:34 PM
Most likely not going to happen. If I had a penny every time I heard that I would ...
Fun fact for you. 100% of gun owners used to not own guns.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Aaaron on November 10, 2015, 02:48:49 PM
Fun fact for you. 100% of gun owners used to not own guns.

Not completely accurate.  I've written gun trusts where unborn children are made beneficiaries upon birth  :)   Obviously they're held by a trustee until reaching legal age but they're still an owner.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on November 10, 2015, 02:58:16 PM
Fun fact for you. 100% of gun owners used to not own guns.
...and 99.9% of them never said I will eventually get a gun, they just did it.  :P
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: ADG on November 10, 2015, 03:10:05 PM
I Hate guns (because i held one for 3 years in the IDF) But i am now considering it being that Jews have turned into legitimate targets around the world.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: yochiek93 on November 10, 2015, 04:51:18 PM
I Hate guns (because i held one for 3 years in the IDF) But i am now considering it being that Jews have turned into legitimate targets around the world.
What made you hate guns?
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: ShlockDoc on November 10, 2015, 04:58:44 PM
All I needed to buy here was a fishing permit or a DL. #OOTLife
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: A3 on December 02, 2015, 03:54:21 PM
Bump

Invalid Tweet ID
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on December 02, 2015, 05:58:28 PM
What's strange is, if it turns out to be "domestic terrorism", then there will be major push for gun control, but if it turns out to be Islamic terrorism, the pro-gun advocates will have the upper hand.

In short, Libs are hoping that it's domestic, and Cons are hoping it's Islamic.

Never let a tragedy go to waste...
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Venilla on December 03, 2015, 02:24:56 PM
If Obama would've been president at the 9/11 attack, how long would it take him to decide that it was a terror attack?
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Hirshthg on December 03, 2015, 02:27:54 PM
Selling points isn't allowed so the CC companies are safe.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: churnbabychurn on December 03, 2015, 02:31:17 PM
Selling points isn't allowed so the CC companies are safe.
Typical liberal argument.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: zale on December 03, 2015, 09:58:25 PM
If Obama would've been president at the 9/11 attack, how long would it take him to decide that it was a terror attack?

Come on now, everyone knows that 9/11 was workplace violence.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: David Smith on December 03, 2015, 10:07:50 PM
Selling points isn't allowed so the CC companies are safe.
Huh? I missed that.
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: yuneeq on December 03, 2015, 10:12:40 PM
Come on now, everyone knows that 9/11 was workplace violence.

"Preliminary investigations show that the suspects were pilots, though we are not ruling out the possibility of terrorism."
Title: Re: Ban guns
Post by: Achas Veachas on December 03, 2015, 11:48:00 PM
Come on now, everyone knows that 9/11 was workplace violence.
We clearly need more plane control...
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Dr Moose on January 04, 2016, 10:49:07 AM
If anyone has gone through the process of obtaining a concealed carry permit in Rockland or Orange counties, please PM me.
Title: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chucksterace on May 08, 2016, 08:42:56 PM
I am looking to buy a gun in the next week or so for concealed carry. Does anyone here have an experience or recommendations?

I am looking at either the Springfield XD-S 3.3" Barrel 9MM,
or the Smith and Wesson Shield 9MM.

Please don't make this into if or why I should carry or why not. For that see this thread - http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=23144.300
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: ShlockDoc on May 08, 2016, 08:48:52 PM
I am looking to buy a gun in the next week or so for concealed carry. Does anyone here have an experience or recommendations?

I am looking at either the Springfield XD-S 3.3" Barrel 9MM,
or the Smith and Wesson Shield 9MM.

Please don't make this into if or why I should carry or why not. For that see this thread - http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=23144.300

I carry the Shield every day in the King Tuck holster. It's great, I practice with it regularly and keep it nice and clean. 

The best advice is to go to a range that lends guns and try out as many as you can and see what feels right. I'm super accurate with the Shield as opposed to my first CCW which was the SCCY 9mm. That and the size in my hand made it feel right to me.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Aaaron on May 08, 2016, 08:57:00 PM
I think we discussed this briefly at the Baltimore DO, but I no longer daily carry the Shield. Personally, I'm not a fan of beaver tail safeties on anything other than a 1911 so I don't own a Springfield.

The Shield is a great and reliable piece. Glock fanboys will tell you to check out the 43.

Also, make sure you shoot before you buy.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chucksterace on May 08, 2016, 09:13:16 PM
I think we discussed this briefly at the Baltimore DO, but I no longer daily carry the Shield. Personally, I'm not a fan of beaver tail safeties on anything other than a 1911 so I don't own a Springfield.

The Shield is a great and reliable piece. Glock fanboys will tell you to check out the 43.

Also, make sure you shoot before you buy.

I like the tail safety. Don't mind it.

I do not really like the Glocks. Just didnt like the way they shoot.

My plan is to go to the range, rent both options and shoot with both to see which I like, but also wanted more opinions as well.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: ShlockDoc on May 08, 2016, 09:39:40 PM
I like the tail safety. Don't mind it.

I do not really like the Glocks. Just didnt like the way they shoot.

My plan is to go to the range, rent both options and shoot with both to see which I like, but also wanted more opinions as well.

I never have the safety engaged when carrying the shield, it would just be a waste of time to disengage if needed.  I do not have a round in the chamber. That's safety enough for me...
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chucksterace on May 08, 2016, 09:41:18 PM
I never have the safety engaged when carrying the shield, it would just be a waste of time to disengage if needed.  I do not have a round in the chamber. That's safety enough for me...

The S&W I would get is the one without the thumb safety anyways.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Aaaron on May 08, 2016, 09:47:59 PM
I never have the safety engaged when carrying the shield, it would just be a waste of time to disengage if needed.  I do not have a round in the chamber. That's safety enough for me...

It's a waste of time to flick off the safety but not to chamber a round?

I personally carry with no safety and one in the chamber, as do most of the people I know.

ETA:  Chuck, are you set on a small single stack?  I switched because I wanted more than 7 rounds.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chucksterace on May 08, 2016, 09:53:12 PM
It's a waste of time to flick off the safety but not to chamber a round?

I personally carry with no safety and one in the chamber, as do most of the people I know.

ETA:  Chuck, are you set on a small single stack?  I switched because I wanted more than 7 rounds.

I'm not set on it, but for everyday carry I think 7 should be enough, plus might carry an extra clip as well.

I won't keep one chambered (at least in the beginning.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: ShlockDoc on May 08, 2016, 09:56:59 PM
It's a waste of time to flick off the safety but not to chamber a round?

I personally carry with no safety and one in the chamber, as do most of the people I know.

ETA:  Chuck, are you set on a small single stack?  I switched because I wanted more than 7 rounds.

The training I've done and practice loads the round as part of the draw from the holster.  I think that carrying with a round in chamber detracts from the safety of your surrounding instead of contributes to it, which is contrary to the whole point of carrying.  An accidental discharge is way more likely than an event where the chambering time makes a difference. Just my opinion, I know some disagree.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: ShlockDoc on May 08, 2016, 09:58:03 PM
I'm not set on it, but for everyday carry I think 7 should be enough, plus might carry an extra clip magazine as well.

I won't keep one chambered (at least in the beginning.

FTFY.  You'll want to get that right when talking to gun folks...
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: MoGro17 on May 08, 2016, 10:02:05 PM
Hijacked thread alert!!
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: MoGro17 on May 08, 2016, 10:03:28 PM
OP, are you considering other guns?
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: MoGro17 on May 08, 2016, 10:04:41 PM
Do you have a budget in mind? A style of gun (1911, revolver, etc)?
I'm assuming you like 9mm and that you like the short barrels but if you're considering open your horizons...
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chucksterace on May 08, 2016, 10:12:05 PM
Do you have a budget in mind? A style of gun (1911, revolver, etc)?
I'm assuming you like 9mm and that you like the short barrels but if you're considering open your horizons...

Right now just these two. Looking for something compact and good for concealed carry.

In the future I would look for something bigger.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: MoGro17 on May 08, 2016, 10:13:48 PM
Ok then in that case, I've heard glowing feedback from friends with the small Springfield. My 2˘
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: MoGro17 on May 08, 2016, 10:14:32 PM
Also, a snub .38 special revolver is very popular for ccw
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chucksterace on May 08, 2016, 10:15:27 PM
Also, a snub .38 special revolver is very popular for ccw

Don't want a revolver. Thanks though.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: MoGro17 on May 08, 2016, 10:24:04 PM
Ok then. I hope we were helpful.

Now.

It's time for the hijack:

What are everyone's loadouts?
My pride and joy is my IWI Tavor. She's a beaut.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Dr Moose on May 13, 2016, 07:50:32 PM


I have to figure out the process first. There is no point in applying just to get denied. I was going to apply in NJ (I have a NY License) But a friend got denied for having an out of state license. Now it seems that I'll have to go for a NY one, which is much harder.
Not sure why your friend had an issue getting a permit. NJ allows non residents to get a firearms ID. (Which basically only allows you to buy a long gun). But you need to be a NJ resident to get a permit for a handgun.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: chevron on May 15, 2016, 12:09:15 AM
every free person should own at least 1 handgun and 1 rifle / shotgun
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: grodnoking on May 15, 2016, 12:14:00 AM
every free person should own at least 1 handgun and 1 rifle / shotgun
And anyone in NMB should have at least 3 of each.
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: chevron on May 15, 2016, 12:28:36 AM
And anyone in NMB should have at least 3 of each.

bh we are safe in nmb, most jews own 1 or 2 guns
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: satturn on May 15, 2016, 11:09:57 AM
while i'm a glockboy- but my friend just bought the s&w and fired 6000 rounds in the first 2 weeks. Loves it- no issues at all. What i find to be the most undervalued discussion when it comes to guns is the type of ammo you choose. A great 9mm ammo will have the stopping power of many mediocre .45 ammo.
And there is no such thing as carrying a gun for self defence that is not fully filled with jhp. Additionally get some +p or +p+ and practice so you get used to the extra recoil. But this is going to give you the stopping power that is needed. Here in Israel we unfortunately have many incidents that multiple shots were fired at terrorists but he still kept attacking. 
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: jaywhy on May 15, 2016, 12:08:34 PM
Can't go wrong with a Springfield, Shield or any Glock.
The most important thing is to NEVER buy a gun you haven't shot at least 50-100 rounds through.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: jaywhy on May 15, 2016, 12:09:52 PM
Ok then. I hope we were helpful.

Now.

It's time for the hijack:

What are everyone's loadouts?
My pride and joy is my IWI Tavor. She's a beaut.
Great gun but very overpriced for what you're getting. You can build a much better AR for 2/3rd the cost of a stock Tavor.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 16, 2016, 02:51:15 AM
I personally carry with no safety and one in the chamber, as do most of the people I know.
You and most people you know you should not own guns.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 16, 2016, 02:54:15 AM
OP how much are you looking to spend. You interested in a SW39 customized by Devel?
https://www.google.com/search?q=s%26w+model+39+customized+by+devel&biw=1600&bih=817&tbm=isch&imgil=wMGi2vo6R_7e3M%253A%253BnL_7xTQyajw4dM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.yankeegunnuts.com%25252F2011%25252F05%25252F01%25252Fahead-of-their-time-asp-devel-modifications-to-smith-wesson-pistols%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=wMGi2vo6R_7e3M%253A%252CnL_7xTQyajw4dM%252C_&usg=__n6A73iqix24DegIrMJbNOU6rhoo%3D&ved=0ahUKEwiDpf7-gN7MAhXJYyYKHWX1ABEQyjcIJw&ei=E245V8PPGMnHmQHl6oOIAQ#imgrc=wMGi2vo6R_7e3M%3A
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: bestwatchman on May 16, 2016, 06:22:47 AM
my sub-compacts were
kahr cw-9 - serves its purpose
kimber solo cdp - gorgeous and great for pocket carry
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: jj1000 on May 16, 2016, 10:03:28 AM
@Chuck if you decide on the Springfield this may be the best price you'll find http://www.gunbuyer.com/p-53941-springfield-xds-9mm-essentials-33-barrel-black-8rd.aspx

A while ago they had a MIR for 4 free mags so look around for MIR's when you are ready to buy.

Although you may find a larger gun isn't that much harder to conceal and your accuracy is greatly increased. Something to try if you'd like... I was shooting the XDS 9mm and had decent accuracy then shot a PPQ 9mm and my accuracy went up like crazy, so if you can conceal it I'd recommend trying a bugger gun. Plus 17 bullets is far better than 8...
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Aaaron on May 16, 2016, 11:04:14 AM
You and most people you know you should not own guns.

Ok.  ::)
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Freddie on May 16, 2016, 11:30:31 AM
I'm curious what the oilem here thinks about how old you would let a son or a daughter start learning to shoot. Different for boys and girls?

Oh, and the reason I am posting on this thread is because I am curious what kind of gun you would start a kid with. Obviously it cannot be something that will fly out of his hand. I also have a feeling that nobody should fire a weapon that they themselves don't know how to take care of.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: grodnoking on May 16, 2016, 11:37:03 AM
I'm curious what the oilem here thinks about how old you would let a son or a daughter start learning to shoot. Different for boys and girls?

Oh, and the reason I am posting on this thread is because I am curious what kind of gun you would start a kid with. Obviously it cannot be something that will fly out of his hand. I also have a feeling that nobody should fire a weapon that they themselves don't know how to take care of.
Never to early to start. My grandfather taught my mother at 5 years old. Personally I started with a air powered (but still pretty powerful) revolver.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 16, 2016, 11:53:23 AM
I'm curious what the oilem here thinks about how old you would let a son or a daughter start learning to shoot. Different for boys and girls?

Oh, and the reason I am posting on this thread is because I am curious what kind of gun you would start a kid with. Obviously it cannot be something that will fly out of his hand. I also have a feeling that nobody should fire a weapon that they themselves don't know how to take care of.
Start early and you can always use a .22
Don't worry about flying out of their hands. DW is not that strong and shoots a SW629 like it was a .22
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 16, 2016, 11:55:57 AM
Plus 17 bullets is far better than 8...
What the hell are you guys shooting at? Maybe rename this thread "members that should not own a gun."  :P
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: jj1000 on May 16, 2016, 12:00:02 PM
What the hell are you guys shooting at? Maybe rename this thread "members that should not own a gun."  :P
Glad you decided what is right and wrong and who the constitution applies to. Your comments here are ridiculous.

How many people do you plan on mugging you? Do you know it will just be 1, 2, or 3? Do you know the accuracy of a trained police officer in a real life shootout? With 8 bullets maybe 1 hits the mark...

Seriously statistically a police office will hit his mark about 1.5 times with 8 shots in a shootout. So run your logic by me one more time.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 16, 2016, 12:09:29 PM
Of course my comments are ridicules. Coming from someone who needs 17 shots I will consider the source.  ;)
A police shooting and a mugging are two different things. If someone try's and mug a police officer and he misses then he should not own a gun.
Out of curiosity how many hours/courses of self defensive training with a firearm have you had?
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: jj1000 on May 16, 2016, 12:12:48 PM
Out of curiosity how many hours/courses of self defensive training with a firearm have you had?
I am not the one telling people who should and should not own a gun. I believe in the constitution...

You casually avoided all of my points, and asked an irrelevant question.

So the only reason you are carrying is to protect you from one person or two people mugging you? But if there are 4 muggers, or it's a shootout you are in middle of, or a terrorist attack etc... you don't care to be prepared?

I'm not saying everyone needs 17 bullets, I'm saying all things equal someone who has 17 is better off than someone with 8 in many cases. Not sure how you can argue with that.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Aaaron on May 16, 2016, 03:00:14 PM
Out of curiosity how many hours/courses of self defensive training with a firearm have you had?

Hundreds, with tens of thousands of rounds down the pipe.

I'm still curious what trained professional taught you not to keep one in the chamber for your daily carry.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chucksterace on May 16, 2016, 04:03:46 PM
Status update. Going with the Springfield XD mod 2.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Aaaron on May 16, 2016, 04:30:14 PM
Status update. Going with the Springfield XD mod 2.

Nice.  Which barrel?

Have you picked out some holsters yet?
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 16, 2016, 05:09:38 PM
I'm still curious what trained professional taught you not to keep one in the chamber for your daily carry.
Where did I say that?
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: lfas25 on May 16, 2016, 05:10:40 PM
Glad you decided what is right and wrong and who the constitution applies to. Your comments here are ridiculous.

How many people do you plan on mugging you? Do you know it will just be 1, 2, or 3? Do you know the accuracy of a trained police officer in a real life shootout? With 8 bullets maybe 1 hits the mark...

Seriously statistically a police office will hit his mark about 1.5 times with 8 shots in a shootout. So run your logic by me one more time.

Don't go the police officer route...
Most cops are not a good shot... Unless they are on a specialized sniper or swat team then they may be better, but for the most part cops have horrible aim.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 16, 2016, 05:18:17 PM
I am not the one telling people who should and should not own a gun. I believe in the constitution...

You casually avoided all of my points, and asked an irrelevant question.

So the only reason you are carrying is to protect you from one person or two people mugging you? But if there are 4 muggers, or it's a shootout you are in middle of, or a terrorist attack etc... you don't care to be prepared?

I'm not saying everyone needs 17 bullets, I'm saying all things equal someone who has 17 is better off than someone with 8 in many cases. Not sure how you can argue with that.
I carry for protection. I can't envision being in a shoot out or a terrorist attack. I do have other guns for those situations.

Lets address your mugging situation. Lets say you are attacked by four muggers. If they all have guns no amount of bullets will help you out. Lets say they all have knives. If you are forced to shoot the first one then probably one of two things will happen. The other three will run away or the other three will also attack you. Either way you don't need 17 rounds.

Just because you have a right to own a gun doesn't mean everyone should.

Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 16, 2016, 05:20:33 PM
Don't go the police officer route...
Most cops are not a good shot... Unless they are on a specialized sniper or swat team then they may be better, but for the most part cops have horrible aim.
He is comparing shootout situations with muggings that take place at close range. No comparison between the two of them.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Aaaron on May 16, 2016, 06:04:03 PM
Where did I say that?

You stated that I and the people I know shouldn't carry because we keep one in the chamber. The implication being that you're well-trained in proper carry methods and etiquette. I was just wondering where you got the training.

To clarify, everyone I've trained with is either current or ex LEO/military and every single one says to keep one in the chamber and leave the safety off. Or better yet, don't buy a carry gun with an external safety.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 16, 2016, 06:21:47 PM
You assumed I meant that instead of asking me. The part I disagree with you is the part about the safety because I assumed everyone you know did not have hours of professional training. New school says you don't need to keep the safety on because in the heat of battle you might forget about it. I am old school and say 100% BS.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chucksterace on May 16, 2016, 07:07:43 PM
Nice.  Which barrel?

Have you picked out some holsters yet?

3" Barrel. Looking at the Blackhawk Sherpa holster.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chevron on May 16, 2016, 09:17:59 PM
Generally people carry guns because of UNKNOWN dangers.. anything from the living dead to a chinese invasion to a mob or a terrorist attack etc

You could get lost or car breaks down and attacked by 1 or 2 thugs and more show up

A terror attack is sadly a real danger

Being attacked by a dog / dogs could require using a lot of bullets

Who cares why ? whatever makes you feel safe and is legal.. and your pants dont fall down WTF do I care what people carry.

I carry the threat of swift justice and holly hell.. No guns or me till I get surgery on my hand, I cant draw well etc

I'm a 1911 type person with pure .45 firepower truth is I cant even remember the ballistics and velocity on the grain and FPS

Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: ShlockDoc on May 16, 2016, 10:45:54 PM
I am not the one telling people who should and should not own a gun. I believe in the constitution...

The Constitution does not say that everyone should own a gun. It doesn't even say that everyone can.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: grodnoking on May 16, 2016, 11:32:23 PM
The Constitution does not say that everyone should own a gun. It doesn't even say that everyone can.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chevron on May 17, 2016, 12:08:39 AM
The Constitution does not say that everyone should own a gun. It doesn't even say that everyone can.

read the federalist and anti federalist papers
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: afro on May 17, 2016, 08:03:08 AM
I don't own a gun but me and my rebetzin go shooting often. I would get a gun as I"m petrified of a "Walking Dead" matzav.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: ShlockDoc on May 17, 2016, 08:04:51 AM
read the federalist and anti federalist papers

Which one of those is the constitution?
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: ShlockDoc on May 17, 2016, 08:07:46 AM
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Which part of that says everyone should own a gun?
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: jj1000 on May 17, 2016, 08:55:13 AM
Which part of that says everyone should own a gun?
Who said it does? All I said is the constitution doesn't say if you have a 17 bullet capacity handgun or carry with one in the chamber and no safety you can still own a gun...

And what Chevron said is exactly my point, many people carry to be prepared. Just because you don't see yourself in a terrorist attack doesn't mean there is any reason not to be prepared for one, etc.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 17, 2016, 10:25:52 AM
And what Chevron said is exactly my point, many people carry to be prepared. Just because you don't see yourself in a terrorist attack doesn't mean there is any reason not to be prepared for one, etc.
You are going to stop a terrorist attack with 17 bullets? Didn't know it was that simple. You have a better chance of shooting yourself because you carry with the safety off.  :P
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chevron on May 17, 2016, 11:09:36 AM
You are going to stop a terrorist attack with 17 bullets? Didn't know it was that simple. You have a better chance of shooting yourself because you carry with the safety off.  :P


People like you have been scoffing at me for years, the terminology for this is an "Adam katan"

I dont think one should carry round chambered safety off, the only way i'd do this is using a 1911 depressed hammer method, with enough training one should be able to draw, flip the safety and fire.. maybe look in to an extended safety or an ambi safety if your a lefty like myself.

However, making one valid point and overall laytzanus on a very serious topic does not mean if the naked emperor wears a hat, he becomes clothed... if you can in good faith mock terror attacks and prevention of it, your a clown.

All statistics show that people on the spot in the area at the time of any shooting are the best option to end the attacks... unless maybe some complex hostage or bomb situation I dunno.

Look up the stats but:
most mass shootings are already over by the time the police come
in israel, it is armed civilians that stop or prevent terror attacks and that is with even a large police and army presence in the street.

Lets say God forbid there is a terror attack with a few terrorists and some AK47's etc by he time someone calls 911, the police respond, locate the shooters and eliminate them? probably over 500 round  would have been dispensed by the terrorists

Now, a person on the spot would be in position to begin firing right away, if you got a good spot, took a good shot and knocked one guy out, chances are the rest of the rounds in your mag would be scattered unless you were very disciplined and accurate to double tap each terrorist in successive motion which isnt how things go usually people are so adrenaline fueled even with an 8 or 10 lb trigger pull youd probably waste your ammo in fear and nervousness and fear causes people to shoot

I think this is a concern regarding innocent bystanders but unless your wildly shooting your probably not going to hit people your not pointing at and any ways diverting terrorists fire is going to suck if you dont have good covet but help others flee etc

I lived in chevron, I know a thing or 2 about terror attacks and shootings etc it doesnt work like in movies
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 17, 2016, 11:26:02 AM
OK did a quick Google search and didn't find one terrorist attack stopped in the US by someone carrying a concealed weapon that held 17 shots.  :)

Lets get serious here for a moment. Most of this thread sounds like a bunch of teenage boys drooling over some hot blond. They need to crawl before they learn to walk.

I am guessing the OP does not own a gun. Become familiar with what you want to buy before buying it. Then make damn sure you are trained properly before you carry.

Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chevron on May 17, 2016, 11:29:24 AM
Which one of those is the constitution?

The argument has been what the framers meant in the 2nd amendment, whether it was for civilian rights to keep and bear arms or the oft but incorrect argument that it was intended for a well regulated militia

In the Federalist papers and Anti Federalist papers there are discussions and debates regarding the federal governments powers and fear of an over encroaching government.

The 2nd was codified in the constitution to prevent government tyranny and abuse of powers that would inhibit on man's freedom.

The right to self defense against an attacker was not the intent of the 2nd, that is another God given right included with Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chevron on May 17, 2016, 11:37:12 AM
OK did a quick Google search and didn't find one terrorist attack stopped in the US by someone carrying a concealed weapon that held 17 shots.  :)

Lets get serious here for a moment. Most of this thread sounds like a bunch of teenage boys drooling over some hot blond. They need to crawl before they learn to walk.

I am guessing the OP does not own a gun. Become familiar with what you want to buy before buying it. Then make damn sure you are trained properly before you carry.

That is insulting and frankly out of line.. firstly this is the USA, if you want to carry 17 rounds why is it your business ? 2nd why do security guards in israel carry backup mags ?

3rd, terror attacks in the USA where guns are relevant have not been an issue BH but you fail to understand WHY people carry.. and you imply we are drooling over some hot blonde ?

Whatever makes him feel better.. I never carried a stacked mag and was content with 8 rounds of .45 but that doesnt mean I sm going to preach.

Maybe I should carry my Remington SW 29 .44 MAGNUM? just to be sure I really get the job done.. or I should just conceal my Saiga 12 in my pants with a 10 round mag of 12 gauge 9 ball scattershot ?
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: jj1000 on May 17, 2016, 11:43:08 AM
OK did a quick Google search and didn't find one terrorist attack stopped in the US by someone carrying a concealed weapon that held 17 shots.  :)

Lets get serious here for a moment. Most of this thread sounds like a bunch of teenage boys drooling over some hot blond. They need to crawl before they learn to walk.

I am guessing the OP does not own a gun. Become familiar with what you want to buy before buying it. Then make damn sure you are trained properly before you carry.


So let's get down to the issue at hand, you think you know more about guns than everyone here and therefore your ridiculous assertions are correct and everyone else is incorrect.

Some reading for you:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/03/why_does_anyone_need_a_high-capacity_magazine.html
http://www.offthegridnews.com/self-defense/this-is-why-your-stockpile-needs-high-capacity-magazines/
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/magazine-capacity/

I have no problem with a person carrying 5, 10 or 15 bullets. I'm not claiming to be a gun expert. In my original post I said I have more control on a larger carry, like the PPQ with a double stack magazine. If you want to get into who knows more and who's a better shot the person who's PPQ I used, it is his every day carry and he is ex-military, a gold medalist in state wide shooting contests, as well as many other awards. So how about taking it easy let people do what they are comfortable with and stop acting so elitist because you think you know more than everyone.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chevron on May 17, 2016, 11:46:06 AM
because gun purists are elitists and are bashing rambo types they feel is wrong.. but I dont agree
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: jj1000 on May 17, 2016, 11:49:13 AM
because gun purists are elitists and are bashing rambo types they feel is wrong.. but I dont agree
At least we are on the same page. So when's the next wine DO? I got a sick deal on these glasses I have to break in ;) http://www.amazon.com/Riedel-5416-44-Vinum-Tasting/dp/B001UE7HYM
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 17, 2016, 11:56:16 AM
You are missing the point. This isn't about bashing anyone. You need to learn about guns before you decide to buy one and you need a lot of training before you carry. You are not buying a car here. This idea if it makes you feel good then go for it is ...

Carrying a gun is a serious decision. Someone that buys a gun with a 17 shot mag and a 3" barrel tells me a lot about that person.

We all have opinions and I am expressing mine.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: jj1000 on May 17, 2016, 12:07:00 PM
You are missing the point. This isn't about bashing anyone. You need to learn about guns before you decide to buy one and you need a lot of training before you carry. You are not buying a car here. This idea if it makes you feel good then go for it is ...

Carrying a gun is a serious decision. Someone that buys a gun with a 17 shot mag and a 3" barrel tells me a lot about that person.

We all have opinions and I am expressing mine.
Ok, well my opinion is you sound elitist and entitled. And only your opinion matters even if other experts and statistics disagree with yours.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 17, 2016, 12:16:14 PM
There is a big discussion going on about safety or no safety when carrying between what you call elitist. If someone says that don't have the safety on when they carry I would ask why not. If there answer is because that is my choice that should tell you something about that person. If they link to articles instead of answering that again will tell you something about that person.

I know a ton of people that carry and don't know the first thing about guns. It is there right to carry but do you think they should? I say no and you seem to say it is none of my business.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: ShlockDoc on May 17, 2016, 12:18:06 PM
To me, the purpose of carrying a CCW at its core is to reduce the risk of your environment.

 Therefore two things need to be evaluated. Your environment and you.  If you live is Chevron, the risk is different than Brooklyn.

If you are a LEO with significant training and practice, carrying with a round in the chamber may reduce the risk of your environment. If you have basic level training and do not practice regularly you are increasing the risk of your environment.  In fact if you don't have significant training and regular practice and you CCW,  you yourself may be increasing the risk of the environment irrespective of whether there's a round in the chamber.



Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: CS1 on May 17, 2016, 12:24:18 PM
We went to target shooting on chol hamoed and tried out some Glocks, Berettas and a couple revolvers.
A good beretta with accurate aim goes a long way. Large capacity sounds good -- as long as it's not at risk of being taken away during a situation.
Keeping the safety on at all times would seem like common sense, especially as the instructor was describing several scenarios to us.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 17, 2016, 12:27:45 PM
The big knock on a manual safety is that in the heat of a battle you might forget about it.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Aaaron on May 17, 2016, 12:28:31 PM
You assumed I meant that instead of asking me. The part I disagree with you is the part about the safety because I assumed everyone you know did not have hours of professional training. New school says you don't need to keep the safety on because in the heat of battle you might forget about it. I am old school and say 100% BS.

I apologize for misunderstanding, but in my opinion you're still incorrect.  There are two issues inherent with an external safety; it's an additional item that requires manipulation, and it's an external protrusion from the firearm.

Again, this is gleaned from immense amounts of training and consulting with people that are well-versed in actually having to use their firearms.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Dr Moose on May 17, 2016, 12:35:38 PM
The big knock on a manual safety is that in the heat of a battle you might forget about it.
If when practicing drawing from the holster and then disengaging the safety, it will just become muscle memory. No?
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: jj1000 on May 17, 2016, 12:37:53 PM
To me, the purpose of carrying a CCW at its core is to reduce the risk of your environment.

 Therefore two things need to be evaluated. Your environment and you.  If you live is Chevron, the risk is different than Brooklyn.

If you are a LEO with significant training and practice, carrying with a round in the chamber may reduce the risk of your environment. If you have basic level training and do not practice regularly you are increasing the risk of your environment.  In fact if you don't have significant training and regular practice and you CCW,  you yourself may be increasing the risk of the environment irrespective of whether there's a round in the chamber.




I agree. And for someone online with knowledge of what the other persons training is or to assume that having a 17 bullet carry means something negative about the person is ignorant and elitist.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 17, 2016, 12:39:26 PM
If when practicing drawing from the holster and then disengaging the safety, it will just become muscle memory. No?
That is the disagreement. Many say even if you practice thousands of times you still can forget when it counts.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: jj1000 on May 17, 2016, 12:41:43 PM
That is the disagreement. Many say even if you practice thousands of times you still can forget when it counts.
Correct. As in how many thousands of time have you done it with a gun in your face?
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 17, 2016, 12:43:15 PM
I agree. And for someone online with knowledge of what the other persons training is or to assume that having a 17 bullet carry means something negative about the person is ignorant and elitist.
Can I get a 17 mag, 3" barrel in full auto?  :)
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 17, 2016, 12:45:19 PM
Correct. As in how many thousands of time have you done it with a gun in your face?
Once with a gun and that was one time to many.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: jj1000 on May 17, 2016, 12:59:20 PM
Can I get a 17 mag, 3" barrel in full auto?  :)
PPQ has a 4" barrel btw and 7.1" OA. :P
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chevron on May 17, 2016, 01:00:06 PM
A revolver has no safety so I dunno, in general i'd carry with safety, I have perfect trigger discipline so that doesnt scare me
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chevron on May 17, 2016, 01:02:37 PM
I think my colt 1911 is 5" barrel, my springfield is smaller.. I need to go gun shopping, always wanted a kimber
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 17, 2016, 01:08:08 PM
My commander is 4.25 barrel and gold cup is 5".

Here is the gun I carry.
https://www.google.com/search?q=s%26w+39+customized+by+devel&biw=1600&bih=817&tbm=isch&imgil=wMGi2vo6R_7e3M%253A%253BnL_7xTQyajw4dM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.yankeegunnuts.com%25252F2011%25252F05%25252F01%25252Fahead-of-their-time-asp-devel-modifications-to-smith-wesson-pistols%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=wMGi2vo6R_7e3M%253A%252CnL_7xTQyajw4dM%252C_&usg=__iwaUxJW48p4clpF1af4_mmcaVOs%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjAnruxzOHMAhWGx4MKHZahAFcQyjcIKg&ei=yU87V4CWCIaPjwSWw4K4BQ#imgrc=wMGi2vo6R_7e3M%3A

Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chevron on May 17, 2016, 01:26:49 PM
my first carry at 2w2 looked like this http://scott-duff.com/P156_Right1.jpg

I was like one of very few frum people carrying back then, my parents were petrified lol I was a fool for carrying a collectors piece *sigh* it was from korea war

My job's over, spent over 10k at the range teaching hundreds to shoot, did 5+ ccw courses with over 100 getting licenses

One day i'll carry again, my brother alwayd carries
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Aaaron on May 17, 2016, 02:03:24 PM
my first carry at 2w2 looked like this http://scott-duff.com/P156_Right1.jpg

I was like one of very few frum people carrying back then, my parents were petrified lol I was a fool for carrying a collectors piece *sigh* it was from korea war

My job's over, spent over 10k at the range teaching hundreds to shoot, did 5+ ccw courses with over 100 getting licenses

One day i'll carry again, my brother alwayd carries

Here's mine:

(http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu313/anaiman/0407151640_zps02klr5wy.jpg) (http://s659.photobucket.com/user/anaiman/media/0407151640_zps02klr5wy.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Myccrabbi on May 17, 2016, 03:49:10 PM
Here's mine:

(http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu313/anaiman/0407151640_zps02klr5wy.jpg) (http://s659.photobucket.com/user/anaiman/media/0407151640_zps02klr5wy.jpg.html)
Did you inherit this gun from a reletive?
Likes kinda old !
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 17, 2016, 03:54:27 PM
Here is one for JJ. Can you tell a difference?
http://www.yankeegunnuts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/devel20-l.jpg
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Aaaron on May 17, 2016, 04:00:17 PM
Did you inherit this gun from a reletive?
Likes kinda old !

Nope, a guy on a local FB group inherited it from his grandfather who brought it back from WWI and he needed some cash.  It's a 1918 German Luger P08.  Not actually my daily carry but I have shot it.

In all seriousness, this is my daily, although I don't usually have the threaded barrel on it.

(http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu313/anaiman/2539b73f-41a3-44bb-b492-9e6251af48a7_zpsf6ibjnze.jpg) (http://s659.photobucket.com/user/anaiman/media/2539b73f-41a3-44bb-b492-9e6251af48a7_zpsf6ibjnze.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: jj1000 on May 17, 2016, 05:12:08 PM
Here is one for JJ. Can you tell a difference?
http://www.yankeegunnuts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/devel20-l.jpg
Looks like an old man gun.

My daily carry
(http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/130273127-660x439.jpg)

;)
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: jj1000 on May 17, 2016, 06:24:49 PM
Good news for NY'ers https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/d-c-must-generally-grant-gun-carry-licenses-to-law-abiding-adults-says-federal-judge/
Title: Re: Gun Ownership
Post by: Aaaron on May 17, 2016, 07:06:26 PM
Good news for NY'ers https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/d-c-must-generally-grant-gun-carry-licenses-to-law-abiding-adults-says-federal-judge/

Nice!  Hopefully that spreads to MD.  Although if M. Garland gets appointed to SCOTUS it's certainly getting reversed.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: grodnoking on May 17, 2016, 08:03:01 PM
Good news for NY'ers https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/d-c-must-generally-grant-gun-carry-licenses-to-law-abiding-adults-says-federal-judge/
Just when I thought I won't be needing one deBlasio came in and ruined everything.
So yes, great news.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chevron on May 17, 2016, 11:49:19 PM
I think gun purists / elitists hurt it for the every day law abiding citizen... I drink better wine than all of ddf combined and I dont shove that sh** down your throat in a snobby way

If your right to bear arms is God given and protected by the constitution, why would it bother you if xyz wanted 17 rounds

ive seen guys in israel with 30 round glock mags.. why cant you live and let live ?

Think its stupid all you want, but to pass judgement on WHO should carry ? sorry I call BS.. you have no right or warrant to decide who should carry... Frankly its unamerican.. voice your opinion under the 1st regarding the 2nd but i'll call you out as a douche and a schmuck

Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chevron on May 18, 2016, 12:01:31 AM
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lt3jOdfH_Qo/hqdefault.jpg

and that with http://store.israeli-weapons.com/media/catalog/product/cache/6/image/0dc2d03fe217f8c83829496872af24a0/4/C/4CF1BB2B2913750A02837307E2336BEB_1.jpg etc

perhaps we should start talking about ammo reloads and if you ammo was not self reloaded etc so on and so forth

btw im more worried about people buying good ammo, cleaning their guns than I am about how big their mag is.

I'm hardcore redneck.. I know, I dont flaunt it... but I learned from a mix of LEO / vets / crazy necks

I can load and reload ammo, I used to be very good at ammo ballistics but I am rusty now, I was very good at gun cleaning etc

My philosophy is, buy clean ammo i.e. not wolf. Clean your gun, shoot decent or better, the best gun is the gun your comfortable with, get a good holster ...

I am not going to sound snobby here.. I go shooting for fun.. I dont remember or care how many times I shot, I dont care for "I shot with LEO" but all my philosophy I preach is from a few active LEO on in very active units, one was combat USMC, the other is on a unit with ICE and the DEA, others are SWAT etc

Self defense is always, throw the rule book out... its like cooking.. recipe's are nice but you need to be realistic .
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chevron on May 18, 2016, 12:05:54 AM
Looks like an old man gun.

My daily carry
(http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/130273127-660x439.jpg)

;)

Where are you concealing that drum mag? fanny pack?
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chevron on May 18, 2016, 08:53:11 AM
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?54844-Do-you-carry-your-1911-in-quot-condition-0-quot/page3

btw condition 0 carry has been debated forever.

something that spilled over from popular culture and I question its need

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_Drill
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Aaaron on May 18, 2016, 09:36:40 AM
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?54844-Do-you-carry-your-1911-in-quot-condition-0-quot/page3

btw condition 0 carry has been debated forever.

something that spilled over from popular culture and I question its need

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_Drill

1911s are a different breed that the striker action DAOs being talked about here.  The trigger pull is much shorter and lighter when cocked.  And the safety is much larger and easier to manipulate.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 18, 2016, 10:02:06 AM
The hate is thread is unbelievable. So I feel someone with little training and knowledge of guns should not be carrying a 17 round, 3" barrel SA. The haters use a defense that it is his right, it makes him feel good, going to stop a terrorist attack and something to do about wine.

Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 18, 2016, 10:08:03 AM
Looks like an old man gun.
I just thought you would appreciate that one more since it holds 13.  :)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: churnbabychurn on May 18, 2016, 10:56:44 AM
every free person should own at least 1 handgun and 1 rifle / shotgun
I should? Why on earth do I need to own a gun??
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chevron on May 18, 2016, 10:58:27 AM
The hate is thread is unbelievable. So I feel someone with little training and knowledge of guns should not be carrying a 17 round, 3" barrel SA. The haters use a defense that it is his right, it makes him feel good, going to stop a terrorist attack and something to do about wine.

Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt

Any one with a little knowledge of WHY we carry guns should not care the least bit.. Its a God given right to be free and protect yourself..

I have a constitutional right to go vote, I dont care who you think I should vote for

If it makes him feel safer let him carry 17 rounds,  I dont understand where the protocol police come from.. let him mount a laser and a flashlight and a suppressor for all I care, he can make it glow in the dark, reflect off the sun, smell like roses and play U2 when he fires

Why do we need 4 gas stations at 1 intersection? because we can! Americahhhhhhhhhhh
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 18, 2016, 11:01:58 AM
Do you care about his safety or safety of others?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on May 18, 2016, 11:12:41 AM
I should? Why on earth do I need to own a gun??
You don't but it my come in handy some day.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: churnbabychurn on May 18, 2016, 11:28:50 AM
You don't but it my come in handy some day.
Will almost certainly not.
Waste of time and money. Plus it's just a huge liability.

But don't wanna hijack the thread... carry on
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: chevron on May 18, 2016, 12:44:28 PM
Will almost certainly not.
Waste of time and money. Plus it's just a huge liability.

But don't wanna hijack the thread... carry on

Firearms are a sound investment if not bought in a bubble, all my guns went up in value and usually they can last 50-100 years
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Aaaron on May 18, 2016, 01:58:04 PM
Do you care about his safety or safety of others?

How does round count factor in to safety?
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 18, 2016, 02:08:04 PM
How does round count factor in to safety?
Using JJ's line of reasoning you can hurt a lot more innocent people with 17 rounds than 7.  :)

It is thought process one uses in picking out a weapon. If that process is flawed then safety is a concern.

Let me make you thing perfectly clear. The OP has every right to purchase any gun he wants. I just hope he becomes extremely familiar with the gun and takes some courses before he decides to carry.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: thaber on May 22, 2016, 06:51:39 PM
http://crownheights.info/crime/533933/arsenal-of-weapons-found-in-crown-heights-apartment/
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: jj1000 on May 22, 2016, 07:56:49 PM
http://crownheights.info/crime/533933/arsenal-of-weapons-found-in-crown-heights-apartment/
Lol, I love how that's an arsenal NYC. Sounds more like a small birthday present in FL to add to the collection.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 23, 2016, 09:04:58 AM
http://crownheights.info/crime/533933/arsenal-of-weapons-found-in-crown-heights-apartment/
Those are some really nice firearms.  :)
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: churnbabychurn on May 23, 2016, 09:28:35 AM
Can someone please explain why anyone would want a revolver instead of a normal semi automatic?
Looks like you have to manually load etc.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on May 23, 2016, 09:51:23 AM
Can someone please explain why anyone would want a revolver instead of a normal semi automatic?
Looks like you have to manually load etc.
If you need 17 shots like some here you will have to reload.  :)
Revolvers have always been more dependable than a SA. What good is 17 shots when it jams on the first shot? Also for the average gun owning American that doesn't take care of their guns a revolver would be a better choice. With all the advances over the years it is debatable if revolvers are still considered more reliable. I will leave that debate to the experts here before I am called more names.  ;)
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: grodnoking on May 23, 2016, 09:53:17 AM
Can someone please explain why anyone would want a revolver instead of a normal semi automatic?
Looks like you have to manually load etc.
The revolver I use is a hybrid, it can shoot pellets & real bullets. When shooting for fun pellets save you money. I dont carry, but maybe if someone likes how it feels...
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: grodnoking on May 23, 2016, 10:02:04 AM
If you need 17 shots like some here you will have to reload.  :)
Revolvers have always been more dependable than a SA. What good is 17 shots when it jams on the first shot? Also for the average gun owning American that doesn't take care of their guns a revolver would be a better choice. With all the advances over the years it is debatable if revolvers are still considered more reliable. I will leave that debate to the experts here before I am called more names.  ;)

The mechanics are definitely simpler and therefore have less things in it to get jammed. But even a simple mugging most people will need more than six shots, unless its just a deterrent.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: ShlockDoc on May 23, 2016, 10:26:51 AM
Can someone please explain why anyone would want a revolver instead of a normal semi automatic?
Looks like you have to manually load etc.

I have a speedloader for my Colt Python.  Although it's not my daily carry, it's a great, reliable gun to own and shoot.  I've won centerfire competitions with it.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: jj1000 on May 23, 2016, 11:35:15 AM
Can someone please explain why anyone would want a revolver instead of a normal semi automatic?
Looks like you have to manually load etc.
Like JayTaz said they are more reliable and some people can't rack the slide of a pistol so they get a revolver...
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: thaber on July 14, 2016, 12:46:16 AM
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-israeli-startup-zore-develops-smart-gun-lock-1001133297
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on July 14, 2016, 07:10:39 AM
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-israeli-startup-zore-develops-smart-gun-lock-1001133297
How does it work?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on July 14, 2016, 09:08:05 AM
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-israeli-startup-zore-develops-smart-gun-lock-1001133297
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/zore-a-new-generation-of-gun-storage--2#/

ETA: I wonder how long the lock holds a charge, but it looks pretty awesome.

ETA 2: Battery lasts for one year and is cheap to replace.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Aaaron on July 14, 2016, 10:02:54 AM
I'm usually not a fan of these kinds of things, but this one seems pretty well done.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Aaaron on July 14, 2016, 10:13:11 AM
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/zore-a-new-generation-of-gun-storage--2#/

ETA: I wonder how long the lock holds a charge, but it looks pretty awesome.

ETA 2: Battery lasts for one year and is cheap to replace.

Over a year, but that would be a huge concern for me.  Needing it and the battery is dead.  They say it's not purely mechanical so without an electric charge you can't remove it.

(https://c1.iggcdn.com/indiegogo-media-prod-cld/image/upload/c_limit,w_620/v1465571945/ZoreTechnical1plus10.6_ek87a3.jpg)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on July 14, 2016, 10:19:45 AM
Over a year, but that would be a huge concern for me.  Needing it and the battery is dead.  They say it's not purely mechanical so without an electric charge you can't remove it.

(https://c1.iggcdn.com/indiegogo-media-prod-cld/image/upload/c_limit,w_620/v1465571945/ZoreTechnical1plus10.6_ek87a3.jpg)
Did you see the video on battery? It notifies you 3 months out...

Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Aaaron on July 14, 2016, 10:22:54 AM
Did you see the video on battery? It notifies you 3 months out...



Pretty clever.  Seems like they thought about everything. 
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on July 14, 2016, 11:41:04 AM
Pretty clever.  Seems like they thought about everything.
Like trying to unlock it when you are under pressure?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Dr Moose on July 14, 2016, 11:45:32 AM
Didn't we already discuss having the safety off while carrying because in the heat of the moment, you'll forget to disengage.

I think when you have a home intruder the same thing applies. No way you'll unlock in the heat of the moment.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: A3 on July 14, 2016, 12:03:33 PM
Didn't we already discuss having the safety off while carrying because in the heat of the moment, you'll forget to disengage.

I think when you have a home intruder the same thing applies. No way you'll unlock in the heat of the moment.
It may be extremely difficult to obtain,
The best thing is to teach yourself to remain calm. If you calm and steady there is no heat of the moment.
Just an extra split second. Which may be to long.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on July 14, 2016, 12:10:41 PM
It may be extremely difficult to obtain,
The best thing is to teach yourself to remain calm. If you calm and steady there is no heat of the moment.
Just an extra split second. Which may be to long.
Isn't this unlock like a combination lock? A lot different than a simple safety.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: henche on July 14, 2016, 12:25:43 PM
It may be extremely difficult to obtain,
The best thing is to teach yourself to remain calm. If you calm and steady there is no heat of the moment.
Just an extra split second. Which may be to long.

+1

If you're going to forget to panic and forget to undo the safety, I don't want to know what else you're going to forget, like making sure the "intruder" is not your kid ch'v'sh getting a drink in the middle of the night.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chucksterace on July 14, 2016, 03:54:29 PM
Status Update: Springfield XD Mod 2 9mm is going awesome.

That is all.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on July 17, 2016, 07:52:34 PM
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cleveland-police-union-calls-for-open-carry-ban-during-gop-convention/ar-BBuqqy6?li=BBnb7Kz
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Myccrabbi on July 18, 2016, 07:39:34 PM
Status Update: Springfield XD Mod 2 9mm is going awesome.

That is all.
Congrats!

As long as it is 9mm, did you consider the Glock 21?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ShlockDoc on July 24, 2016, 11:43:52 AM
Where are good places online to buy ammo? I usually use CTD, Cabelas, and PSA but wanted to see if there were others that you'd recommend.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on July 24, 2016, 11:57:30 AM
Wait for sales at Cabelas and use discounted gift cards.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Aaaron on July 24, 2016, 01:44:12 PM
Freedom Munitions when they offer free shipping.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: chevron on July 25, 2016, 11:36:31 PM
https://www.dillonprecision.com/xl650_8_1_23803.html

Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: chucksterace on July 26, 2016, 03:15:28 AM
I used aimsurplus before.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: MoGro17 on August 10, 2016, 05:27:55 PM
@chevron I saw you mentioned that wolf ammo is bad. What is your opinion on wolf gold 223?
Other friends of mine say it's worlds apart from standard wolf.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Dr Moose on August 22, 2016, 10:23:06 PM
Status update. Going with the Springfield XD mod 2.
Is the 4" barrel too difficult to conceal?
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Dr Moose on August 23, 2016, 12:47:59 PM
I'm unsure what to get. Looking for something to be mainly used at the range, but on occasion, when necessary, could be easily concealed as well.

I was thinking of the Springfield XD-S 3.3" 9mm but it feels too small for my hands. I like the regular XD Mod.2 9mm, but I don't know if it's as easy to conceal.

The Smith and Wesson Shield 9mm felt like it might fit my hand with the 8 round magazine, but I haven't had a chance to shoot it yet.

Any recommendations on what to get?
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: lfas25 on August 23, 2016, 12:50:17 PM
I'm unsure what to get. Looking for something to be mainly used at the range, but on occasion, when necessary, could be easily concealed as well.

I was thinking of the Springfield XD-S 3.3" 9mm but it feels too small for my hands. I like the regular XD Mod.2 9mm, but I don't know if it's as easy to conceal.

The Smith and Wesson Shield 9mm felt like it might fit my hand with the 8 round magazine, but I haven't had a chance to shoot it yet.

Any recommendations on what to get?
Get 2 guns
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 23, 2016, 12:50:38 PM
I bought a Colt Python about 12 years ago and recently discovered that it was discontinued and is now a collector's item.  A dealer at a local show offered me $3,500 but recommended that I not sell it to him because the price is only going up.  So I unfortunately need to retire that gun from my range rotation and get it polished and cased.  So I'm looking for a different 357 Magnum revolver to replace it.  Any recommendations?
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 23, 2016, 12:52:21 PM
I'm unsure what to get. Looking for something to be mainly used at the range, but on occasion, when necessary, could be easily concealed as well.

I was thinking of the Springfield XD-S 3.3" 9mm but it feels too small for my hands. I like the regular XD Mod.2 9mm, but I don't know if it's as easy to conceal.

The Smith and Wesson Shield 9mm felt like it might fit my hand with the 8 round magazine, but I haven't had a chance to shoot it yet.

Any recommendations on what to get?

I carry the shield in a King Tuck holster, it's perfect for me.  But go to a range and try different models to see what you like.  It doesn't make sense to buy before trying...
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Dr Moose on August 23, 2016, 12:54:32 PM
I carry the shield in a King Tuck holster, it's perfect for me.  But go to a range and try different models to see what you like.  It doesn't make sense to buy before trying...
In NY you can't try before you buy. I need to go to Jersey to try them out.

The range I go to in NJ doesn't have them all.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 23, 2016, 01:19:07 PM
The range I go to in NJ doesn't have them all.

Go to a different range.  Or come visit us OOT folk...
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on August 23, 2016, 07:05:16 PM
I bought a Colt Python about 12 years ago and recently discovered that it was discontinued and is now a collector's item.  A dealer at a local show offered me $3,500 but recommended that I not sell it to him because the price is only going up.  So I unfortunately need to retire that gun from my range rotation and get it polished and cased.  So I'm looking for a different 357 Magnum revolver to replace it.  Any recommendations?
I have a NIB 6" BSS one.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 23, 2016, 07:24:58 PM
I have a NIB 6" BSS one.

What year?
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on August 23, 2016, 07:52:45 PM
What year?
I just took it out of the box for the first time in about 20 years. Bought in 83 or 84 and by the serial number T16499 it looks like manufactured in 83.
Model I3060
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: yakrot on August 23, 2016, 10:51:58 PM
I just took it out of the box for the first time in about 20 years. Bought in 83 or 84 and by the serial number T16499 it looks like manufactured in 83.
Model I3060
POIDH
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on August 24, 2016, 01:47:53 PM
POIDH
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160824/578587daf96885abab7a6023e57b7b1d.jpg)
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: yakrot on August 24, 2016, 02:05:58 PM
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160824/578587daf96885abab7a6023e57b7b1d.jpg)
Now I believe you have the box
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 24, 2016, 02:07:17 PM
You can probably get a few thousand dollars for that now.  I'm missing my original box so will get dinged a few hundred bucks but the price for this keeps going up and up.  Look at this auction that just finished:

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/576278116
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chucksterace on August 24, 2016, 02:11:37 PM
I'm unsure what to get. Looking for something to be mainly used at the range, but on occasion, when necessary, could be easily concealed as well.

I was thinking of the Springfield XD-S 3.3" 9mm but it feels too small for my hands. I like the regular XD Mod.2 9mm, but I don't know if it's as easy to conceal.

The Smith and Wesson Shield 9mm felt like it might fit my hand with the 8 round magazine, but I haven't had a chance to shoot it yet.

Any recommendations on what to get?

I have the Mod 2 9mm. I carry it everyday concealed with the extended clip. 16 rounds. I use the aliengear IWB holster. Its comfortable and works really well.

I cant complain. Happy I didnt go with the smaller gun and got this one.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 24, 2016, 02:14:05 PM
I have the Mod 2 9mm. I carry it everyday concealed with the extended clip. 16 rounds. I use the aliengear IWB holster. Its comfortable and works really well.

I cant complain. Happy I didnt go with the smaller gun and got this one.

Is that single or double stack?  Does the extended magazine stick out in your shirt?
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chucksterace on August 24, 2016, 02:16:02 PM
Is that single or double stack?  Does the extended magazine stick out in your shirt?

Double stack. The Springfield XDS is the single stack.
Does not stick out and is concealed very nicely. Even get to tuck in dress shirts and still conceals it very well.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 24, 2016, 02:19:26 PM
Double stack. The Springfield XDS is the single stack.
Does not stick out and is concealed very nicely. Even get to tuck in dress shirts and still conceals it very well.

Sounds neat.  I'll try it on Sunday when I'm at the range. 
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 24, 2016, 02:21:52 PM
I'm looking to sell a SCCY CPX-1 9mm pistol.  I will sell it with an IWB custom holster for $200.  Must be shipped to an FFL. 

http://www.sccy.com/product/cpx-1-tt-9mm/

Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Dr Moose on August 24, 2016, 02:22:31 PM
I have the Mod 2 9mm. I carry it everyday concealed with the extended clip. 16 rounds. I use the aliengear IWB holster. Its comfortable and works really well.

I cant complain. Happy I didnt go with the smaller gun and got this one.
The issue is, in NY can't have more than 10 round magazine.

The guy I was speaking to at a store I went to, was telling me that having a pinkie off the grip does not affect your shot. Is that correct? 
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: chucksterace on August 24, 2016, 02:26:26 PM
The issue is, in NY can't have more than 10 round magazine.

The guy I was speaking to at a store I went to, was telling me that having a pinkie off the grip does not affect your shot. Is that correct?

I think it depends on the person. For m, I have a better grip with it on, but not everyone is the same and some might not notice it.
best course of action would be as mentioned to go to the range and try it there.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: ShlockDoc on August 24, 2016, 02:27:10 PM
The guy I was speaking to at a store I went to, was telling me that having a pinkie off the grip does not affect your shot. Is that correct?

It's subjective, everyone has different things they are comfortable with.  I use magazines that have pinky extensions.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on August 24, 2016, 02:27:55 PM
You can probably get a few thousand dollars for that now.  I'm missing my original box so will get dinged a few hundred bucks but the price for this keeps going up and up.  Look at this auction that just finished:

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/576278116
That one is used also. Still not going to sell.
Wonder how much my Uzi NIB is worth?
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: Aaaron on August 24, 2016, 08:40:40 PM
That one is used also. Still not going to sell.
Wonder how much my Uzi NIB is worth?

Last I was looking they were north of 12-14k.
Title: Re: Gun Recommendations
Post by: JTZ on August 25, 2016, 01:18:52 AM
Last I was looking they were north of 12-14k.
This is the semi-auto US version from around 1983-84
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on September 15, 2016, 01:05:00 PM
Good deal on an AR if anyone is in the market Ruger AR-556 Semiautomatic Tactical Rifle for $567 after code 16STALKUP http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=1932150&avad=48247_fc3756e3&WT.mc_id=al35987&Subid1=SID&subacctid=35987&subacctname=35987 (if you got GC's from the eBay deal this week it's only $464 which is an amazing price)

Main site this? :)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Aaaron on September 15, 2016, 01:19:08 PM
Honestly not such an amazing deal, and they won't ship to many states.  But main site it for the story :)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on September 15, 2016, 01:23:34 PM
Honestly not such an amazing deal, and they won't ship to many states.  But main site it for the story :)
With the GC if you have it's an amazing deal, never seen better. And in this price range model $567 is good, not amazing but I don't see it for lower and the prices will likely be going up the next couple months and if Hilary wins this will be a bargain...

Also if you have a Cabela's in your area you can do in-store pickup and switch payment to a GC you can order now so you'll only pay the $464.

GC link. (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5574852865&toolid=10001&campid=5336385870&customid=&icep_item=291868598448&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg)

Additionally some ebay account have 10% back today, so that would make the total around $360, tell me that's not hot.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: MosheD on September 15, 2016, 02:12:12 PM
Good deal on an AR if anyone is in the market Ruger AR-556 Semiautomatic Tactical Rifle for $567 after code 16STALKUP http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=1932150&avad=48247_fc3756e3&WT.mc_id=al35987&Subid1=SID&subacctid=35987&subacctname=35987 (if you got GC's from the eBay deal this week it's only $464 which is an amazing price)

Main site this? :)
PLEASE!!!
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Dr Moose on September 15, 2016, 02:16:15 PM


Main site this? :)
I dare you. 
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Iz on September 15, 2016, 02:20:35 PM
PLEASE!!!
This is going to be fun: http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=6071.0  ;D
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Aaaron on September 15, 2016, 02:44:56 PM
With the GC if you have it's an amazing deal, never seen better. And in this price range model $567 is good, not amazing but I don't see it for lower and the prices will likely be going up the next couple months and if Hilary wins this will be a bargain...

Also if you have a Cabela's in your area you can do in-store pickup and switch payment to a GC you can order now so you'll only pay the $464.

GC link. (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5574852865&toolid=10001&campid=5336385870&customid=&icep_item=291868598448&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg)

Additionally some ebay account have 10% back today, so that would make the total around $360, tell me that's not hot.

Yeah, yeah.  OK  :)

Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: MoGro17 on September 15, 2016, 03:48:40 PM
Good deal on an AR if anyone is in the market Ruger AR-556 Semiautomatic Tactical Rifle for $567 after code 16STALKUP http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=1932150&avad=48247_fc3756e3&WT.mc_id=al35987&Subid1=SID&subacctid=35987&subacctname=35987 (if you got GC's from the eBay deal this week it's only $464 which is an amazing price)

Main site this? :)

do it. #2Aforever
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: AJK on September 15, 2016, 04:22:29 PM
Additionally some ebay account have 10% back today, so that would make the total around $360 $435 (+tax where applicable), tell me that's not hot.

ftfy ;)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on September 15, 2016, 04:38:20 PM
tell me that's not hot.
If you are into toy guns I guess it is hot.  :P
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: AJK on September 16, 2016, 01:09:00 PM
Seems like it's a pretty well reviewed gun. Why?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on September 16, 2016, 01:33:45 PM
Seems like it's a pretty well reviewed gun. Why?
It is just me being old school. It is not the gun but the caliber.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Aaaron on September 16, 2016, 01:55:06 PM
Seems like it's a pretty well reviewed gun. Why?

It's just the type of gun most owners will upgrade.  Cheap stock, cheap handguard, fixed front site (which is a personal preference), no flash hider on the compliant version's bull barrel, hard grip, etc. 

May as well spend another hundred or two and get one with better parts.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on September 16, 2016, 02:03:56 PM
The question you have to ask yourself is what purpose will it be used for?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on September 16, 2016, 02:05:19 PM
The question you have to ask yourself is what purpose will it be used for?
To be cool, why else do guys get guns?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on September 16, 2016, 02:05:47 PM
Seems like it's a pretty well reviewed gun. Why?
If it's on an AK he won't be happy.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on September 16, 2016, 02:10:00 PM
To be cool, why else do guys get guns?
Some of us actually put them to practical use like hunting for one. You want to be cool then go with a Kalash.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on September 16, 2016, 02:11:36 PM
Some of us actually put them to practical use like hunting for one.
So you think killing animals is cool. You are living in the wrong century for that to be cool. But to each their own.

Hunting is neither financially beneficial or time beneficial, you do it for being cool and that's fine just don't call it practical, that's fooling yourself.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on September 16, 2016, 02:16:38 PM
So you think killing animals is cool. You are living in the wrong century for that to be cool. But to each their own.

Hunting is neither financially beneficial or time beneficial, you do it for being cool and that's fine just don't call it practical, that's fooling yourself.
I eat everything I kill. That's the problem with the younger generation they have so much to learn.
Buying a gun to be cool is like an addict buying drugs to feel good. They are both ...  :P
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ShlockDoc on September 16, 2016, 02:19:10 PM
So you think killing animals is cool. You are living in the wrong century for that to be cool. But to each their own.

Hunting is neither financially beneficial or time beneficial, you do it for being cool and that's fine just don't call it practical, that's fooling yourself.

If he eats his kill there is probably no cooler way to buy dinner.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on September 16, 2016, 02:21:54 PM
I eat everything I kill. That's the problem with the younger generation they have so much to learn.
I know that.

Please run the numbers by me again, cost of guns, ammo, gas, time, etc vs. going to the grocery store.

Keep on fooling yourself.

If he eats his kill there is probably no cooler way to buy dinner.
Absolutely very cool, just don't try to tell me it's practical.

Once he agrees it's not practical I'll ask when the next DO is ;)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on September 16, 2016, 02:31:00 PM
I know that.

Please run the numbers by me again, cost of guns, ammo, gas, time, etc vs. going to the grocery store.

Keep on fooling yourself.
cost of gun - already have the gun
ammo - what does one bullet cost or in your case 15 or more  :P
time - priceless
gas - didn't pass any today

So we have maybe a couple of bucks for the same thing that would cost you over 500 at the grocery store.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on September 16, 2016, 02:37:43 PM
cost of gun - already have the gun
ammo - what does one bullet cost or in your case 15 or more  :P
time - priceless
gas - didn't pass any today

So we have maybe a couple of bucks for the same thing that would cost you over 500 at the grocery store.
Sure change the reason you got the guns, to because we already have them? Nice one.

Or did you forget the question:
The question you have to ask yourself is what purpose will it be used for?
And if your purpose is hunting then that's why you bought the gun so factor that into the price.

cost of gun - A few grand
ammo - Depends whether you are wearing your glasses or not
time - I'm a goverment employee time isn't actually money
gas - At my age I don't notice what happens every minute

Sorry had to FTFY.

Although kudos for the Bucks joke.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: AJK on September 16, 2016, 02:38:42 PM
It's just the type of gun most owners will upgrade.  Cheap stock, cheap handguard, fixed front site (which is a personal preference), no flash hider on the compliant version's bull barrel, hard grip, etc. 

May as well spend another hundred or two and get one with better parts.
Even at about $400 price tag? Don't think the gun you'd buy for $600 is materially better.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: AJK on September 16, 2016, 02:39:50 PM
The question you have to ask yourself is what purpose will it be used for?
For protection during tyranny?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on September 16, 2016, 02:41:44 PM
Sure change the reason you got the guns, to because we already have them? Nice one.
Were do you think most of my guns came from? Where do you thing a lot of my sons guns came from? If you are buying a gun to be cool then you don't deserve to have that right. But then again seeing the discussion on clip size I understand the misguide intent.  :)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on September 16, 2016, 02:42:16 PM
For protection during tyranny?
Go with the AK-47 then.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: AJK on September 16, 2016, 02:43:35 PM
Go with the AK-47 then.
Can get a legal, working, local one for 400?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on September 16, 2016, 02:43:56 PM
Were do you think most of my guns came from? Where do you thing a lot of my sons guns came from? If you are buying a gun to be cool then you don't deserve to have that right. But then again seeing the discussion on clip size I understand the misguide intent.  :)
Right I forgot you know better than the constitution and you think only people that think like you should be allowed to carry.

Thanks for reminding me, sorry to remind you this is 'Murica where dudes get guns to be cool.

You're lucky today is Friday all this teasing is tiring.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on September 16, 2016, 02:46:05 PM
Can get a legal, working, local one for 400?
No. Probably 1k or more.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: AJK on September 16, 2016, 02:49:29 PM
No. Probably 1k or more.
Then dollar for dollar, both me and Mrs. AJK can shoot the tyrannicals, for less than the price of a single AK.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on September 16, 2016, 02:50:04 PM
Right I forgot you know better than the constitution and you think only people that think like you should be allowed to carry.
This has nothing to do with the constitution and everything to do with common sense. Just because you have the right to do something does not mean it is right thing do it. Does the constitution state an age limit for owning a gun?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on September 16, 2016, 02:51:21 PM
Then dollar for dollar, both me and Mrs. AJK can shoot the tyrannicals, for less than the price of a single AK.
Factor in the price if that tyrannical is going to shoot back.  :)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on September 16, 2016, 02:53:16 PM
Then dollar for dollar, both me and Mrs. AJK can shoot the tyrannicals, for less than the price of a single AK.
Let me put it this way. Remember when I ask you if that was Johnnie Walker Blue? My response would be the same if you asked me if that was an AR-15.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: AJK on September 16, 2016, 03:04:51 PM
You have an AK?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on September 16, 2016, 03:07:49 PM
This has nothing to do with the constitution and everything to do with common sense. Just because you have the right to do something does not mean it is right thing do it. Does the constitution state an age limit for owning a gun?
Yes yes only according to what makes sense to you, a typical white man opinion.

At least you aren't trying to convince me it's practical to hunt anymore.

You have an AK?
The correct question isn't an, but rather how many.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on September 16, 2016, 03:09:42 PM
You have an AK?
No  :)
I do have a Steyr SSG with set trigger.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on September 16, 2016, 03:12:31 PM
Yes yes only according to what makes sense to you, a typical white man opinion.

At least you aren't trying to convince me it's practical to hunt anymore.
 The correct question isn't an, but rather how many.
1+1=2 makes sense to me. If someone does not see that then one of us is living in another world. Hopeless trying to convince that person of anything.

You didn't answer my question about age and the constitution. I wonder why?  :)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on September 16, 2016, 03:29:46 PM
You didn't answer my question about age and the constitution. I wonder why?  :)
While you are trying to figure out how to answer this one lets try another one.
Where in the 2nd amendment does it give someone the right to own a gun just to look cool?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on December 26, 2016, 01:41:57 PM
Anderson Carbine 5.56 NATO Semi-automatic Rifle for $427.49 (http://fave.co/2hrAmFZ)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: A3 on December 26, 2016, 01:42:48 PM
Anderson Carbine 5.56 NATO Semi-automatic Rifle for $427.49 (http://fave.co/2hrAmFZ)
DDMS?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on December 26, 2016, 02:02:08 PM
What's the biggest clip I can get?  :)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: solls108 on December 28, 2016, 11:39:01 PM
Is there a list of what requirements are to carry in NYC/NYS?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: chevron on January 01, 2017, 02:41:52 PM
I own guns because I want to defend myself and my community... Jabotinsky ran around europe crying "Yidden darf vissen tzu shisen" they ignored him and 6 million died

Russia could not conquer Afghanstan. Had just 10k more jews known how to use guns and had them..I venture that 1 million lives would have been saved.

My math is based on, Germany and local collabaraters were able to control much more people, there was often one or 2 armed people to 20+ further I dont think there was an effective guerilla insurgency. 10k armed meant a possible 25-50k dead soldiers by ambush.. it could have meant tying up much more german resources.. and those armed 10k could have armed many more.

But why this is all wild theories, I do know that more armed insurgency would have breeded much more than just warsaw revolt

Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Dr Moose on January 04, 2017, 11:27:56 AM
I carry the Shield every day in the King Tuck holster. It's great, I practice with it regularly and keep it nice and clean. 

The best advice is to go to a range that lends guns and try out as many as you can and see what feels right. I'm super accurate with the Shield as opposed to my first CCW which was the SCCY 9mm. That and the size in my hand made it feel right to me.
Based on your recommendation, I got the King Tuck holster. I like it a lot, and use it daily. However, I noticed that at times the safety will get turned off, and I believe it is because of the way the holster is situated. Do you have this issue? Or do you anyways carry with safety off?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Aaaron on January 04, 2017, 12:16:58 PM
Based on your recommendation, I got the King Tuck holster. I like it a lot, and use it daily. However, I noticed that at times the safety will get turned off, and I believe it is because of the way the holster is situated. Do you have this issue? Or do you anyways carry with safety off?

It's possible he doesn't have a manual safety on his.  Or that he's a lefty.  I never had that issue when I carried the Shield.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on January 04, 2017, 12:31:22 PM
What's the biggest clip I can get?  :)
A few of these should work for you https://www.armatac.com/product/products-saw-mag/
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Dr Moose on January 04, 2017, 12:44:12 PM
Is there a list of what requirements are to carry in NYC/NYS?
NYC for all practical purposes, it's impossible to get a permit. NYS depends on which county you're in.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Dr Moose on January 04, 2017, 12:50:47 PM
It's possible he doesn't have a manual safety on his.  Or that he's a lefty.  I never had that issue when I carried the Shield.
As you can see in this pic, the safety rests just under where the leather of the holster stops. So if the holster gets pushed back, it will disengage the safety.
(http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/attachments/related-gear-equipment/109004d1428285241-alien-gear-cloaker-2-vs-galco-king-tuk-ag-holster-vs-king-tuk.jpg)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: chucksterace on January 04, 2017, 01:19:53 PM
Note,
I currently use the Alien Gear Cloak Tuck 3.0 and am quite happy with it.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Aaaron on January 04, 2017, 02:07:40 PM
Note,
I currently use the Alien Gear Cloak Tuck 3.0 and am quite happy with it.

+1.  Probably the best bang for you buck

Although they kept sending me right handeds before getting my second order correct.  (Although I currently use a right hander to carry at 6 o'clock).
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Aaaron on January 04, 2017, 02:08:31 PM
As you can see in this pic, the safety rests just under where the leather of the holster stops. So if the holster gets pushed back, it will disengage the safety.


Take a razor and slice off a sliver of the leather?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Dr Moose on January 04, 2017, 02:10:09 PM
Take a razor and slice off a sliver of the leather?
That doesn't solve anything. I find that the leather doesn't extend far enough.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Aaaron on January 04, 2017, 02:17:27 PM
That doesn't solve anything. I find that the leather doesn't extend far enough.

Ah, I gotcha.  Yeah, I'm clueless.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ShlockDoc on January 04, 2017, 02:28:48 PM
Based on your recommendation, I got the King Tuck holster. I like it a lot, and use it daily. However, I noticed that at times the safety will get turned off, and I believe it is because of the way the holster is situated. Do you have this issue? Or do you anyways carry with safety off?

I carry with the safety off but no round in the chamber.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: CS1 on January 04, 2017, 03:39:32 PM
A few of these should work for you https://www.armatac.com/product/products-saw-mag/

that adds 8 lbs to the gun weight when loaded. Seems heavy.

I carry with the safety off but no round in the chamber.

It's quicker to load a round than to remove the safety? (Or is the purpose of this method so that it cannot be used against you?)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on January 04, 2017, 03:42:57 PM
that adds 8 lbs to the gun weight when loaded. Seems heavy.
JTZ needs all the rounds he can get.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Dr Moose on January 04, 2017, 03:56:47 PM


It's quicker to load a round than to remove the safety? (Or is the purpose of this method so that it cannot be used against you?)


The training I've done and practice loads the round as part of the draw from the holster.  I think that carrying with a round in chamber detracts from the safety of your surrounding instead of contributes to it, which is contrary to the whole point of carrying.  An accidental discharge is way more likely than an event where the chambering time makes a difference. Just my opinion, I know some disagree.



Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on January 04, 2017, 04:09:34 PM
A few of these should work for JJ you https://www.armatac.com/product/products-saw-mag/
JTZ JJ needs all the rounds he can get.
Young grasshoppers have a lot to learn.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: aygart on January 12, 2017, 09:34:17 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C15x6TYWQAQ-2rV.jpg)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: satturn on February 27, 2017, 02:12:57 PM
anyone here who is looking to buy a gun in Israel i just got an absolutely great deal on a glock 19 כ''ד. This is a gen 3 glock 19 with factory upgrades that where made for the shin bet. It has an oval (larger) mag release, 3.5lb trigger, mepro night sights, extended mag. Its a version that is unique to Israel and was made for the different security apparatus special. Seems one branch overbought and sold them at great prices to Krav in talpiot. Price was 3400nis including the gun, 100 bullets, 2 mags -1 extended and one regular, mandatory training. kydex OWB holster.

Just the gun retails in other places for 4250+.

Its available in Krav in Talpiot- 02-6723457. Tell them effi sent you (not me). They have some english speaking staff - effi is a trainer there who is English speaking.
Obviously you need a valid licence etc.   

This sounds like an ad- but i gain nothing from this, just sharing the wealth.   
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Aaaron on February 27, 2017, 03:24:58 PM
Wow, didn't realize guns are so much more expensive there.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ADG on February 27, 2017, 04:50:22 PM
If you count the application and fees that come along with your first gun in NYC it is ruffly the same price
 
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ADG on February 27, 2017, 04:53:26 PM
As you can see in this pic, the safety rests just under where the leather of the holster stops. So if the holster gets pushed back, it will disengage the safety.
(http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/attachments/related-gear-equipment/109004d1428285241-alien-gear-cloaker-2-vs-galco-king-tuk-ag-holster-vs-king-tuk.jpg)

didnt know Dr. Moose could be cooler but he just got cooler.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ADG on February 27, 2017, 05:41:17 PM
anyone want to sponsor my application in NYC?

Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ADG on February 27, 2017, 05:41:48 PM
I own guns because I want to defend myself and my community... Jabotinsky ran around europe crying "Yidden darf vissen tzu shisen" they ignored him and 6 million died

Russia could not conquer Afghanstan. Had just 10k more jews known how to use guns and had them..I venture that 1 million lives would have been saved.

My math is based on, Germany and local collabaraters were able to control much more people, there was often one or 2 armed people to 20+ further I dont think there was an effective guerilla insurgency. 10k armed meant a possible 25-50k dead soldiers by ambush.. it could have meant tying up much more german resources.. and those armed 10k could have armed many more.

But why this is all wild theories, I do know that more armed insurgency would have breeded much more than just warsaw revolt

Like you...
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Myccrabbi on February 27, 2017, 05:44:11 PM
It is a special edition GLK19 and that alone is a reason for higher price, let alone accessories like mepro nightsights, extended mag, holster, bullets.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: satturn on February 28, 2017, 01:43:59 AM
here is the original ad i got-
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: satturn on February 28, 2017, 01:47:04 AM
It is a special edition GLK19 and that alone is a reason for higher price, let alone accessories like mepro nightsights, extended mag, holster, bullets.
It is a special edition GLK19 and that alone is a reason for higher price, let alone accessories like mepro nightsights, extended mag, holster, bullets.
the condesed version of the gun alone is 5680nis regular. This is a really good deal. http://www.imperialranges.co.il/Product?product_id=116116
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: satturn on February 28, 2017, 01:48:01 AM
Wow, didn't realize guns are so much more expensive there.
this is by far the cheapest new glock that is on the market in years. Guns are usually 100% more than a bad price in the states
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: David Smith on February 28, 2017, 07:22:52 AM
didnt know Dr. Moose could be cooler but he just got cooler.

anyone want to sponsor my application in NYC?
That's not a reason to get a gun.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: JTZ on February 28, 2017, 10:15:19 AM
That's not a reason to get a gun.
Don't get me started.  ;)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on February 28, 2017, 10:45:43 AM
Don't get me started.  ;)
Whatever cool guy.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Shmuel4 on April 15, 2017, 11:38:09 PM
Can someone please explain to me the process and practicallity to get one for a home office in Brooklyn?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: hvaces42 on April 16, 2017, 02:50:05 PM
Very difficult these days with the recent upheaval in the NYPD gun permits division and the frum person who was selling permits who was recently sentenced. There are attorneys that can help you through the process who are reasonably priced AFAIK. Edelstein (gun shop) advertises in the Post regularly. Their people are usually good. 
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Shmuel4 on April 18, 2017, 09:14:22 PM
That's to get a carrying permit or to get one to keep in a home office?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Hirshthg on April 20, 2017, 10:53:04 PM
That's to get a carrying permit or to get one to keep in a home office?
You will get a permit to carry away the Brooklyn Bridge faster then you will get a gun carry permit in NYC.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on May 02, 2017, 03:50:21 PM
Does/Has anyone have/had a Taurus Millennium G2? Comments?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on May 08, 2017, 02:51:26 PM
Does/Has anyone have/had a Taurus Millennium G2? Comments?
Taurus Is known to make some of the most unreliable guns fwiu.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on May 08, 2017, 03:01:20 PM
Taurus Is known to make some of the most unreliable guns fwiu.
That's what they say, but since I posted, I've talked to a friend who's has one and heard only good things. All online reviews were great for this particular firearm. For the price, it probably can't be beat.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on August 15, 2017, 02:21:43 PM
I found this informative/helpful

Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: churnbabychurn on October 02, 2017, 03:48:05 PM
Let's just do a referendum on the second amendment or something.
This is getting rediculous
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 02, 2017, 03:54:23 PM
Let's just do a referendum on the second amendment or something.
This is getting rediculous
I know, it's totally out of control how anybody could just walk into walmart now and buy a machine gun. this needs to stop!
 ::)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 03:55:20 PM
The problem is each side will not give an inch.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 03:57:50 PM
I know, it's totally out of control how anybody could just walk into walmart now and buy a machine gun. this needs to stop!
 ::)
How about converting an UZI to full auto in less than 2 minutes with no additional parts? Or how about converting an AR-15 to full auto in less than one minute with one part? 
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 02, 2017, 03:59:48 PM
How about converting an UZI to full auto in less than 2 minutes with no additional parts? Or how about converting an AR-15 to full auto in less than one minute with one part? 
You're right. they should make it illegal to convert guns to full auto.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: lfas25 on October 02, 2017, 04:00:56 PM
You're right. they should make it illegal to convert guns to full auto.
We should also ban drunk driving because it kills people.
Oh oops that is the law and still happens.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 02, 2017, 04:00:58 PM
How about converting an UZI to full auto in less than 2 minutes with no additional parts? Or how about converting an AR-15 to full auto in less than one minute with one part? 
Someone told me they'd rather a handgun anyway, because more rounds don't help. (Also an AR? I thought you only talk AK-47's)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 04:01:09 PM
Lol. The dudes dad was on the FBI most wanted list. My guess is, he had some background. I love how people think that criminals will follow new laws.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 04:02:24 PM
You're right. they should make it illegal to convert guns to full auto.
The problem is each side will not give an inch.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 04:03:37 PM

And if they do? Regardless whether or not you believe people should have guns, the criminals will always have them.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 04:04:26 PM
I love how people think that criminals will follow new laws.
They won't and that is why you have to restrict what's available to them. Unfortunately that restricts what is available to law abiding citizens also.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: lfas25 on October 02, 2017, 04:05:58 PM
They won't and that is why you have to restrict what's available to them. Unfortunately that restricts what is available to law abiding citizens also.
In most cases (obviously not this one) if the public had more access to carry, the shooter won't do as much harm, as he'll be taken out by a law abiding citizen.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 04:06:32 PM
And if they do? Regardless whether or not you believe people should have guns, the criminals will always have them.
Banning high capacity magazines is a no brainer that will help. The NRA won't give in to that because they believe the end result will no guns at all.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 04:08:34 PM
In most cases (obviously not this one) if the public had more access to carry, the shooter won't do as much harm, as he'll be taken out by a law abiding citizen.
I use to think that way until I saw the typical individual that carries now.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 04:11:46 PM
Banning high capacity magazines is a no brainer that will help. The NRA won't give in to that because they believe the end result will no guns at all.
Why are you so sure that would help? Mags can be tweaked too...
I use to think that way until I saw the typical individual that carries now.
I have to agree with this as well, but id rather have a stupid guy with a gun, than an evil guy with a gun.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 02, 2017, 04:12:52 PM
Banning high capacity magazines is a no brainer
-1/2

The NRA won't give in to that because they believe the end result will no guns at all.
They're probably right. Do any of the anti-gun people see banning high capacity as an end result, not just a step towards the goal of banning guns altogether?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 04:15:53 PM
Why are you so sure that would help? Mags can be tweaked too...
You would have to manufacture the mag yourself, no? When I say ban HCM that means if you own any they must be turned in or destroyed.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 04:16:37 PM
They're probably right. Do any of the anti-gun people see banning high capacity as an end result, not just a step towards the goal of banning guns altogether?
A minority want all guns banned.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 04:18:15 PM
You would have to manufacture the mag yourself, no? When I say ban HCM that means if you own any they must be turned in or destroyed.
Firstly, anyone with ill intentions, will definitely not be turning them in, or destroying them. In the many months/years leading up to the in statement of a bill of that nature, there would be hoarding of all HCM as there has been with other things IINM
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 02, 2017, 04:19:07 PM
The dudes dad was on the FBI most wanted list. My guess is, he had some background.
As of when I last looked at the news they were saying he has nothing.

(for anybody reading this thread in a few years and wondering WTH we're talking about: Last night was the Vegas massacre (http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=84060.0))
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 04:19:35 PM
Firstly, anyone with ill intentions, will definitely not be turning them in, or destroying them. In the many months/years leading up to the in statement of a bill of that nature, there would be hoarding of all HCM as there has been with other things IINM
You are giving the criminals way to much credit.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 04:20:00 PM
As of when I last looked at the news they were saying he has nothing.

(for anybody reading this thread in a few years and wondering WTH we're talking about: Last night was the Vegas massacre (http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=84060.0))
That's possible, but highly unlikely. I don't know, so I can't talk facts.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 02, 2017, 04:20:44 PM
A minority want all guns banned.
And there's probably an even smaller minority who want  to ban HCM and stop there.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 04:22:24 PM
(for anybody reading this thread in a few years and wondering WTH we're talking about: Last night was the Vegas massacre (http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=84060.0))
Are people in certain communities oblivious to what is going on? I was shocked to see no thread started on it. I sure don't want to believe they don't care.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 04:22:34 PM
You are giving the criminals way to much credit.
This was the largest shooting in US history IINM, and as far as the planning and strategy, you gotta hand it to the guy... They aren't all stupid, and I was (fearfully) waiting for someone to actually do it right to teach us a lesson. This guy knew his crap, and that's why he succeeded in his mission, we'll beyond what many had tried before.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 04:29:44 PM
Someone told me they'd rather a handgun anyway, because more rounds don't help. (Also an AR? I thought you only talk AK-47's)
Maybe you should go back and see what situation he was talking about.  ;)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 02, 2017, 04:48:40 PM
I sure don't want to believe they don't care.
Maybe they just didn't want to waste time arguing about guns when they should be working :P
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 05:07:49 PM
Maybe they just didn't want to waste time arguing about guns when they should be working :P
You could always just make one post and be done with it.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 05:38:56 PM
Where are they getting these gun experts? Homeless people off the street?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: yuneeq on October 02, 2017, 05:41:15 PM
I use to think that way until I saw the typical individual that carries now.

In Israel where gun carriers are very common, I can point to dozens of attacks that were prevented or minimized because a someone nearby was carrying a gun. A lot of US shootings would've been minimized if guns were more common or allowed (Virginia Tech, Orlando, etc). Last night was likely the exception.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: aygart on October 02, 2017, 05:43:33 PM
In Israel where gun carriers are very common, I can point to dozens of attacks that were prevented or minimized because a someone nearby was carrying a gun. A lot of US shootings would've been minimized if guns were more common or allowed (Virginia Tech, Orlando, etc). Last night was likely the exception.
His being on the 32nd floor would make it difficult for that to have been effective here.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 05:43:56 PM
In Israel where gun carriers are very common, I can point to dozens of attacks that were prevented or minimized because a someone nearby was carrying a gun. A lot of US shootings would've been minimized if guns were more common or allowed (Virginia Tech, Orlando, etc). Last night was likely the exception.
You would also have a ton of road rage as one example then would end up in a shoot out.

What is the requirement/training in Israel to carry a weapon? Here there is basically zero!!!
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Emkay on October 02, 2017, 05:45:38 PM
You would also have a ton of road rage as one example then would end up in a shoot out.

What is the requirement/training in Israel to carry a weapon? Here there is basically zero!!!
Three years in the army and your neighbor wanting to kill you.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 05:45:52 PM
His being on the 32nd floor would make it difficult for that to have been effective here.
Steyr SSG 69 and one shot and it is over. How many own one of those?  ;)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 05:46:27 PM
Three years in the army...
Good start.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: yuneeq on October 02, 2017, 05:48:14 PM
His being on the 32nd floor would make it difficult for that to have been effective here.

Isn't that what I wrote?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: yuneeq on October 02, 2017, 05:50:31 PM
You would also have a ton of road rage as one example then would end up in a shoot out.

What is the requirement/training in Israel to carry a weapon? Here there is basically zero!!!

Okay, so you want to argue for tougher gun restrictions or tougher requirements to get guns?
If you have a mental illness you shouldn't be able to get a gun. I think we can all agree on that.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: aygart on October 02, 2017, 05:53:49 PM
Isn't that what I wrote?
I wasn't disagreeing.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 05:54:01 PM
Okay, so you want to argue for tougher gun restrictions or tougher requirements to get guns?
You can also start with common sense things like high capacity magazines. Look you are talking to a gun nut. I can't find one good reason we need high capacity magazines.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: aygart on October 02, 2017, 05:56:00 PM
Steyr SSG 69 and one shot and it is over. How many own one of those?  ;)
That doesn't look very practical to carry around and bring to a concert. There is also more of an accuracy issue at that distance.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: yuneeq on October 02, 2017, 05:57:25 PM
You can also start with common sense things like high capacity magazines. Look you are talking to a gun nut. I can't find one good reason we need high capacity magazines.

What do you consider "high capacity" and what's the max capacity?

Also out of curiosity - what capacity did the shooter have?
And how many shots did fire? If I had to guess I'd say 1500 probably more.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: aygart on October 02, 2017, 05:58:01 PM
You can also start with common sense things like high capacity magazines. Look you are talking to a gun nut. I can't find one good reason we need high capacity magazines.
The issue is that the gun control proponents openly say that it would be just the first step and will want to add more each opportunity. On the other hand the gun clingers ideologically feel that there should be zero restrictions.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 05:58:11 PM
That doesn't look very practical to carry around and bring to a concert. There is also more of an accuracy issue at that distance.
Maybe, but you usually pull your finger off the trigger for a sec or 2 when you get return fire. Then again, this wasn't a normal guy...
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: aygart on October 02, 2017, 05:59:19 PM
Maybe, but you usually pull your finger off the trigger for a sec or 2 when you get return fire. Then again, this wasn't a normal guy...
I assume you were discussing the accuracy question. My concern was that at such a distance it can hit someone in a neighboring room.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 05:59:53 PM
I assume you were discussing the accuracy question. My concern was that at such a distance it can hit someone in a neighboring room.
A worthwhile risk...
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 02, 2017, 06:00:17 PM
I can't find one good reason we need high capacity magazines.
1. Define high capacity.
2. Why would anybody need any gun or magazine?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 06:02:46 PM
What do you consider "high capacity" and what's the max capacity?

Also out of curiosity - what capacity did the shooter have?
And how many shots did fire? If I had to guess I'd say 1500 probably more.
When you are talking semi auto and full auto, it's 2 different worlds. My semi auto holds 12+1, and I'm not sure why you would need more than that. If you are more protective, carry extra clips. There are belts and drums, and when you add that to a full auto firearm, it gets crazy.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 06:05:30 PM


1. Define high capacity.
2. Why would anybody need any gun or magazine?

HCM is defined differently depending on where you are.

I can list multiple reasons, but all are arguable. You don't "need" a car, but many would say they do. It's all relative to the individual and their opinion. I own a gun, but respect those who wouldn't. I feel no reason to push people to get a gun. My beliefs are mine and others are their own.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 06:08:59 PM
1. Define high capacity.
2. Why would anybody need any gun or magazine?
1 - lets start with 20 rounds for a rifle.
2 - personal protection, hunting, target shooting
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 06:09:34 PM
I assume you were discussing the accuracy question. My concern was that at such a distance it can hit someone in a neighboring room.
They say how far it was?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: yuneeq on October 02, 2017, 06:10:31 PM
They say how far it was?

Here's a visual
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 06:10:36 PM
They say how far it was?
Well the height alone was 32 stories, that's without any distance from the actual building...
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 06:11:27 PM
That doesn't look very practical to carry around and bring to a concert. There is also more of an accuracy issue at that distance.
What about a redneck with a pickup?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: yuneeq on October 02, 2017, 06:19:41 PM
The middle of the concert is 1180 feet away from the bottom of the hotel. It was also 32 stories high, so approximately 320 feet.
I don't know the math to combine those numbers but obviously it was far.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 06:27:57 PM
Probably 400 yards, ouch.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 06:29:14 PM
The middle of the concert is 1180 feet away from the bottom of the hotel. It was also 32 stories high, so approximately 320 feet.
I don't know the math to combine those numbers but obviously it was far.
At that distance, the average person without a sniper rifle, is going to be shooting blindly in the general direction of the suspect. The only good that would possibly come from it, would be that he would stop shooting and take cover. Being that he was ready to die, it may not have deterred him at all.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 06:30:48 PM
Probably 400 yards, ouch.
With a 32 story incline, so gravity is against you. Not a fun shot unless you are on another building
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: aygart on October 02, 2017, 06:40:46 PM
At those numbers 1222 ft
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: yuneeq on October 02, 2017, 06:45:27 PM
At those numbers 1222 ft

Just curious what's the math?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 02, 2017, 06:49:45 PM
I don't know the math to combine those numbers but obviously it was far.
a2+b2=c2
1,223 feet
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 02, 2017, 06:50:18 PM
Just curious what's the math?
a2+b2=c2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 02, 2017, 08:23:14 PM
I can't find one good reason we need high capacity magazines.
Tyranical governments. You have the good fortune of not having relatives murdered by a government, I assume.

20 years before the holocaust Germany was as democratic and accepting of Jews as America is today...
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 08:34:02 PM
Tyranical governments. You have the good fortune of not having relatives murdered by a government, I assume.

20 years before the holocaust Germany was as democratic and accepting of Jews as America is today...
That would be a valid argument for not banning guns but makes no sense in the HCM discussion.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 02, 2017, 08:38:00 PM
but makes no sense in the HCM discussion.
-1 but I don't have the patience for an argument right now.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 02, 2017, 08:49:08 PM
That would be a valid argument for not banning guns but makes no sense in the HCM discussion.
Serious question, ever watched movies about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising?

Do you think they wanted the few revolvers they had or wished they had AR's with 30 or more round mags/machine guns...

I know you can argue there is no end, but it's a serious question.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 08:58:42 PM
Serious question, ever watched movies about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising?

Do you think they wanted the few revolvers they had or wished they had AR's with 30 or more round mags/machine guns...

I know you can argue there is no end, but it's a serious question.
Never watched the movies but didn't they burn the whole town?
Yes HCM would have helped their cause but it would not have changed the outcome.
If you are serious about fighting off a government HCM will be like throwing more toothpicks.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 02, 2017, 09:04:23 PM
Never watched the movies but didn't they burn the whole town?
Yes HCM would have helped their cause but it would not have changed the outcome.
If you are serious about fighting off a government HCM will be like throwing more toothpicks.
They fought for a few days thanks to the few guns they did have.

This is a common argument that when it comes to going against the government guns or HCM won't help.

First of all if ever Jew had an AR with a HCM in Germany I can guarantee you it would have helped...

But how about telling that to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda they have been fighting the US government for over 15 years now and they are not winning any wars but not so shabby with not much more than some HCM... Also you'd have factions of the military I hope rebelling against the government etc, hcm give you the ability to fight back with them. I really don't mean to sound like this is a possibility or something we need to prepare for or anything like that (honestly @FBI this is just an internet argument), but to say that there isn't one good reason, this is your reason.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 09:09:50 PM
How about we agree you think it is a good reason because you feel it could be a difference maker and I feel it would not make and difference.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 09:11:14 PM
How about we agree you think it is a good reason because you feel it could be a difference maker and I feel it would not make and difference.
If there is a large enough group who feel it is a difference maker, and the idea isn't absurd, that is a reason for it to be on the table.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 02, 2017, 09:24:48 PM
How about we agree you think it is a good reason because you feel it could be a difference maker and I feel it would not make and difference.
Sure.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Dan on October 02, 2017, 09:38:51 PM
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 09:46:40 PM
This exact point is quite arguable. Just because this one (extremely unique) case, wouldn't have been impacted by more people with guns, doesn't mean the idea is incorrect. While I also believe that this case would have been in no way impacted of there had been total gun control. Bottom line is, crazy is crazy. People find a way to get done what they want to get done. If it's not a gun, it's a car. It will unfortunately always be something.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 02, 2017, 09:47:29 PM
I'd assume people close to an incident like this would have their views altered just like the Holocoust has shaped the view of many Jews opinions on the subject.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 09:48:08 PM
I'd assume people close to an incident like this would have their views altered just like the Holocoust has shaped the view of many Jews opinions on the subject.
Maybe, but his logic might be a bit skewed.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Hirshthg on October 02, 2017, 09:49:14 PM
The firepower this guy used is already illegal. Flying planes into buildings is illegal. Shooting homemade  rockets at schools is illegal. Heroin is illegal. Human trafficking is illegal. Selling body parts is illegal. Illegality stops nothing.

What I want to know is why no one responded within 5 minutes. Answer, no one within 5 minutes had rifle and the training to use it.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 09:51:53 PM
The firepower this guy used is already illegal. Flying planes into buildings is illegal. Shooting homemade  rockets at schools is illegal. Heroin is illegal. Human trafficking is illegal. Selling body parts is illegal. Illegality stops nothing.

What I want to know is why no one responded within 5 minutes. Answer, no one within 5 minutes had rifle and the training to use it.
Seriously?! I didn't see this anywhere. If that was indeed the case, then that's a whole other issue. I understand it took some time to figure out what was flying, but a swat sniper should be less than 5 min away. Or not.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: churnbabychurn on October 02, 2017, 09:59:41 PM
In the UK this could never have happened. Obviously the fact that these weapons were technically "illegal" here wasn't enough.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 10:00:50 PM
Answer, no one within 5 minutes had rifle and the training to use it.
Not that simple.
The firepower this guy used is already illegal.
We don't know that yet.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 02, 2017, 10:06:44 PM
We don't know that yet.
+1, it's hard but not illegal to get machine guns in Nevada. And fwiu the guy was a millionaire so it's definitely possible he had the guns legally.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 10:08:01 PM
In the UK this could never have happened. Obviously the fact that these weapons were technically "illegal" here wasn't enough.
Right, so instead people hack people with machetes and make IEDs. #Manchesterarena
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 10:09:03 PM
+1, it's hard but not illegal to get machine guns in Nevada. And fwiu the guy was a millionaire so it's definitely possible he had the guns legally.
I also was just informed there is a way to make an AR-15 basically full auto legally. Was not aware of the new stuff they come up with.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 02, 2017, 10:11:53 PM
I also was just informed there is a way to make an AR-15 basically full auto legally. Was not aware of the new stuff they come up with.
Excuse my ignorance, but did the audio sounds like an AR to you? Sounded louder to me, but I'm very far from an expert.

Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 10:12:34 PM
Sounded like an AK to me, but what do I know.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: churnbabychurn on October 02, 2017, 10:20:04 PM
Right, so instead people hack people with machetes and make IEDs. #Manchesterarena
Yup, machetes are much better than this. What's even the aurgument??!
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 10:22:07 PM
No way for me to tell from the audio. Cycle rate would probably be a better indicator.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 10:22:08 PM
Yup, machetes are much better than this. What's even the aurgument??!
You seem to have left out the part where I mentioned IEDs...are you forgetting the Manchester arena bombing?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: churnbabychurn on October 02, 2017, 10:36:45 PM
You seem to have left out the part where I mentioned IEDs...are you forgetting the Manchester arena bombing?
Oh, we have those here also.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 02, 2017, 10:40:13 PM
Oh, we have those here also.
Correct. There is not shortage of options. Cutting the good guys off, will not do anything to stop the bad.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 10:45:55 PM
They are saying around 600 rounds a minute. How long did the shooting go on for?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: churnbabychurn on October 02, 2017, 10:54:56 PM
They are saying around 600 rounds a minute. How long did the shooting go on for?
72 min I think! That's crazy
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 10:57:22 PM
72 min I think! That's crazy
Can't be.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 10:59:40 PM
No way for me to tell from the audio. Cycle rate would probably be a better indicator.
They are saying around 600 rounds a minute. How long did the shooting go on for?
Now makes me think the larger caliber AK-47.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Dan on October 02, 2017, 11:00:59 PM
72 min I think! That's crazy
-1
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 11:07:33 PM
Best I found was 10-15 minutes the shooting lasted.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Dan on October 02, 2017, 11:09:22 PM
Best I found was 10-15 minutes the shooting lasted.
I heard 15 earlier today.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: churnbabychurn on October 02, 2017, 11:11:45 PM
-1
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171003/04a0c617ab628544df3d476470f0287c.jpg)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: beeweegee on October 02, 2017, 11:16:27 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171003/04a0c617ab628544df3d476470f0287c.jpg)
It took the cops 72 minutes until they found him and broke into his room. Shooting was 10-15 min.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 11:23:16 PM
It took the cops 72 minutes until they found him and broke into his room. Shooting was 10-15 min.
That sure isn't the narrative they have been reporting.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: beeweegee on October 02, 2017, 11:34:53 PM
That sure isn't the narrative they have been reporting.
The 911 call was reportedly first made at 10:08 pm (local time), and police were reportedly heard blasting the door off of his hotel room at 11:20 pm. Do the math...
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 02, 2017, 11:40:29 PM
The 911 call was reportedly first made at 10:08 pm (local time), and police were reportedly heard blasting the door off of his hotel room at 11:20 pm. Do the math...
Not disagreeing just wondering why no one is asking why it took so long. So he stopped shooting for over a hour. This keeps getting more insane.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: beeweegee on October 02, 2017, 11:48:46 PM
Not disagreeing just wondering why no one is asking why it took so long. So he stopped shooting for over a hour. This keeps getting more insane.
Dunno, it's a good point. It seems that they got some bad intel about him being on the 29th floor, and about there being multiple shooters. There were cops in the hotel relatively soon after the shooting, and they were even on the right floor - they were waiting for SWAT. The question I have is what took SWAT so long...
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: beeweegee on October 02, 2017, 11:56:23 PM
Not disagreeing just wondering why no one is asking why it took so long. So he stopped shooting for over a hour. This keeps getting more insane.
http://www.newsweek.com/las-vegas-shooting-cops-took-more-hour-storm-gunmans-room-676198
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 03, 2017, 12:02:57 AM
http://www.newsweek.com/las-vegas-shooting-cops-took-more-hour-storm-gunmans-room-676198
Maybe he stop shooting because he was concerned about the police outside his door. This doesn't look good.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 03, 2017, 12:04:27 AM
Maybe he was just downright crazy in the head and he isn't the genius tactician we are assuming him to be...
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 03, 2017, 12:05:37 AM
Maybe he was just downright crazy in the head and he isn't the genius tactician we are assuming him to be...
I will bet the house he isn't a genius tactician.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 03, 2017, 12:26:39 AM
I will bet the house he isn't a genius tactician.
Bh, these SOB's are morons too most of the time. Based on recent posts seems like it could have been way way worse, which is scary to think about.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 03, 2017, 01:01:52 AM
Let's see if he's still saying the same thing in a few weeks or months when he's able to think clearly and not going purely based on emotions.


I don't know if the guns he had were legal, but let's not assume he couldn't have killed just as many people even had he not had access to these guns.
Here's one hypothetical scenario: According to media reports he had a pilot's license and owned 2 planes. What if instead of the guns he had taken his plane and crash-landed in that same crowd? What do you think the body count would look like in that case?

according to at least one report they found ammonium nitrate in his trunk. What if he actually made bombs and used them in conjunction with a plane?

My point is a gun is just a tool. Right now it may be the easiest tool available, but someone hell-bent on killing as many people as possible will find another tool (which may be more or less effective depending on the individual's resources, resourcefulness and  capabilities)


Now a trivia question for bonus points: Up until the Orlando nightclub massacre, what was the deadliest shooting and what gun(s) were used?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: yuneeq on October 03, 2017, 01:27:34 AM
I also was just informed there is a way to make an AR-15 basically full auto legally. Was not aware of the new stuff they come up with.

Reddit commenter FWIW

“It definitely wasn't modified semi-automatic rifles.
Even with a trigger modification, the upper receiver isn't designed for that volume of rounds, and would have jammed. The barrels would have melted pretty quickly too with that rate of fire.
I've fired the M4 (AR military variant) on three round burst, and that thing jams all the time. And that's only three rounds. And it's designed for that!
Half an hour of sustained fire, mag after mag? Had to be fully automatic. Likely several fully automatics.
One other issue: how were the gunshots heard over the concert music from the Mandelay, 1500 feet away? I can't hear s** five feet from me at a concert.”

And another-
“From everything I've heard described (particularly the range, kill ratio, and volume of fire) this sounds like more than an ordinary military assault rifle firing full auto. Given the range and effective kill ratio, it sounds 30 caliber (e.g., .308) instead of merely .223, and given the hundreds of rounds fired by presumably one person in a relatively short period of time, that would seem to indicate a belt-fed instead of magazine fed. IOW, this all sounds like the kind of carnage of a belt fed, 30 caliber M60 machine gun.”
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 03, 2017, 01:31:55 AM
If you are serious about fighting off a government HCM will be like throwing more toothpicks.
Sometimes I can't tell if you're really serious or just stoking the flames of controversy.

First of all, I agree with what @jj1000 said
They fought for a few days thanks to the few guns they did have.

This is a common argument that when it comes to going against the government guns or HCM won't help.

First of all if ever Jew had an AR with a HCM in Germany I can guarantee you it would have helped...

But how about telling that to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda they have been fighting the US government for over 15 years now and they are not winning any wars but not so shabby with not much more than some HCM... Also you'd have factions of the military I hope rebelling against the government etc, hcm give you the ability to fight back with them. I really don't mean to sound like this is a possibility or something we need to prepare for or anything like that (honestly @FBI this is just an internet argument), but to say that there isn't one good reason, this is your reason.

I seem to remember you saying you have friends (family members?) in the service. Ask any of them if it would've made no difference if the Taliban/Isis etc had no assault weapons or HCMs or whatever else the left wants to ban here. I'll be shocked if any of them say it makes no difference and it's just throwing more toothpicks.


Although the truth is, I'm not sure there's even a real argument here. When you say HCM you're talking about >20 round capacity. When the gun grabbers talk about HCM they're talking about >5-7 rounds.

Using the baseline of 20 rounds (I would say 30 rounds, but that's a side issue) I would agree there's probably no need for higher capacity. (for a rifle, not talking machine guns) In fact, AFAIK nobody serious uses them for life and death situations as they're far too unreliable/prone to jamming.
In fact, CMIIW, but if you make it through a whole 100 round drum without it jamming you'll be stuck with an overheated rifle.

But of course by the same reasoning for why they're unnecessary you can argue that banning them won't really help anything. How many of these shooters actually used HCMs (>20-30, not >5-7)  effectively?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 03, 2017, 01:37:09 AM
Reddit commenter FWIW

“It definitely wasn't modified semi-automatic rifles.
Even with a trigger modification, the upper receiver isn't designed for that volume of rounds, and would have jammed. The barrels would have melted pretty quickly too with that rate of fire.
I've fired the M4 (AR military variant) on three round burst, and that thing jams all the time. And that's only three rounds. And it's designed for that!
Half an hour of sustained fire, mag after mag? Had to be fully automatic. Likely several fully automatics.
One other issue: how were the gunshots heard over the concert music from the Mandelay, 1500 feet away? I can't hear s** five feet from me at a concert.”

And another-
“From everything I've heard described (particularly the range, kill ratio, and volume of fire) this sounds like more than an ordinary military assault rifle firing full auto. Given the range and effective kill ratio, it sounds 30 caliber (e.g., .308) instead of merely .223, and given the hundreds of rounds fired by presumably one person in a relatively short period of time, that would seem to indicate a belt-fed instead of magazine fed. IOW, this all sounds like the kind of carnage of a belt fed, 30 caliber M60 machine gun.”
You can easily buy ARs in kits, or separately. The lower is the part that is considered to be a firearm, and even here in IL you could probably get ahold of an upper without an FFL. Barrels can be switched out super easily as well. ARs are of the easiest to build and rebuild.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 03, 2017, 01:43:11 AM
Reddit commenter FWIW

“It definitely wasn't modified semi-automatic rifles.
Even with a trigger modification, the upper receiver isn't designed for that volume of rounds, and would have jammed. The barrels would have melted pretty quickly too with that rate of fire.
That's ignoring that he had almost 20 guns to switch between.

One other issue: how were the gunshots heard over the concert music from the Mandelay, 1500 feet away? I can't hear s** five feet from me at a concert.”
Honestly I'm very surprised at how loud the gunshots sounded at the concert.

that would seem to indicate a belt-fed instead of magazine fed. IOW, this all sounds like the kind of carnage of a belt fed, 30 caliber M60 machine gun.”
IDK, in the videos I saw I don't remember any sustained bursts that were too long for a 30 round magazine. (and remember he had I think 19 guns to switch between -although that may include some handguns as well, I don't know how many he actually used up there)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: yuneeq on October 03, 2017, 01:47:55 AM
That's ignoring that he had almost 20 guns to switch between.
Honestly I'm very surprised at how loud the gunshots sounded at the concert.
IDK, in the videos I saw I don't remember any sustained bursts that were too long for a 30 round magazine. (and remember he had I think 19 guns to switch between -although that may include some handguns as well, I don't know how many he actually used up there)

That’s not ignoring it. There were lots of long bursts that he couldn’t believe were possible with a kit. Even with multiple guns. From what I’ve remember  there may have been 40-50 shots without switching weapons.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 03, 2017, 01:58:13 AM
That’s not ignoring it. There were lots of long bursts that he couldn’t believe were possible with a kit. Even with multiple guns. From what I’ve remember  there may have been 40-50 shots without switching weapons.
I was saying what I seem to remember, but I could very well be wrong.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: churnbabychurn on October 03, 2017, 06:19:17 AM
That’s not ignoring it. There were lots of long bursts that he couldn’t believe were possible with a kit. Even with multiple guns. From what I’ve remember  there may have been 40-50 shots without switching weapons.
It takes seconds to switch weapons.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 03, 2017, 08:57:04 AM
Please don't believe all these gun facts being thrown around. A simple Google search will give you a ton of correct information. Just make sure it isn't a media site.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 03, 2017, 09:01:11 AM
Please don't believe all these gun facts being thrown around. A simple Google search will give you a ton of correct information. Just make sure it isn't a media site.
You mean a silencer wouldn't have made this shooting even worse? They never would have found him if he had a silencer right?

#MediaFacts
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 03, 2017, 09:04:27 AM
You mean a silencer wouldn't have made this shooting even worse? They never would have found him if he had a silencer right?

#MediaFacts
How many rounds can you put through a silencer before it is no longer affective? She is a complete idiot and should keep her mouth shut.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 03, 2017, 09:07:13 AM
How many rounds can you put through a silencer before it is no longer affective? She is a complete idiot and should keep her mouth shut.
Lol and silencers let you shoot someone in broad daylight, and nobody hears it. Just like the movies.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 03, 2017, 09:08:16 AM
How many rounds can you put through a silencer before it is no longer affective? She is a complete idiot and should keep her mouth shut.
Silencers are easily the least understood thing by the general public when it comes to guns. When congress people say stuff like that, it really makes them sound like total morons.

Reminds me of the guy (Alan Grayson FL congressman) that said the AR in Orlando could shoot off 700 rounds  per minute.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: yuneeq on October 03, 2017, 09:40:01 AM
Please don't believe all these gun facts being thrown around. A simple Google search will give you a ton of correct information. Just make sure it isn't a media site.

Did you see the photo of 2 guns from the media?
Semi automatic, no?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 03, 2017, 09:41:22 AM
Did you see the photo of 2 guns from the media?
Semi automatic, no?
No as I am kind of burned out already. Link?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: yuneeq on October 03, 2017, 09:55:07 AM
No as I am kind of burned out already. Link?

https://mobile.twitter.com/JacquiHeinrich/status/915182518587891712
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ShlockDoc on October 03, 2017, 09:57:06 AM
Not disagreeing just wondering why no one is asking why it took so long. So he stopped shooting for over a hour. This keeps getting more insane.

I just finished listening to the entire police scanner recording.  It took them a while to find the location and then they waited a really long time for SWAT to arrive.  By that point the shooting had already stopped.  I can't see a conspiracy or incompetence here. 

https://www.broadcastify.com/news/21
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 03, 2017, 10:00:33 AM
https://mobile.twitter.com/JacquiHeinrich/status/915182518587891712
Can't tell but remember that assault rifles have never been my cup of tea. As JJ will tell you I am the quality over quantity guy.

It does show a bipod and not a tripod they reported being used.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: bestwatchman on October 03, 2017, 10:02:00 AM
Did you see the photo of 2 guns from the media?
Semi automatic, no?
Yes, as I thought, ar with bumpfire. i believe totally legal. I've shot them before. lot's of fun if you don't think how much money worth of bullets you're blowing through.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ShlockDoc on October 03, 2017, 10:02:17 AM
The bump stock is a legal, cheap, quick and easy way to convert any semi automatic rifle into a fully automatic.

Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 03, 2017, 10:07:43 AM
The bump stock is a legal, cheap, quick and easy way to convert any semi automatic rifle into a fully automatic.
First I have heard of these was yesterday. They need to be banned.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ShlockDoc on October 03, 2017, 10:11:46 AM
First I have heard of these was yesterday. They need to be banned.

Why? 
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 03, 2017, 10:14:54 AM
First I have heard of these was yesterday.
+1


They need to be banned.
If you believe that full-auto should be banned, and the same reason for banning those applies here as well, then I guess that's valid.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ShlockDoc on October 03, 2017, 10:19:51 AM
If you believe that full-auto should be banned, and the same reason for banning those applies here as well, then I guess that's valid.

Full auto isn't banned.  You just need to go through a process to buy it.  To add something to a ban list needs a REALLY good reason. 
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 03, 2017, 10:31:55 AM
Full auto isn't banned.  You just need to go through a process to buy it.
That's just being pedantic. when I (and I assume CM as well) said "ban" I meant considered class III, not literally banned.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: aygart on October 03, 2017, 10:41:03 AM
No as I am kind of burned out already. Link?
Don't worry it is only a matter of time before trump says something stupid. That will get you started up again.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: zale on October 03, 2017, 11:21:56 AM

according to at least one report they found ammonium nitrate in his trunk. What if he actually made bombs and used them in conjunction with a plane?

My point is a gun is just a tool. Right now it may be the easiest tool available, but someone hell-bent on killing as many people as possible will find another tool (which may be more or less effective depending on the individual's resources, resourcefulness and  capabilities)


This can be argued both ways. On the one hand, yes, if an individual is hell-bent on committing mass murder, he will find a way. On the other hand, the vast majority of psychopaths will ONLY commit mass murder if it's not too complicated to carry out.

Driving a truck or a plane into a crowd requires a certain type of psychosis. It requires being up close and personal with your victims. You need to be a hardcore religious or political fanatic. A random disgruntled angry 64 year old will likely not do this.

The fact is, high powered rifles are the easiest way to commit murder on a large scale. It was too easy. The people at this concert were described as "fish in a bowl". He can shoot at them while perched comfortably in his 32nd floor hotel room and it's almost impossible for anyone to shoot back. (without a sniper rifle and professional sniper training). He doesn't even have to make eye contact with his victims.

There is a legitimate argument to make here that if he were unable to acquire the weapons and ammo legally, he would not go out of his way to acquire them on the black market. (The fact that he had a partially constructed bomb in his car kind of supports the argument that it was just too much work to do and shooting was much easier.) At the end, he may have just taken some pills or simply smash and jump out of the window.

I'm not anti-gun, but if a solution for further gun control was proposed, I would be willing to at least consider it.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: skyguy918 on October 03, 2017, 11:32:36 AM
I'm not anti-gun, but if a solution for further gun control was proposed, I would be willing to at least consider it.
Yeah, that's the thing about any of the major issues. We as a country let the extremes of the issue consume our attention, instead of having an actual discussion/debate somewhere in the middle. Everyone is more worried about countering the extreme position on the other side than addressing the underlying problems.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 03, 2017, 11:34:04 AM
That's just being pedantic.
That probably wasn't fair to say. I'm sure there are people reading this who thought "ban" here was meant literally.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Aaaron on October 03, 2017, 11:36:51 AM
Reddit commenter FWIW

“It definitely wasn't modified semi-automatic rifles.
Even with a trigger modification, the upper receiver isn't designed for that volume of rounds, and would have jammed. The barrels would have melted pretty quickly too with that rate of fire.
I've fired the M4 (AR military variant) on three round burst, and that thing jams all the time. And that's only three rounds. And it's designed for that!
Half an hour of sustained fire, mag after mag? Had to be fully automatic. Likely several fully automatics.
One other issue: how were the gunshots heard over the concert music from the Mandelay, 1500 feet away? I can't hear s** five feet from me at a concert.”

And another-
“From everything I've heard described (particularly the range, kill ratio, and volume of fire) this sounds like more than an ordinary military assault rifle firing full auto. Given the range and effective kill ratio, it sounds 30 caliber (e.g., .308) instead of merely .223, and given the hundreds of rounds fired by presumably one person in a relatively short period of time, that would seem to indicate a belt-fed instead of magazine fed. IOW, this all sounds like the kind of carnage of a belt fed, 30 caliber M60 machine gun.”

That's pretty much BS.  Pretty easy to get a drop-in auto sear and most barrels would handle the volume.  Also, many people already build AR-15s with M16 bolt carriers.

Lol and silencers let you shoot someone in broad daylight, and nobody hears it. Just like the movies.

They are... if you're shooting subsonic ammo with a bolt action.  It's amazing how people think silencers are either dead silent, or still loud.  The answer is both, and anywhere in between.

First I have heard of these was yesterday. They need to be banned.

I have one and keep the ATF letter with it at all times that states it's legal.  I actually thought it sounded like bump firing but the pic released showed a stationary stock. 
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 03, 2017, 11:57:16 AM


They are... if you're shooting subsonic ammo with a bolt action.  It's amazing how people think silencers are either dead silent, or still loud.  The answer is both, and anywhere in between.
When was the last time you saw someone using a bolt action pistol with a silencer in a movie?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 03, 2017, 12:02:56 PM
This can be argued both ways. On the one hand, yes, if an individual is hell-bent on committing mass murder, he will find a way. On the other hand, the vast majority of psychopaths will ONLY commit mass murder if it's not too complicated to carry out.

Driving a truck or a plane into a crowd requires a certain type of psychosis. It requires being up close and personal with your victims. You need to be a hardcore religious or political fanatic. A random disgruntled angry 64 year old will likely not do this.

The fact is, high powered rifles are the easiest way to commit murder on a large scale. It was too easy. The people at this concert were described as "fish in a bowl". He can shoot at them while perched comfortably in his 32nd floor hotel room and it's almost impossible for anyone to shoot back. (without a sniper rifle and professional sniper training). He doesn't even have to make eye contact with his victims.

There is a legitimate argument to make here that if he were unable to acquire the weapons and ammo legally, he would not go out of his way to acquire them on the black market. (The fact that he had a partially constructed bomb in his car kind of supports the argument that it was just too much work to do and shooting was much easier.) At the end, he may have just taken some pills or simply smash and jump out of the window.

I'm not anti-gun, but if a solution for further gun control was proposed, I would be willing to at least consider it.
You may be right. I wonder if there's any real data that supports either side? The fact that people choose the path of least resistance doesn't necessarily mean they won't put in any effort if necessary.

One thing I would argue is about lumping a plane and truck together. with the plane, by the time you get up close and personal you're pretty much committed and it's probably too late to change your mind.


Regardless of all that, even if you are correct, there's still the need to evaluate how many lives would be saved by any legislation and what the cost will be. We need to look at the net gain or loss, not just how many lives might be saved in mass shooting incidents.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Aaaron on October 03, 2017, 12:08:13 PM
When was the last time you saw someone using a bolt action pistol with a silencer in a movie?

A suppressed 9mm or .22 shooting subsonic rounds is pretty darn quiet.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 03, 2017, 12:19:07 PM
A suppressed 9mm or .22 shooting subsonic rounds is pretty darn quiet.
+1

I've shot a silenced .22 rifle. While it was a lot louder than I expected, it wasn't very loud. It was basically a loud click from the mechanism of the gun, not much sound from the bullet.


They are... if you're shooting subsonic ammo with a bolt action.  It's amazing how people think silencers are either dead silent, or still loud.  The answer is both, and anywhere in between.
I was gonna say something similar. Bear in mind that the specific weapon being discussed is a suppressed AR15 which (I don't have any firsthand knowledge, but FWIU) is still rather loud.


Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Aaaron on October 03, 2017, 12:33:15 PM
+1

I've shot a silenced .22 rifle. While it was a lot louder than I expected, it wasn't very loud. It was basically a loud click from the mechanism of the gun, not much sound from the bullet.

I was gonna say something similar. Bear in mind that the specific weapon being discussed is a suppressed AR15 which (I don't have any firsthand knowledge, but FWIU) is still rather loud.

With subsonic ammo (assuming 223/556), it's also very quiet; you'll only hear the bolt.  However, a standard AR won't cycle since those loads don't have enough powder.  With standard ammo, it's not much quieter than without the suppressor. 
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: zale on October 03, 2017, 01:17:30 PM
You may be right. I wonder if there's any real data that supports either side? The fact that people choose the path of least resistance doesn't necessarily mean they won't put in any effort if necessary.

I doubt there is any scientific data on this, but that doesn't stop me from voicing my personal opinion.  ::)

My personal opinion, based on the data we have at the moment, is that this man would probably not commit mass murder if he would not be able to acquire those weapons legally. If he really killed himself after 10-15 minutes of shooting (as per some reports), then he's too cowardly to go the extra mile.

The people that would make the extra effort are the religious fanatics that believe it is their life's mission to murder people.

Another personal opinion I have is that the Left immediately exploiting this tragedy to push gun control and blame Republicans and the NRA are actually making the Right LESS willing to come to the table. If the Left would just shut up, there is a pretty good chance that Republicans would at their own volition be willing to impose stricter gun laws. Now that this is a Left vs Right thing, all the Right wants is to make sure the Left doesn't get their way.

Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: skyguy918 on October 03, 2017, 01:57:43 PM
Another personal opinion I have is that the Left immediately exploiting this tragedy to push gun control and blame Republicans and the NRA are actually making the Right LESS willing to come to the table. If the Left would just shut up, there is a pretty good chance that Republicans would at their own volition be willing to impose stricter gun laws. Now that this is a Left vs Right thing, all the Right wants is to make sure the Left doesn't get their way.
I agree that the left getting hysterical, as they do with every issue, doesn't help anything. But second amendment issues are pretty fundamental to the right. Not sure normal discourse is really possible on this.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 03, 2017, 01:58:45 PM
Why does everyone say he is a coward for committing suicide. Have you tried it?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 03, 2017, 02:10:05 PM
Not sure normal discourse is really possible on this.
The biggest impediment to normal discourse is that any attempt at any new gun laws is treated by both sides as an attack on the outer defenses, one step forward towards the ultimate goal of total ban (or something close.)

(Of course it's also difficult to have a normal discourse when one side is usually lacking a basic fundamental understanding of the different types of weapons and their capabilities.)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 03, 2017, 03:28:20 PM
That's just being pedantic. when I (and I assume CM as well) said "ban" I meant considered class III, not literally banned.
Should be regulated the same as a full auto weapon.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: somefield on October 03, 2017, 04:20:53 PM
It takes seconds to switch weapons.
He could've had a 100 round magazine similar to one sold by Stackin' Bodies
https://www.stackingbodies.com/products/sf-mag5-100-100-rnd-mag-ar15?gclid=CjwKCAjw6szOBRAFEiwAwzixBZV1XTZRY2d75FKBgpqImj4X3prdKHZQbqGxjaOL1eb0dbWZAhUVbBoCVi0QAvD_BwE
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 03, 2017, 04:33:37 PM
Why does everyone say he is a coward for committing suicide. Have you tried it?
Not personally, but I know of many who have. They admit it is a cowardly approach.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 03, 2017, 04:36:19 PM
Not personally, but I know of many who have. They admit it is a cowardly approach.
It just seems it would be harder to shoot yourself.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 03, 2017, 04:38:34 PM
It just seems it would be harder to shoot yourself.
It may be a brave act, but the concept is cowardly. For instance, lazy people will carry 400lbs of groceries in one trip just to avoid doing it in 2. They are essentially working harder out of laziness. This person is making a bold move, only by giving in to his cowardly self.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Yehuda57 on October 03, 2017, 04:44:00 PM
You may be right. I wonder if there's any real data that supports either side?

Listened to these a while ago, don't recall exactly what aspects they discuss:
https://gimletmedia.com/episode/guns/
https://gimletmedia.com/episode/gun-control/

The show producers lean left.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 03, 2017, 07:37:54 PM
Keep hearing no new laws would have prevented this. Banning HCM after Sandy Hook would have helped.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: beeweegee on October 03, 2017, 09:40:55 PM
It just seems it would be harder to shoot yourself.
That method is a more difficult one, but swallowing several handfuls of pills...
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 11:34:11 AM
Hey media a bump stock does not turn an AR-15 into full auto. With that said it should still be banned with HCM!!!
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: aygart on October 04, 2017, 12:40:32 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.3c8f5b60357f
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: aygart on October 04, 2017, 12:41:16 PM
Hey media a bump stock does not turn an AR-15 into full auto. With that said it should still be banned with HCM!!!
Ignorant question. How difficult and how long does it take to switch magazines?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 12:44:53 PM
Ignorant question. How difficult and how long does it take to switch magazines?
Seconds and a blind person can do it.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: aygart on October 04, 2017, 12:46:01 PM
Seconds and a blind person can do it.
So how would banning HCMs make a noticeable difference?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 12:48:07 PM
So how would banning HCMs make a noticeable difference?
At 10+ rounds a second it would have made a difference, big difference!!!
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: aygart on October 04, 2017, 12:50:10 PM
At 10+ rounds a second it would have made a difference, big difference!!!
How many fewer injuries would you estimate had he shot 10 fewer rounds each minute? How about in other mass shootings?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 04, 2017, 01:06:28 PM
How many fewer injuries would you estimate had he shot 10 fewer rounds each minute? How about in other mass shootings?
huge numbers less
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: aygart on October 04, 2017, 01:08:15 PM
huge numbers less
How?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 04, 2017, 01:11:24 PM
How?
In most cases these people can carry a limited number of magazines that are easily accessible. So if he carries 6 magazines into a movie theater that's 60-600 bullets depending in magazine size.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 04, 2017, 01:26:35 PM
huge numbers less
Regardless, to make policy based on mass shootings --which are a tiny fraction of a percent of all gun deaths-- is just ridiculous.

and on that note, bump:
Now a trivia question for bonus points: Up until the Orlando nightclub massacre, what was the deadliest shooting and what gun(s) were used?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 04, 2017, 01:34:56 PM
Ignorant question. How difficult and how long does it take to switch magazines?
Depends who's doing it :)



Someone like the Vegas shooter who was obviously highly trained can certainly do it really quickly :P
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 01:48:39 PM
Regardless, to make policy based on mass shootings --which are a tiny fraction of a percent of all gun deaths-- is just ridiculous.
So your answer is do nothing and expect a different result?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: aygart on October 04, 2017, 01:54:45 PM
So your answer is do nothing and expect a different result?
No, his answer is to find what will make a difference. Your answer is to do something he feels is irrelevant and get expect different results.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ShlockDoc on October 04, 2017, 01:55:00 PM
So your answer is do nothing and expect a different result?

Or do something about the issues that actually are causing the significant percentage of gun deaths. 
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 04, 2017, 01:59:12 PM
No, his answer is to find what will make a difference. Your answer is to do something he feels is irrelevant and get expect different results.
Or do something about the issues that actually are causing the significant percentage of gun deaths. 
Exactly.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 02:01:11 PM
No, his answer is to find what will make a difference. Your answer is to do something he feels is irrelevant and get expect different results.
That's the whole problem with the discussion. The one side always says that won't work but has no idea what will. Then you have the other side that just wants to ban guns. The ones in the middle who understand there is no practical use for HCM and bump stocks among other things get lost in the discussion.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 02:02:23 PM
Or do something about the issues that actually are causing the significant percentage of gun deaths.
That would be to many hand guns available to the criminals. So what is your solution for that?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: aygart on October 04, 2017, 02:03:22 PM
That's the whole problem with the discussion. The one side always says that won't work but has no idea what will. Then you have the other side that just wants to ban guns. The ones in the middle who understand there is no practical use for HCM and bump stocks among other things get lost in the discussion.
But if it won't work then there is still no point. I agree with your point about the problem with the discussion.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 02:03:52 PM
The one side always says that won't work but has no idea what will.
Exactly.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 04, 2017, 02:04:58 PM
Take out the sequence of events, and the numbers are just like a few weekends in Chicago.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 04, 2017, 02:07:09 PM
Side point, but I've seen many articles etc over the years by people who started out anti-gun/pro gun control but after doing research on the matter and seeing all the data have become anti gun control. For example the one somebody posted above from the Washington Post. I have yet to single person who made the switch the other way based on looking at the data. (Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough and there people out there, but I haven't seen them so far.)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 02:07:41 PM
But if it won't work then there is still no point. I agree with your point about the problem with the discussion.
Only a fool, idiot, liar or all three believes if this shooter didn't have HCM's or bump stocks it wouldn't have made a difference.

Simple question for everyone. Is the standard issue assault rifle for the US military full auto capable?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 02:08:35 PM
Take out the sequence of events, and the numbers are just like a few weekends in Chicago.
You live in Chicago so what would the numbers be if they all had full auto weapons?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 04, 2017, 02:10:37 PM
You live in Chicago so what would the numbers be if they all had full auto weapons?
You live in Chicago, and you think they don't already have full auto?
Honestly, in Chicago these guys are stupid. It's not an experienced planned attack. It's a drive by. It's a mow down. It's a bullet between the eyes. I do believe that the numbers would be far greater, but I do know that there is no shortage of full autos on Chicagos streets.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 04, 2017, 02:12:55 PM
The ones in the middle who understand there is no practical use for HCM and bump stocks among other things get lost in the discussion.
I don't think those two should be lumped together.

Is there anyone out there who agrees with the regulations on full auto guns but thinks bump stocks should not be regulated.

It seems most people (you and me included) have not heard of bump stocks before yesterday. I'd say the odds of them remaining unregulated for much longer is very slim.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 02:14:43 PM
You live in Chicago, and you think they don't already have full auto?
Very few and most of those few are POS. The numbers would be hundred times worse if they were all walking around with full auto AR's and you know it.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 02:17:35 PM
I don't think those two should be lumped together.
I have owned guns my whole life. When would anyone ever need a hundred round magazine? Would you trust your life on one these operating properly and not jamming?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 04, 2017, 02:18:24 PM
Simple question for everyone. Is the standard issue assault rifle for the US military full auto capable?
I may be wrong but I think it's 3 round bursts.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: aygart on October 04, 2017, 02:19:03 PM
Only a fool, idiot, liar or all three believes if this shooter didn't have HCM's or bump stocks it wouldn't have made a difference.

Simple question for everyone. Is the standard issue assault rifle for the US military full auto capable?
I would have no idea
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 04, 2017, 02:20:07 PM
Very few and most of those few are POS. The numbers would be hundred times worse if they were all walking around with full auto AR's and you know it.
They're not walking around with ARs period.
Last I checked the vast vast majority of gun crimes were with handguns.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 02:23:03 PM
They're not walking around with ARs period.
Last I checked the vast vast majority of gun crimes were with handguns.
Yes you are correct. So what is the solution to keep hand guns out of the criminals hands? Anything I say will be "it doesn't work" so lets here your solution.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 02:23:49 PM
I would have no idea
I may be wrong but I think it's 3 round bursts.
Now ask yourself why?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 04, 2017, 02:24:13 PM
I thought we weren't doing hakafos for another week?

Only a fool, idiot, liar or all three believes if this shooter didn't have HCM's or bump stocks it wouldn't have made a difference.
to make policy based on mass shootings --which are a tiny fraction of a percent of all gun deaths-- is just ridiculous.

I have owned guns my whole life. When would anyone ever need a hundred round magazine? Would you trust your life on one these operating properly and not jamming?
Although the truth is, I'm not sure there's even a real argument here. When you say HCM you're talking about >20 round capacity. When the gun grabbers talk about HCM they're talking about >5-7 rounds.

Using the baseline of 20 rounds (I would say 30 rounds, but that's a side issue) I would agree there's probably no need for higher capacity. (for a rifle, not talking machine guns) In fact, AFAIK nobody serious uses them for life and death situations as they're far too unreliable/prone to jamming.
In fact, CMIIW, but if you make it through a whole 100 round drum without it jamming you'll be stuck with an overheated rifle.

But of course by the same reasoning for why they're unnecessary you can argue that banning them won't really help anything. How many of these shooters actually used HCMs (>20-30, not >5-7)  effectively?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ShlockDoc on October 04, 2017, 02:24:49 PM
That would be to many hand guns available to the criminals. So what is your solution for that?

Criminals isn't even the biggest problem, it's suicide.  I'm not sure how to take a chunk out of that but it would be helpful if the concern of the world and the accompanying resources would be directed to that.   
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 04, 2017, 02:25:51 PM
Now ask yourself why?
I believe because in most circumstances 3 round bursts are more effective, you get much more bang for your buck.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 02:27:59 PM
I thought we weren't doing hakafos for another week?
Still waiting for one common sense approach from any of you.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 02:30:47 PM
I seen a couple of reports of .308 rounds. What weapon was he using for that?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 04, 2017, 02:36:33 PM
They're not walking around with ARs period.
Last I checked the vast vast majority of gun crimes were with handguns.
Handguns come in full auto too, although they aren't as common.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: whYME on October 04, 2017, 02:39:52 PM
Still waiting for one common sense approach from any of you.
Generally when people say "common sense" in regards to gun control they really mean "emotional, feel-good without a factual, data-based basis."

So what is the solution to keep hand guns out of the criminals hands? Anything I say will be "it doesn't work" so lets here your solution.
Well for a start we could begin by focusing on the criminals, not the guns. The goal of any legislation needs to be preventing criminals from obtaining and using guns, not blanket rules that primarily impact law-abiding gun owners and have minimal-to-none impact on criminals.

How about this as a starting point:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html)
Quote
By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 04, 2017, 02:45:42 PM
If your focus is the criminals, then harsher sentences/punishment would probably be a start. While I'm in no way suggesting this, imagine if you got the needle for possessing of a deadly weapon? While that is too drastic, there has got to be a point where many criminals will no longer find it worth the risk. Not to mention it would impact the black market.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 02:48:11 PM
How about this as a starting point:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html)
That is were we get into what the numbers mean. Each side has there own numbers to prove their point. Here is what I know for a fact. I do not own any HCM's or full auto weapons. The reason is they serve no useful purpose. If you ban them it might help and it might not. The thing is there is no downside so why not try?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 02:49:21 PM
If your focus is the criminals, then harsher sentences/punishment would probably be a start. While I'm in no way suggesting this, imagine if you got the needle for possessing of a deadly weapon? While that is too drastic, there has got to be a point where many criminals will no longer find it worth the risk. Not to mention it would impact the black market.
Maybe I am missing something. Is anyone against stricter laws for gun crimes?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: aygart on October 04, 2017, 02:52:57 PM
The thing is there is no downside so why not try?
The downside is that you curtailed a constitutional right. If there is a compelling reason then it should be done if there isn't then it shouldn't based only on a why not. I do not have the understanding of the subject to make such a determination. Neither do most of those blabing about what to do.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ShlockDoc on October 04, 2017, 02:55:25 PM
Maybe I am missing something. Is anyone against stricter laws for gun crimes?

It's not about being for or against.  It's about where the resources needed to pass legislation and policy get directed toward.   Wasting time, political capital, etc. on high capacity magazines misses the opportunity to do something that would actually address the largest slices of the gun death pie chart.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 04, 2017, 02:56:07 PM
That is were we get into what the numbers mean. Each side has there own numbers to prove their point. Here is what I know for a fact. I do not own any HCM's or full auto weapons. The reason is they serve no useful purpose. If you ban them it might help and it might not. The thing is there is no downside so why not try?
Clearly there are some who don't agree. Why were HCMs made? Why would a unnecessary item become a common stocked item? While the uses may not be practical in all cases, or maybe not at all to you, I don't think it can be said for certain that they are useless. Personally, I have/will never own/ed a HCM unless my circumstances drastically change. Banning things simply because it might help, but it might not, is not practical, because one day, those bans will start encroaching on your personal stash, or mine, or whoever. Nothing should be banned unless there is a real solid reason.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 04, 2017, 02:58:44 PM
Maybe I am missing something. Is anyone against stricter laws for gun crimes?
Not at all. But throw gun control out the window, when talking about criminals, because it will most like only minimally effect what criminals can get ahold of. The only thing, if any, that they are scared of, is the punishment. Make it something they will fear.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 03:00:06 PM
The downside is that you curtailed a constitutional right.
There is no constitutional rights to HCM and full auto weapons.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 03:03:26 PM
How about a national database for gun owners and sales?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: churnbabychurn on October 04, 2017, 03:52:43 PM
How about a national database for gun owners and sales?
How does that save lives?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Aaaron on October 04, 2017, 03:58:07 PM
There is no constitutional rights to HCM and full auto weapons.

That's arguable.  The Miller case back from the 30s states that a sawed-off shotgun wasn't protected under 2a because there wouldn't be a purpose for it in a militia.  Implying that weapons that have a purpose in a militia would be protected. 
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 06:03:03 PM
How does that save lives?
Someone buying 30 rifles and 12 bump stocks in a short period of time would have been on their radar.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 04, 2017, 06:06:40 PM
Implying that weapons that have a purpose in a militia would be protected.
So you are arguing that ANY weapon a militia would use is protected?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Aaaron on October 07, 2017, 10:21:32 PM
So you are arguing that ANY weapon a militia would use is protected?

Yes.  And to take away the right to that weapon the courts would have to apply strict scrutiny. 
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Something Fishy on October 09, 2017, 12:32:53 AM
Putting aside the debate for a moment... Is anyone able to ID this rifle and ammo for me?

Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Aaaron on October 09, 2017, 12:03:53 PM
Looks a little larger than a .308.  Prob 300 Win Mag or 338 Lapua.  Rifle looks like any other bolt action, pretty hard to tell from that vid. 

Edit: On second glance, very possibly a 308.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on January 18, 2018, 11:14:03 AM
https://grabagun.com/dpms-panther-oracle-223-16-30rd.html
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on March 26, 2018, 07:19:43 AM
http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/25/news/companies/remington-bankruptcy/index.html

So, do gun makers vote Democrat?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on March 26, 2018, 09:00:36 AM
So, do gun makers vote Democrat?
Wrong thread.  :P
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Shauly101 on October 28, 2018, 08:52:38 PM
with the latest attack over the past Shaboss do you think i stand a chance getting a license in NY? also is there anyone here with a NYC license that can guide me or provide tips?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Dr Moose on October 28, 2018, 11:12:29 PM
with the latest attack over the past Shaboss do you think i stand a chance getting a license in NY? also is there anyone here with a NYC license that can guide me or provide tips?
New York state isn't so hard, NYC on the other hand is impossible.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: 12HRS on October 28, 2018, 11:36:29 PM
New York state isn't so hard, NYC on the other hand is impossible.

Impossible if you come at it from the angle of private citizen wanting to undercover carry.

IIRC there is a way to do it as a security guard with the licensure that comes with. Someone else would probably know more details.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: henche on October 29, 2018, 09:05:45 AM
Realistically, what does it cost to go from noob to someone who is safer with a gun in a shooting than without?  Including classes, gun, ammo, range hours, etc? (Plus applicable licensing fees which presumably vary)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 29, 2018, 09:23:20 AM
New York state isn't so hard, NYC on the other hand is impossible.
What about just keeping a few guns inside a shul, and members don't take the guns outside shul? Also impossible?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 29, 2018, 09:25:58 AM
Realistically, what does it cost to go from noob to someone who is safer with a gun in a shooting than without?  Including classes, gun, ammo, range hours, etc? (Plus applicable licensing fees which presumably vary)
I don't think anyone can give you a number on that, and it depends on the person.

What's it cost to become a great public speaker? Depends on the person...

As for a guesstimate, Maybe around $1.5k if you want to do it right. But can be as low as $500 if you pick it up quick and are a quick study...

(A friend of mine does this for a living, I'll ask him...)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Dr Moose on October 29, 2018, 09:26:25 AM
What about just keeping a few guns inside a shul, and members don't take the guns outside shul? Also impossible?
You'll need a license to buy said guns. If my name is associated with a gun, I'm not going to let it just sit around so anyone could take it and commit a crime which will automatically associate me.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 29, 2018, 09:31:08 AM
I don't think anyone can give you a number on that, and it depends on the person.

What's it cost to become a great public speaker? Depends on the person...

As for a guesstimate, Maybe around $1.5k if you want to do it right. But can be as low as $500 if you pick it up quick and are a quick study...

(A friend of mine does this for a living, I'll ask him...)
Friend said that this sounds right.

He offers shul security courses, safety procedures, private training etc, he does amazing work. Based out of California. You can contact him here https://www.yscsecurity.com/

Can read about what they do here MagenAmUSA.org and feel free to donate ;)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: yesitsme on October 29, 2018, 09:33:54 AM
What about just keeping a few guns inside a shul, and members don't take the guns outside shul? Also impossible?
defibrillator + gun combo kit
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 29, 2018, 09:39:50 AM
defibrillator + gun combo kit
Two things I strongly believe every shul should have, with people trained to use both...

So what do you guys think, should we start posting gun deals on DDMS?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 29, 2018, 09:43:54 AM
defibrillator + gun combo kit
Only issue, is as stated above. A gun is registered to an owner, and any use of it is the liability of said owner, while a defibrillator is obtained and the liability is on the user.
Two things I strongly believe every shul should have, with people trained to use both...

So what do you guys think, should we start posting gun deals on DDMS?
Many shuls where I am already have armed congregants. Some systematically placed, some just happen to be. I'd be all for gun deal on MS!
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: chevron on October 29, 2018, 09:52:01 AM
I hate being right in this case, and even Zalman myer-smith used to think I was a radical.

Every shull should have 2+ trained armed congregants. Those on hand can respond in seconds, where the police can take minutes and be too late.

Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: 12HRS on October 29, 2018, 09:52:24 AM
Two things I strongly believe every shul should have, with people trained to use both...

So what do you guys think, should we start posting gun deals on DDMS?

Any worse then posting pregnancy tests?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: zale on October 29, 2018, 10:07:04 AM
Two things I strongly believe every shul should have, with people trained to use both...

So what do you guys think, should we start posting gun deals on DDMS?

Perhaps we can start with a write-up of how to go about obtaining a license or a concealed-carry permit in states like NY?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Dr Moose on October 29, 2018, 10:23:43 AM
Perhaps we can start with a write-up of how to go about obtaining a license or a concealed-carry permit in states like NY?
Every county is different procedure.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 29, 2018, 10:33:16 AM
I don't think anyone can give you a number on that, and it depends on the person.

What's it cost to become a great public speaker? Depends on the person...

As for a guesstimate, Maybe around $1.5k if you want to do it right. But can be as low as $500 if you pick it up quick and are a quick study...

(A friend of mine does this for a living, I'll ask him...)
Just like no matter how much you spend some individuals will never be great speakers. The same is true about gun owners but with deadly consequences.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 29, 2018, 10:36:22 AM
Just like no matter how much you spend some individuals will never be great speakers. The same is true about gun owners but with deadly consequences.
100%.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 29, 2018, 10:36:52 AM
Any worse then posting pregnancy tests?
I have no idea what the connection is...

One makes life, one ends life?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 29, 2018, 10:38:50 AM
Only issue, is as stated above. A gun is registered to an owner, and any use of it is the liability of said owner
Gotcha, I didn't realize just owning a gun for your home was so hard in NYC, I thought a carry permit was impossible.

Fwiu shot guns are easier in NY, maybe talk to an expert if they would help for a mass shooting in a shul or not.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: avromie7 on October 29, 2018, 10:43:17 AM
You'll need a license to buy said guns. If my name is associated with a gun, I'm not going to let it just sit around so anyone could take it and commit a crime which will automatically associate me.
I know a shul that has a safe and a few members keep guns there. They pick them up on their way in and put them back on their way out.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 29, 2018, 10:57:25 AM
Gotcha, I didn't realize just owning a gun for your home was so hard in NYC, I thought a carry permit was impossible.

Fwiu shot guns are easier in NY, maybe talk to an expert if they would help for a mass shooting in a shul or not.
Long guns are typically easier to obtain, but unless open carry is allowed, you can't really carry one. Also, I don't think a shotgun in a crowded shul is a good idea...
I know a shul that has a safe and a few members keep guns there. They pick them up on their way in and put them back on their way out.
Sounds nice and all, but I would never leave my gun in a public location, even if it's in a safe.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 29, 2018, 11:01:01 AM
Sounds nice and all, but I would never leave my gun in a public location, even if it's in a safe.
That's almost as bad as lending your gun to someone.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 29, 2018, 11:08:01 AM
That's almost as bad as lending your gun to someone.
If it's a big enough safe, everyone can have their own locked case inside the safe...

Long guns are typically easier to obtain, but unless open carry is allowed, you can't really carry one.
You can't carry indoors, inside a shul?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 29, 2018, 11:24:54 AM


If it's a big enough safe, everyone can have their own locked case inside the safe...
You can't carry indoors, inside a shul?

That's where it starts to get more complicated. All those laws vary by county/state, and are essential knowledge to have before carrying. Typically, if you legally own a gun, you can carry it however you please within your private residence. That will vary by location, and those terms may. Be defined differently in each location.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: grodnoking on October 29, 2018, 12:42:20 PM
If it's a big enough safe, everyone can have their own locked case inside the safe...
You can't carry indoors, inside a shul?

That's where it starts to get more complicated. All those laws vary by county/state, and are essential knowledge to have before carrying. Typically, if you legally own a gun, you can carry it however you please within your private residence. That will vary by location, and those terms may. Be defined differently in each location.
As in NJ: A Regular gun license will just get  you a permit for you to keep in house, work, and range. You can drive it between them BUT YOU CANT STOP ANYWHERE ON THE WAY, YOU MUST GO DIRECTLY, NOT EVEN GAS.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: 12HRS on October 29, 2018, 01:07:42 PM
I have no idea what the connection is...

One makes life, one ends life?

Thought you were asking about backlash
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 29, 2018, 01:16:33 PM
Thought you were asking about backlash
Who hates pregnancy tests?

If you asked about certain birth prevention products vs guns I'd get the connection, but a pregnancy test? What's the controversy?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 29, 2018, 01:16:54 PM
As in NJ: A Regular gun license will just get  you a permit for you to keep in house, work, and range. You can drive it between them BUT YOU CANT STOP ANYWHERE ON THE WAY, YOU MUST GO DIRECTLY, NOT EVEN GAS.
And if I had to guess, when transporting, firearm and ammunition need to be kept in separate cases. Here in IL, we can transport, but if you're not certified to carry, it cannot be loaded and must be packed separately when transporting.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 29, 2018, 01:17:31 PM
Who hates pregnancy tests?
Half the south side of Chicago...
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 29, 2018, 01:18:43 PM
Half the south side of Chicago...
I'm lost.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 29, 2018, 01:21:10 PM
I'm lost.
I think there is a joke somewhere there but I don't get it.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 29, 2018, 01:22:31 PM
I'm lost.
I think there is a joke somewhere there but I don't get it.
Never mind.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: lfas25 on October 29, 2018, 01:40:16 PM
defibrillator + gun combo kit

You left out the fire extinguisher 
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: grodnoking on October 29, 2018, 01:43:41 PM


Who hates pregnancy tests?

If you asked about certain birth prevention products vs guns I'd get the connection, but a pregnancy test? What's the controversy?
Posts that trigger people. The yeshivish guy checking Dan's deals on his wife's iPhone will get triggered by pregnancy tests, and the  26 year old liberal millennial crying how guns are the root of all evil.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: grodnoking on October 29, 2018, 01:44:17 PM
You left out the fire extinguisher
Everyone (hopefully) has that already.
Defibrillators most shuls are getting now.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Dr Moose on October 29, 2018, 03:04:10 PM
I know a shul that has a safe and a few members keep guns there. They pick them up on their way in and put them back on their way out.
I'm going to assume it's because of the lack of an eiruv maybe. Can't imagine any other reason why someone would leave their gun in a place others can get to.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Yonah on October 29, 2018, 03:11:06 PM
I'm going to assume it's because of the lack of an eiruv maybe. Can't imagine any other reason why someone would leave their gun in a place others can get to.

I would imagine that in general, a gun is considered Muktzah on Shabbos, and if you have a heter to carry one for pikuach nefesh, it would also extend to carrying on shabbos - but I'm no halachic authority.

It's also possible, that their permits technically require their guns to be in a lock box.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 29, 2018, 03:17:06 PM
I would imagine that in general, a gun is considered Muktzah on Shabbos, and if you have a heter to carry one for pikuach nefesh, it would also extend to carrying on shabbos - but I'm no halachic authority.

It's also possible, that their permits technically require their guns to be in a lock box.
Maybe, but just because you have a heter to protect the shul, you may not have a heter to handle it outside of shul. No halachic basis, just speaking my mind.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on October 29, 2018, 03:20:55 PM
I would imagine that in general, a gun is considered Muktzah on Shabbos, and if you have a heter to carry one for pikuach nefesh, it would also extend to carrying on shabbos - but I'm no halachic authority.
Some poskim hold it's not muktza at all, as it is a kli she’melachto l’heter. But everyone agrees carrying is not allowed, unless it's pikuach nefesh.

In short it's a machlokes, the muktza machlokes is more meikel, so talk to your rav.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: avromie7 on October 29, 2018, 03:32:05 PM
Maybe, but just because you have a heter to protect the shul, you may not have a heter to handle it outside of shul. No halachic basis, just speaking my mind.
It's in an area with an eruv, but this is what the Rabbi told them to do.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: yesitsme on October 29, 2018, 03:37:56 PM
http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=3103378

(I didn't read the article)
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: yesitsme on October 29, 2018, 09:30:32 PM
https://licensing.nypdonline.org/new-app-instruction/
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Shauly101 on October 29, 2018, 11:23:00 PM
https://licensing.nypdonline.org/new-app-instruction/

under which category would carrying a gun to shul go?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Dr Moose on October 29, 2018, 11:33:50 PM
under which category would carrying a gun to shul go?
Don't even bother.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: yesitsme on October 30, 2018, 09:47:31 AM
https://www.amazon.com/ga/p/473e881c1d5a969e#ln-l
30% off  after watching video!!
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on October 30, 2018, 11:33:22 AM
https://www.amazon.com/ga/p/473e881c1d5a969e#ln-l
30% off  after watching video!!
Nice.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: gingyguy on October 30, 2018, 12:09:41 PM
https://www.amazon.com/ga/p/473e881c1d5a969e#ln-l
30% off  after watching video!!
watching the video was cooler than the 30% off!
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 30, 2018, 12:15:41 PM
watching the video was cooler than the 30% off!
Not as "cool" as watching someone shoot themselves with a .357
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: gingyguy on October 30, 2018, 02:35:35 PM
Thank G-D, I've never seen that!
 
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on October 30, 2018, 03:31:55 PM
Thank G-D, I've never seen that!
Not the same as being a few feet away but you get the point.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Definitions on October 30, 2018, 03:41:44 PM
Same idea but check out the bruise at 1:49

Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: jj1000 on November 01, 2018, 09:12:26 PM
https://koaa.com/news/covering-colorado/2018/10/31/local-gun-shop-owner-offers-rabbis-free-weapons/

Local gun shop owner offers rabbis free weapons
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: solls108 on November 04, 2018, 01:13:09 AM
So tachlis, how easy is it/what do you have to do to get a carrying permit in NY and/or NYC?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: grodnoking on November 04, 2018, 01:36:37 PM
How do I get my pistol emoji back?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Dr Moose on November 04, 2018, 01:46:25 PM
So tachlis, how easy is it/what do you have to do to get a carrying permit in NY and/or NYC?
Depends which county in New York. Don't count on getting one in NYC.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Luvisrael on November 13, 2018, 01:18:06 PM
So tachlis, how easy is it/what do you have to do to get a carrying permit in NY and/or NYC?
what about nj?
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: grodnoking on November 13, 2018, 01:29:35 PM
what about nj?
.
As in NJ: A Regular gun license will just get  you a permit for you to keep in house, work, and range. You can drive it between them BUT YOU CANT STOP ANYWHERE ON THE WAY, YOU MUST GO DIRECTLY, NOT EVEN GAS.
This permit is easy. many yeshiva bachorim have one for "fun". To get anything else is much harder.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: Definitions on November 13, 2018, 02:40:32 PM
.This permit is easy. many yeshiva bachorim have one for "fun".
This is the first time I heard that.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on November 13, 2018, 03:19:00 PM
This is the first time I heard that.
That's how it is here in IL. FOID cards are carried by many, and are easy to get. Not everyone who has them, uses them.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on November 13, 2018, 03:24:39 PM
That's how it is here in IL. FOID cards are carried by many, and are easy to get. Not everyone who has them, uses them.
I thought they had the strictest laws.  ;)
We must hang in different groups. I know hundreds that have them and all use them.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on November 13, 2018, 03:31:29 PM
I thought they had the strictest laws.  ;)
We must hang in different groups. I know hundreds that have them and all use them.
Well, to be fair, having a foid card really doesn't do much aside from letting you into a range, and some don't even require it. Obviously you need one to buy a gun, but that's a whole separate process. Most people who have them, use them. I know when I was younger (too young to own a gun) many of my friends had them for no particular reason. Guess they thought it was cool. I only got one once I was old enough to own a gun, and go to the range alone.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: ChaimMoskowitz on November 13, 2018, 03:35:40 PM
Guess they thought it was cool.
This a big problem. Some look at concealed carry the same way.
Title: Re: Guns Master Thread
Post by: as2 on November 13, 2018, 03:37:02 PM
This a big problem. Some look at concealed carry the same way.
I agree about the CCL, but as far as the FOID, I don't think it's as big an issue. Still not a reason to get one, but less worrisome than one who gets a CCL just to be like his friends