Guns...

[NCRAVEN]

Wanna hear the thoughts on dealing with guns from a liberal?

I had lunch with a liberal buddy of mine. Really smart guy but I have to think he's brainwashed as he seems to get his marching orders from Rachel Maddow.

Anyway the subject of Gun Control came up and we talked about things like the meaning of the 2nd amendment, how the UK has banned guns and their gun deaths are lower.

Some of his thoughts were:

• If we ban guns like the UK, violent crime might go up but at least people won't be dying from guns. Does it matter how they die? "Yes"

• We don't need assault weapons (which he didn't know what they were) if people need to defend themselves they can use a handgun. What if there are more than one and I need to shoot them at a range a handgun can't? "Just wait till they get closer"

• The second amendment is for hunting, really, the founders hunted or died, so that's why they wrote bearing arms was "necessary to the security of a free State"...

• The NRA is just a front for the guns companies to sell more guns, despite all the safety training they do and training of law enforcement etc.

• Nobody need more than 10 rounds. I gave him the hit rate of cops shooting at bad guys (26%) and bad guys shooting at cops (11%). So If I need to shoot someone and I am in the middle of those two I would hit someone once may twice. He said "well that's enough to kill them" Maybe, but probably not, this isn't the movies..

Oh and he's never shot a gun and doesn't ever see the need to. He would just call the cops if he had to...

Anyway just thought it was interesting.

[HoustonRaven]

Very typical and incredibly ignorant (in the true meaning of the word, not the insulting version).

So when someone is raping his mother / wife, he'd prefer to call 911 and wait. That's certainly his right. Just don't expect me to do the same.

I was reading up on the new assault weapons ban and it's passage. It's dead on arrival even in the Senate. Too many southern Dems are going to vote against it.

Just have to sit back and wait it all out at this point.

[JAB1985]

Oh and he's never shot a gun and doesn't ever see the need to. He would just call the cops if he had to...

probably should have lead with that as it kind of changes the whole perception of his opinion.

I have plenty of liberal and even conservative gun owning friends that have said some similar things as "nobody needs an AR" and "10 Rounds is enough". Sure they want ARs and theyll buy bigger mags if theyre available but that doesnt mean they feel its needed either. I wouldnt call that ignorance, just differing opinion.

The violent crime stat Im not sure id agree with the "as long as they arent dying by guns its ok" thought. although if you want looser regs having the murder rate go up outside guns would strengthen ones case considerably. However everything I read says thats not the case and intentional deaths are that much lower overall in the UK. So maybe theres an argument for more violent crime (which even how thats defined is debatable), but at least it doesnt result in death apparently OR death be other means. Live to fight another day so to speak. I wish the world lived by that motto, but they dont which is why im not for banning them. Something id be interested in seeing is if "intentional death" includes police related deaths and civilian defense deaths or just convicted and unsolved ones. even that variable could really swing the rate one way or another.

I also agree the AR ban is going nowhere fast, as it should be. I was hopeful cooler heads would prevail over time and it appears thats whats happening. However if people would stop stock piling ammo like its going to be outlawed yesterday, that would be great. My friends dont even go shooting anymore because its impossible to replace the ammo (which from reading back over comments seems to be a nationwide thing). Starting an Ammo company right now would probably be a safe bet.

[NCRAVEN]

Not only ignorant but I swear it's like he and people like that have some sort of mental defect.

When he said "just wait till they get closer" I said, alright we're done here. Some people just lack the ability to think rationally and logically or think about consequences.

At one point he even said that criminals wouldn't get guns if we stopped making them, I shit you not.

[NCRAVEN]

probably should have lead with that as it kind of changes the whole perception of his opinion.

I have plenty of liberal and even conservative gun owning friends that have said some similar things as "nobody needs an AR" and "10 Rounds is enough". Sure they want ARs and theyll buy bigger mags if theyre available but that doesnt mean they feel its needed either. I wouldnt call that ignorance, just differing opinion.

The violent crime stat Im not sure id agree with the "as long as they arent dying by guns its ok" thought. although if you want looser regs having the murder rate go up outside guns would strengthen ones case considerably. However everything I read says thats not the case and intentional deaths are that much lower overall in the UK. So maybe theres an argument for more violent crime (which even how thats defined is debatable), but at least it doesnt result in death apparently OR death be other means. Live to fight another day so to speak. I wish the world lived by that motto, but they dont which is why im not for banning them. Something id be interested in seeing is if "intentional death" includes police related deaths and civilian defense deaths or just convicted and unsolved ones. even that variable could really swing the rate one way or another.

The thing is JAB, it's not an opinion. It's a fact, if you need to shoot at someone you need more than 10 rounds. I'll see if I can find it or some stats on it but take a look (if you can find it) on the number of actual shots fired vs hit in a self defense situation.

The numbers I used above of 11 and 26% I saw in my concealed carry class, the instructor showed us were from NYC.

[JAB1985]

The thing is JAB, it's not an opinion. It's a fact, if you need to shoot at someone you need more than 10 rounds. I'll see if I can find it or some stats on it but take a look (if you can find it) on the number of actual shots fired vs hit in a self defense situation.

The numbers I used above of 11 and 26% I saw in my concealed carry class, the instructor showed us were from NYC.

are you carrying an AR with you everywhere? because the need for one of those is certainly opinion. FTR, as ive stated im not aginst owning them either, but it is opinion whether one feels they should or shouldnt.

Im sure they didnt pull those numbers from nowhere, but seems incredibly low to me. I mean handguns arent for long distances so im not sure what the parameters of that data would even be. In real life scenarios i cant see somebody shooting from that far away that theyd only have 1 in 10 if even remotely proficient with your weapon.

[HoustonRaven]

That's a similar figure to what I saw when I was an MP.

It's precisely why cops carry 4-6 mags at any given time.

And it's why my primary carry weapon holds 15+1. I used to carry a Kimber that was 7+1 but I always carried an extra mag with it.

[HoustonRaven]

Im sure they didnt pull those numbers from nowhere, but seems incredibly low to me. I mean handguns arent for long distances so im not sure what the parameters of that data would even be. In real life scenarios i cant see somebody shooting from that far away that theyd only have 1 in 10 if even remotely proficient with your weapon.

Talk to any cop who's been involved in a shoot out.

I've heard stories of cops emptying their mags and hitting nothing.

People move. Its incredibly difficult to hit moving targets. It's that simple.

Shooting, much like golfing, takes precision at the point of action to achieve success at a great distance away. A barrel that's off target even a fraction of an inch results in missing a target completely a few yards away.

[JAB1985]

Talk to any cop who's been involved in a shoot out.

I've heard stories of cops emptying their mags and hitting nothing.

People move. Its incredibly difficult to hit moving targets. It's that simple.

Shooting, much like golfing, takes precision at the point of action to achieve success at a great distance away. A barrel that's off target even a fraction of an inch results in missing a target completely a few yards away.

are we talking about cops or other law enforcement? because I am not. I dont think thats the same parameters at all in this particular debate. for self defense vs police weve had this exact same topic come up before. even those statistics show a remarkably better rate at 1/4 for police vs 1/10. I dont think cops carry 4-6 mags for how unlikely it is to shoot one person, but for the realistic scenario that they may need to shoot more than one. from what i understand Law enforcement will be exempt from any mag restrictions anyway.

[NCRAVEN]

are you carrying an AR with you everywhere? because the need for one of those is certainly opinion. FTR, as ive stated im not aginst owning them either, but it is opinion whether one feels they should or shouldnt.

The magazine ban would not just apply to AR's good buddy.

Im sure they didnt pull those numbers from nowhere, but seems incredibly low to me. I mean handguns arent for long distances so im not sure what the parameters of that data would even be. In real life scenarios i cant see somebody shooting from that far away that theyd only have 1 in 10 if even remotely proficient with your weapon.

Shooting at the range at a still target and shooting at a target that is moving AND coming to do you harm are far different.

I know CCW courses in vary from state to state but the first 4 hours of mine was about the law, the 2nd 4 hours was about safety and how to holster your weapon and things about how your body reacts in stress.

Basically in a situation where you feel your our your family's life is in danger to the point you pull out a gun for defense your body dumps all it's adrenaline and your heart rate can go from 70 -80 to 170+, you can get tunnel vision etc. it's not hard to imagine just how hard it would be to stay focused and accurate. Probably a lot like explaining a car wreck after it happened.

It was goo d info in that course, I might take it again, just for the second four hours.

[NCRAVEN]

are we talking about cops or other law enforcement? because I am not. I dont think thats the same parameters at all in this particular debate. for self defense vs police weve had this exact same topic come up before. even those statistics show a remarkably better rate at 1/4 for police vs 1/10.

EDIT: Never mind, check this out.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...shot-accuracy/

Another analysis, published in 2006 by the RAND Center on Quality Policing at the request of Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, found that in the years 1998-2006, the average hit ratio for officers involved in a shooting where the subject does not fire back was 30 percent. During a gunfight, where the target is shooting at officers, the study reported that the hit rate falls to just 18 percent.

The Times reported that in 2006-2007, Los Angeles police officers hit their targets between 27 and 29 percent of the time, respectively. There is no reliable national data on hit ratio.

[JAB1985]

The magazine ban would not just apply to AR's good buddy.

im aware, but i made two claims and to clarify, owning an AR is another issue outside magazine size and using handgun statistics vs an AR are going to be wildly inaccurate.

Shooting at the range at a still target and shooting at a target that is moving AND coming to do you harm are far different.

I know CCW courses in vary from state to state but the first 4 hours of mine was about the law, the 2nd 4 hours was about safety and how to holster your weapon and things about how your body reacts in stress.

Basically in a situation where you feel your our your family's life is in danger to the point you pull out a gun for defense your body dumps all it's adrenaline and your heart rate can go from 70 -80 to 170+, you can get tunnel vision etc. it's not hard to imagine just how hard it would be to stay focused and accurate. Probably a lot like explaining a car wreck after it happened.

It was good info in that course, I might take it again, just for the second four hours.

I do agree with that, but realistically i dont see you shooting a moving target from a large distance in real life but i can see how theres other factors in that scenario. typically when your lifes on the line your abilities increase, not decrease though. Tunnel vision is actually "extreme focus" in the case of a shooter, youd be focused only on him, so it can be a negative, but also a positive. athletes define it as a positive thing all the time.

EDIT: Never mind, check this out.

I hope this is because you realized i was quoting your own statistics (11% vs 26%).

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...shot-accuracy/

I mean that makes sense, im not really arguing that it would take more bullets in any scenario in real life than practice. much like practicing a jump shot in basketball vs game time situation. I just dont think its ignorance to say 10 is enough. maybe that depends on how one or more importantly when one plans to use the weapon. i think the last line you quoted is probably enough on the topic "there is no reliable data on hit ratio". because right below that it says..

His 2003 report on the subject found that shootings involving a single officer have an approximately 50 percent hit ratio, and that low light diminishes police accuracy by up to 30 percent.

depends on situation more than anything and where somebody may pull and have a less likely hit ratio, another may run. with cops it another story because its not really about them.

ultimately this is a debate for nothing because although I personally may not see the point in large magazines, i dont think they should limit them either. Again, im more concerned with who gets them and laws of that nature and probably more importantly enforcing the ones we have than limitations on guns or ammo.

which reminded me of a story I just heard talking to my police buddy the other day about a guy they took a gun away from who tried to buy a gun a few weeks before and got stopped because of a mental issue in his past. went to another place and got a gun anyway. not exactly sure of the details entirely but it sounded like one place did it by the book and another, not so much. perfect example of just enforcing laws we have saving lives or potential disasters.

[NCRAVEN]

im aware, but i made two claims and to clarify, owning an AR is another issue outside magazine size and using handgun statistics vs an AR are going to be wildly inaccurate.

I gotcha, but he was talking about 10 period. There wouldn't be a need to talk about 10 or less in a gun that you were going to ban, ya mean?

I do agree with that, but realistically i dont see you shooting a moving target from a large distance in real life but i can see how theres other factors in that scenario. typically when your lifes on the line your abilities increase, not decrease though. Tunnel vision is actually "extreme focus" in the case of a shooter, youd be focused only on him, so it can be a negative, but also a positive. athletes define it as a positive thing all the time.

Normally, yes. Maybe it was just the way the instructor chose to describe it, but not in this case. In a fight or flight situation it was more of a hindrance than a benefit.

If your abilities increase when your life is in danger why do cops hit ratio drop?

I hope this is because you realized i was quoting your own statistics (11% vs 26%).

Yeah, I thought you were saying it's better than that...

I mean that makes sense, im not really arguing that it would take more bullets in any scenario in real life than practice. much like practicing a jump shot in basketball vs game time situation. I just dont think its ignorance to say 10 is enough.

In his case it was.

maybe that depends on how one or more importantly when one plans to use the weapon. i think the last line you quoted is probably enough on the topic "there is no reliable data on hit ratio". because right below that it says..
depends on situation more than anything and where somebody may pull and have a less likely hit ratio, another may run. with cops it another story because its not really about them.

It actually say no reliable "national" data. I would guess, maybe I wrong that the 26% is the total regardless of the scenario. The 30% when not being shot vs the 18 when being shot it would seem to suggest that.

ultimately this is a debate for nothing because although I personally may not see the point in large magazines, i dont think they should limit them either. Again, im more concerned with who gets them and laws of that nature and probably more importantly enforcing the ones we have than limitations on guns or ammo.

I don't disagree with much here, other than of course the means in which you've mentioned making sure people are okay to own or carry a gun, but we've been there done that. THe issue with magazine size if discussed make sense. If there are 2 people mugging me or breaking into my house and I have say... 6 shots. If I miss each once, I now have 4, if I hit both off target (very likely in a stressful situation, they can still come at me, which means I now have to stop and reload, increasing the chance they win, not the desirable outcome.

Read up on the 21ft rule and how the only real way to stop someone without them getting to you inside 21ft is to shoot them in a 2 inch area above and below the eyes. If' I don't do that, I need more bullets.

Check this out.

which reminded me of a story I just heard talking to my police buddy the other day about a guy they took a gun away from who tried to buy a gun a few weeks before and got stopped because of a mental issue in his past. went to another place and got a gun anyway. not exactly sure of the details entirely but it sounded like one place did it by the book and another, not so much. perfect example of just enforcing laws we have saving lives or potential disasters.

[HoustonRaven]

Harry Reid, as predicted, removed the "Assault Weapons" ban from Feinsteins legislation, fearing it simply will not pass and will embolden the GOP.

The remainder of this bill is going to suffer the same slow death.

My hope now is that it does get pushed to the House. It will be quite the embarrassment for the Dems.

[JAB1985]

My hope now is that it does get pushed to the House. It will be quite the embarrassment for the Dems.

its more of an embarrassment to the American people for putting up with this Dog and Pony show we call our government. what a monumental waste of time and money.

[NCRAVEN]

Harry Reid, as predicted, removed the "Assault Weapons" ban from Feinsteins legislation, fearing it simply will not pass and will embolden the GOP.

The remainder of this bill is going to suffer the same slow death.

My hope now is that it does get pushed to the House. It will be quite the embarrassment for the Dems.

Yeah, but now they'll just offer it as an amendment to another bill.

Probably something like an equal pay act for women, and then when that bill is voted against because it has the AWB as an amendment, democrats and the media will say "see republicans hate women, they voted against an equal pay bill".

[HoustonRaven]

Yeah, but now they'll just offer it as an amendment to another bill.

Probably something like an equal pay act for women, and then when that bill is voted against because it has the AWB as an amendment, democrats and the media will say "see republicans hate women, they voted against an equal pay bill".

Nah.

JAB called it correctly. This was their dog and pony show to be able to tell their supporters "Hey, we tried". This is going to go away now.

It's a total non-starter for the Dems. They don't have the votes to get past a filibuster nor do they even sniff the required number for passage in the House.

They can try and do the attachment thing all they want. It hasn't worked when their numbers were favorable in Congress and it certainly won't work now.

[HoustonRaven]

So I decided, now that the AWB is DOA, to obtain an NFA Trust and buy my first Short Barrel Rifle.

The trust was incredibly easy and well worth the money. If you're considering ever buying a SBR or a suppressed weapon, I'd highly recommend you get a trust in place instead of going through the ATF process.

[NCRAVEN]

So I decided, now that the AWB is DOA, to obtain an NFA Trust and buy my first Short Barrel Rifle.

The trust was incredibly easy and well worth the money. If you're considering ever buying a SBR or a suppressed weapon, I'd highly recommend you get a trust in place instead of going through the ATF process.

What's the difference? Do you have a link that I can read up on it?

[HoustonRaven]

What's the difference? Do you have a link that I can read up on it?

Here you go ...

http://beforeitsnews.com/the-law/201...t-2448094.html