Carrying Guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ah, you don't live in the US. I understand better now. :)

I was a bit "freaked out" myself when DH wanted to get his permit and start carrying a gun. But the more I got used to it, the more at ease I became. And too, then when I took the class myself and learned more about guns, how to use them, practice shooting at the range, etc. now it is totally acceptable to me.

But as to your comment about someone carrying a gun freaking you out as it would be too easy for them to just pull out their gun and kill you, I would not be worried about someone legally carrying a gun as I would be much more worried about a criminal that has one. In fact, when I took the conceal carry permit class the instructor was the police chief of a nearby town and he told us that when he pulls someone over and the person hands him their driver's license and their conceal carry permit it actually puts him more at ease because he knows that person has gone through a background check already and they are an honest law-abiding citizen (well, except for the speeding in their car which is probably the reason they were pulled over :rotfl:).

Then you hear about something like the Home Depot shooting where a CCW permit holder was shooting at a fleeing vehicle where the perps were only suspected of shoplifting and no violent crime. Or that case of two CCW permit holders getting into an argument and where they managed to shoot at each other and both died. I don't attribute any special status to passing a background check or attending a class. They can screw up as bad as anyone else in a specific situation.
 
No offense, but I don't know any of you personally so why the heck should I trust you at your word. Who ever says Oh yes... LOL, I am an irresponsible gun owner?

Yes I live in the US, Yes I have owned a gun. But I do not think the answer is more guns... bigger guns... more guns in schools... more guns in Churches... more guns everywhere until we become something akin to a modern day Wild West with everyone ready to pack and fire at wolves and bears and thugs. Not interested in that future world. Guess I really do not have that much faith in my fellow mankind's ability to be responsible and calm and not do something stupid.

Just to clarify, guns are not getting bigger, nor are they getting more powerful (generally speaking). Just as an example, the rifles our soldiers carried in WWI were roughly triple the power of the ones our soldiers carry today.
 
Just to clarify, guns are not getting bigger, nor are they getting more powerful (generally speaking). Just as an example, the rifles our soldiers carried in WWI were roughly triple the power of the ones our soldiers carry today.
tell that to my engineer friend who was working on the navy's giant gun...

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-navys-giant-electromagnetic-railgun-looks-terrifyin-1793603182

However, I was being somewhat overly simplistic, meaning that when I refereed to 'bigger' guns, I was talking about weaponry like the AR 15 Bushmaster that really (IMHO) have very limited legitimate civilian use, you do not go deer hunting with an assault rifle, you do not need an assault rifle to keep your home safe, or to go safely to the supermarket etc. I don't care if you want to go to a target facility and shoot them all you want in a controlled environment, however I really do not think that weaponry of that caliber needs to be in the public domain. Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify, guns are not getting bigger, nor are they getting more powerful (generally speaking). Just as an example, the rifles our soldiers carried in WWI were roughly triple the power of the ones our soldiers carry today.

However, there's a question about whether or not they're more deadly. The 5.56x45mm NATO round (and its civilian equivalent) is demonstrably more deadly than the rifle rounds used in WWI. It doesn't take that much to be deadly, but those were more controllable, cheaper, and lighter. That certainly created a better weapon for the type of close to medium-range combat that American/NATO forces were encountering. If one can put out more lead and control it much better, that's clearly more deadly.

And then there's the changes to handguns. Revolvers used to be the most common carry weapon, although the 1911 was pretty common too. Revolvers aren't terribly common in mass shootings. The first time it really became a big thing in the media was the Luby's shooting in Texas where the perp had a Glock 17 and a Ruger P89. I'm not really into guns, but I've gone target shooting with friends. I remember the Glock 17, which was actually quite easy to handle. I've heard that the polymer receiver helps to reduce the sensation of recoil. If the intent was to put out a lot of lead, I think it was a better weapon than a Sig.
 

tell that to my engineer friend who was working on the navy's giant gun...

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-navys-giant-electromagnetic-railgun-looks-terrifyin-1793603182

However, I was being somewhat overly simplistic, meaning that when I refereed to 'bigger' guns, I was talking about weaponry like the AR 15 Bushmaster that really (IMHO) have very limited legitimate civilian use, you do not go deer hunting with an assault rifle, you do not need an assault rifle to keep your home safe, or to go safely to the supermarket etc. I don't care if you want to go to a target facility and shoot them all you want in a controlled environment, however I really do not need think that weaponry of that caliber needs to be in the public domain. Just my opinion.
In a previous (shut down) thread, I was told you do need that for riots.
 
tell that to my engineer friend who was working on the navy's giant gun...

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-navys-giant-electromagnetic-railgun-looks-terrifyin-1793603182

However, I was being somewhat overly simplistic, meaning that when I refereed to 'bigger' guns, I was talking about weaponry like the AR 15 Bushmaster that really (IMHO) have very limited legitimate civilian use, you do not go deer hunting with an assault rifle, you do not need an assault rifle to keep your home safe, or to go safely to the supermarket etc. I don't care if you want to go to a target facility and shoot them all you want in a controlled environment, however I really do not need think that weaponry of that caliber needs to be in the public domain. Just my opinion.

Civilians don't actually own assault rifles (well very few due) to learn more about the term please go here: http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Yes it's your opinion that I may not "need" an AR15 but it's a good thing it's the bill of rights and not the bill of needs or wants....you do not have to demonstrate need to exercise a right. This of course is in addition to the fact that the most popular shooting platform in the country is the AR15 for a reason..it's quite useful for many things.
 
tell that to my engineer friend who was working on the navy's giant gun...

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-navys-giant-electromagnetic-railgun-looks-terrifyin-1793603182

However, I was being somewhat overly simplistic, meaning that when I refereed to 'bigger' guns, I was talking about weaponry like the AR 15 Bushmaster that really (IMHO) have very limited legitimate civilian use, you do not go deer hunting with an assault rifle, you do not need an assault rifle to keep your home safe, or to go safely to the supermarket etc. I don't care if you want to go to a target facility and shoot them all you want in a controlled environment, however I really do not need think that weaponry of that caliber needs to be in the public domain. Just my opinion.

Handguns are definitely getting more powerful for a given capacity. There have always been power handgun ammo, but these days there's more power with high capacity with 10mm, .40 S&W, and .357 Sig.
 
However, there's a question about whether or not they're more deadly. The 5.56x45mm NATO round (and its civilian equivalent) is demonstrably more deadly than the rifle rounds used in WWI. It doesn't take that much to be deadly, but those were more controllable, cheaper, and lighter. That certainly created a better weapon for the type of close to medium-range combat that American/NATO forces were encountering. If one can put out more lead and control it much better, that's clearly more deadly.

And then there's the changes to handguns. Revolvers used to be the most common carry weapon, although the 1911 was pretty common too. Revolvers aren't terribly common in mass shootings. The first time it really became a big thing in the media was the Luby's shooting in Texas where the perp had a Glock 17 and a Ruger P89. I'm not really into guns, but I've gone target shooting with friends. I remember the Glock 17, which was actually quite easy to handle. I've heard that the polymer receiver helps to reduce the sensation of recoil. If the intent was to put out a lot of lead, I think it was a better weapon than a Sig.

No, it most certainly is NOT more deadly. And before you link that absolute farce of an article that ran earlier this week, I saw it too. And it's been discredited by pretty much everyone who has ever fired both weapons.
 
No, it most certainly is NOT more deadly. And before you link that absolute farce of an article that ran earlier this week, I saw it too. And it's been discredited by pretty much everyone who has ever fired both weapons.

What about having more rounds and lighter weight doesn't make it more deadly? Certainly a single round isn't as likely to kill, but carry capacity, weight, etc certainly made it a more effective combat weapon in fairly close quarters.
 
What about having more rounds and lighter weight doesn't make it more deadly? Certainly a single round isn't as likely to kill, but carry capacity, weight, etc certainly made it a more effective combat weapon in fairly close quarters.

Yes, the M4 is more appropriate for fairly close combat, and for that matter, in room to room, an Uzi would be more appropriate still. But, you specifically mentioned the cartridge in your assessment of "deadly". And in most reasonable people's minds, they would assume you are implying that a single 5.56 is more likely to kill than a single 7.62. And that would be wrong.
 
Yes, the M4 is more appropriate for fairly close combat, and for that matter, in room to room, an Uzi would be more appropriate still. But, you specifically mentioned the cartridge in your assessment of "deadly". And in most reasonable people's minds, they would assume you are implying that a single 5.56 is more likely to kill than a single 7.62. And that would be wrong.

Well - yeah. There have been a lot of submachine guns used in close combat like the Grease Gun. I think the US military was a huge buyer of Tommy guns.

I wasn't arguing that a single round was more deadly, because that's obviously not true. I thought I presented the context in which I made that claim. In combat it certainly could a more deadly round based on ease of use and being able to carry more. On top of that, the older rifles were much heavier. I heard the heavier rifles were excellent as sniper rifles, but in Vietnam they were finding out that these big rifles like the M14 were just too cumbersome for that kind of warfare.

I've also heard some really stupid stuff, like claims that the 5.56x45 included versions designed to wound rather than kill by a tumbling action. It made absolutely no sense, since one that tumbles on impact is probably more likely to kill by destroying vital organs. The stupidest thing I heard claimed was that you might get something like a shot in the foot snaking its way to the torso. I don't doubt that there was the rare case that one could do that, but it wasn't the case that it could be relied on to do so.
 
In riots, police are more likely to have real automatic weapons. When I was at the Super Bowl 50 event in San Francisco, local police were on guard platforms carrying M4s.
I agree that ppl do not need these weapons for home defense but was told that ppl feel they need them to protect themselves from riots. Personally, I am not concerned that I will need to defend myself from riots & I live in a high crime city. So, my opinion is still there are no legitimate needs for the type of weapons the pp posted mentioned.
 
I agree that ppl do not need these weapons for home defense but was told that ppl feel they need them to protect themselves from riots. Personally, I am not concerned that I will need to defend myself from riots & I live in a high crime city. So, my opinion is still there are no legitimate needs for the type of weapons the pp posted mentioned.
You forgot to mention the other examples, for some reason you got caught up on riots, but the reason of multiple attackers and sport shooting was given to you when you asked about the need for "High capacity magazines" which you never defined so it was assumed to actually mean standard capacity which in an AR15 platform tends to be 30 rounds.

If you are now shifting your original question to the need for an AR15 pattern rifle and not the need for capacity on it's own then the reasoning becomes familiarity,ergonomics, ease of use,accuracy,reliability and ability to customize.

And again, if you don't see a need for something you don't have to own it, but please do not think that your opinion is the all mighty one that should be used to tell others what to do, I mean your the one that apparently chooses to live in a high crime city, I would think your judgement is off by that alone.
 
Apparently, “Been to the Stampede yet?” is Canadian for "Give me all your money!". Who knew?
Should be, the Calgary Stampede is a pretty expensive festival! Going for several days during the week can get close to spending Disney-dollar-spending levels! ;)
 
I agree that ppl do not need these weapons for home defense but was told that ppl feel they need them to protect themselves from riots. Personally, I am not concerned that I will need to defend myself from riots & I live in a high crime city. So, my opinion is still there are no legitimate needs for the type of weapons the pp posted mentioned.

I remember casually talking to a coworker, who mentioned that she had a gun. She rather qualified that the reason why was "I lived in Oakland". Certainly I know Oakland well. Certain parts of Oakland are actually about as safe from violent crime as anywhere in California. However, the big issue that they have there is property crimes and the poor police response times. They're so busy dealing with gang violence that they often didn't have the personnel to respond to residential burglary calls or even take reports. They have an online form that will satisfy most insurance company requirements.

It's got to be tough though. I know some cops look forward to working in the tough areas. I've heard of one detective who worked in a bland suburb with almost no violent crime, and he joined a county drug task force where he would probably get more interesting cases. However, Oakland had a problem with a lot of their police who they trained at their academy leaving for suburban police departments the first chance they got. They also had a budget shortfall where they ended up shuttering their academy. They ended up getting help from the California Highway Patrol. It was mostly to run local traffic patrols to free the city cops to handle other issues, but they did have regular police training and could answer a residential call if needed.
 
Well - yeah. There have been a lot of submachine guns used in close combat like the Grease Gun. I think the US military was a huge buyer of Tommy guns.

I wasn't arguing that a single round was more deadly, because that's obviously not true. I thought I presented the context in which I made that claim. In combat it certainly could a more deadly round based on ease of use and being able to carry more. On top of that, the older rifles were much heavier. I heard the heavier rifles were excellent as sniper rifles, but in Vietnam they were finding out that these big rifles like the M14 were just too cumbersome for that kind of warfare.

I've also heard some really stupid stuff, like claims that the 5.56x45 included versions designed to wound rather than kill by a tumbling action. It made absolutely no sense, since one that tumbles on impact is probably more likely to kill by destroying vital organs. The stupidest thing I heard claimed was that you might get something like a shot in the foot snaking its way to the torso. I don't doubt that there was the rare case that one could do that, but it wasn't the case that it could be relied on to do so.

The reduced weight of the M16 and its corresponding ammo provides one real combat benefit - the foot soldier can carry more ammo with him (or her) when away from resupplying points for long periods of time. And that was the way to go in Vietnam. Were we still fighting traditional front-based battles, our troops would be carrying heavier, more powerful weapons. And honestly, were 2 men to walk into a crowded stadium - 1 carrying an M4, and the other an M60, there is no doubt that anyone reporting on the event would refer to the M60 as the "more deadly" weapon.

And indeed, there has been a much greater reliance on heavier, more powerful rifles in Afghanistan & to an extent Iraq.
 
You forgot to mention the other examples, for some reason you got caught up on riots, but the reason of multiple attackers and sport shooting was given to you when you asked about the need for "High capacity magazines" which you never defined so it was assumed to actually mean standard capacity which in an AR15 platform tends to be 30 rounds.

If you are now shifting your original question to the need for an AR15 pattern rifle and not the need for capacity on it's own then the reasoning becomes familiarity,ergonomics, ease of use,accuracy,reliability and ability to customize.

And again, if you don't see a need for something you don't have to own it, but please do not think that your opinion is the all mighty one that should be used to tell others what to do, I mean your the one that apparently chooses to live in a high crime city, I would think your judgement is off by that alone.
I said in “my opinion”...THAT is MY opinion. I do not believe that there are legitimate needs no matter what YOU or anyone else says. I clearly don’t have the power to tell ppl what they can own so I think you need to calm down about that. Perhaps, I should include I don’t think the reasons you stated are legitimate enough that they should be legal. There was a time when they were banned & I’m assuming you got by. I think it would be neat to own a tiger, but b/c they can cause harm to the general public relatively quickly, it’s not legal.

As for my judgement based on where I live?? First, how dare you?! You don’t know me or anything about me. I was born & raised here & my entire family is here & has lived here for generations. To most here, it’s not just a place, it’s part of who you are! I’m sorry you must have not had the opportunity to experience that connection.
2nd-it’s still a very desirable place to live & many ppl flock here to visit & end up staying. All cities have their problems, ours are not unique.
3rd-And my point is that even in this environment, I have still never been the victim or a crime or needed an AR15 or any weapon to shoot my way out of a dangerous situation. So, to that end, IN MY OPINION (you seem to struggle with that part), ppl do not need nor should they have AR15 type weapons since they pose a risk to society & the benefits are minimal to a handful of ppl.
 
I said in “my opinion”...THAT is MY opinion. I do not believe that there are legitimate needs no matter what YOU or anyone else says. I clearly don’t have the power to tell ppl what they can own so I think you need to calm down about that. Perhaps, I should include I don’t think the reasons you stated are legitimate enough that they should be legal. There was a time when they were banned & I’m assuming you got by. I think it would be neat to own a tiger, but b/c they can cause harm to the general public relatively quickly, it’s not legal.

As for my judgement based on where I live?? First, how dare you?! You don’t know me or anything about me. I was born & raised here & my entire family is here & has lived here for generations. To most here, it’s not just a place, it’s part of who you are! I’m sorry you must have not had the opportunity to experience that connection.
2nd-it’s still a very desirable place to live & many ppl flock here to visit & end up staying. All cities have their problems, ours are not unique.
3rd-And my point is that even in this environment, I have still never been the victim or a crime or needed an AR15 or any weapon to shoot my way out of a dangerous situation. So, to that end, IN MY OPINION (you seem to struggle with that part), ppl do not need nor should they have AR15 type weapons since they pose a risk to society & the benefits are minimal to a handful of ppl.
:-0 Thanks for the entertaining post.

As I said before NEED is not a requirement and you seem to struggle with that.

Yes your Opinion is yours to have and that's fine keep having it, luckily we have the constitution and the courts to fight this all out in.
 
Why do you own a gun?

For me, it started back when I was a child. I had toy guns that shot suction cupped darts out of them. I also had one that shot a beam of light on to a special target that knocked over soft drink cans. I don't want it to sound like I am bragging, but even then I was a excellent shot. It was a natural ability that I had. In most things, I was uncoordinated and ackward, not good at football or baseball. However, I had the proper hand eye coordination to be able to shoot extremly well.

As I got older, I graduated to pellet guns and then .22 rifles and handguns. Always under Dad's supervision and obeying the rules he set down. If I broke the rules, I would lose my ability to shoot. Many happy days were spent competing against myself, or in informal competitions with friends. As I grew older, I began to collect antique military rifles and handguns, mostly because I am also an amateur historian, but I also appreciated the design and craftsmanship and evolution of technology that those weapons represented.

As a teenager, I became strongly involved in the right to keep and bear arms and joined the National Rifle Association. What drove me to do that was one day realizing there were people who wanted to take away my guns. Not because I had done anything wrong, or broken any rules like Dad had set, but because someone else misused them. That did not make any sense to me then, and still does not do so to this day. My parents taught me personal responsibility at a young age. I never liked being punished in school because someone else did something that I was not involved in.

When I was a young man, and out of high school, I began to see the evil that is in this world. Evil does exist and is real. You can deny it and pretend it doesn't exist, but it does. It was because of that I obtained my license to carry a concealed weapon and began carrying one. I was glad that not only I was armed, but a friend as well when there was an attempted felony carjacking on us during a double date in 1992. A weapon was drawn, and the bad guy backed off immediately.

I've also carried a gun as a reserve deputy sheriff.

Furthermore, I would really like you to answer this question. Do you think people with a history of admitted serious mental illness should own firearms?

This is not an easy question to answer. To be honest, anyone who says its an easy answer is not thinking things out.

Who gets to define what a serious mental illness is? Is it something like Aspbergers or ADHD, or being a psychopath or sociopath? Do you get reported when you have a lot of stress at a bad job and ask your doctor for sleep aids or anti depressants? Am I "mentally ill" if I talk to God whom I can't see but believe exists? Would I be barred if I had a history of mental illness in my family, but don't show any symptoms? For example, the Social Security Administration was reporting elderly people who needed help with their finances to the government as being so mentally deficient they needed to be barred from firearms ownership. They weren't mentally deficient, they needed help with their money. The DSMD has changed over the years (homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness), so standards shift and change. One concern by several people, including doctors, that if you start preventing people who "mentally ill" from owning a firearm, many people will forgo the treatment they need. Also, what happens when people are cured, or no longer suffering from their illness. Are they still barred from owning firearms, or are they good to go now?

As I said, its not an easy question to answer. We really need to have a serious discussion about mental illness and firearms, but sadly, firearms are so politicized in this country that having that conversation without polticis and agendas cropping in will be impossible. What I am convinced of, from seeing it first hand, is that the mental health and mental treatment in this country is broken and needs to be fixed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.














Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top