If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Denver Post)   Gun sales in Colorado have jumped more than 41 percent since Friday   (denverpost.com) divider line 619
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5859 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jul 2012 at 12:19 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



619 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-24 08:53:42 PM  

redmid17: Plus I imagine that pistol whipping someone is much more satisfying that hitting them with the butt of a shotgun.


Never pistol whip anyone. You could damage the finish on your gun.

redmid17: /shotgun owner


Same, and I love it, but if someone breaks into my home I'm reaching for something else. Most likely my GP100.
 
2012-07-24 08:54:21 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I was thinking about getting a revolver as a Boobiesol due to the simplicity and reliability, but several friends have said that semi-automatics (specifically a Glock 17 or 19) are very reliable and easy to maintain. (Also that 9mm ammo is cheaper and easier to get.) What say the reasonable Fark Gun Owners?


Absolutely a Glock 17 or 19, depending on what is more ergonomic for you. No shame in getting a used one. The only problem with shopping around for a used one is it means prolonged interaction with gun store/show staff which means a lot of herp derp about "what you should get."
 
2012-07-24 09:00:20 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: How do you say "This person is good to go when it comes to guns"? Are you going to define a rigid set of rules?


But we haven't had this discussion and it needs to come from the medical profession vs. politics. But the politics will have to define the concept of "diminished capacity" in some form that it is at least lucid enough for a framework. INAL but I'd take a stab at "diminished capacity" so you'd have something to kick around.

"A physician or mental health professional (defined somewhere probably at the nurse practitioner level) who acts as an unbiased 3rd party shall judge the individual to be operating at a "reduced mental capacity" either via prescription medication, medical procedural recovery, or temporary or permanent mental disorder. The state medical board shall provide a list of recommendations for physicians. Individuals seeking purchase of a firearm will be flagged to any firearm dealer as requiring manual state approval. Approval consists solely as an appeal available via district court solely on the nature of any bias of the physician. Alternatively a change in diagnosis from 2 physicians also acting as unbiased 3rd parties who must physically examine and review the patient files for consensus. Caregivers may also appeal via the same methods solely upon bias of the alternate physicians.

I think most people would agree that a diagnosis of Schizophrenia for example would flip the switch on "right to bear" vs. "prove you can handle the responsibility". I personally also think that when we are prescribed medication that has similar side effects (hallucinations, paranoia, etc.) that we should be flagged in some way so that the bar goes higher. That ones a little muddier, but I think over time the law would encompass this. But while I know the fear goes deep, it is unlikely people could push this into "you're a Ron Paul supporter so you're crazy" as a matter of medical record for any length of time if at all.

In so many ways this is just about flipping it over from "I have a right to carry" in these scenarios to "I have to prove I have a mental capacity to exercise this right responsibly." I also clearly defines IMHO that citizens are ASSUMED to have the mental capacity to carry a firearm unless otherwise found.

I know many folks would feel this is some step toward complete surrender on gun rights, much like people screaming that an extra $25/month of social security is socialism. But the reality for us all is that this is a just a minor step in what is the right direction that reasonable adults should agree on.

I don't want this to be a path to banning guns, but I also don't want it s f'ing easy to get on legally when you are suffering from real diminished mental capacity and we have to wait for you to kill someone before anything can be done. I personally see this as the kind of thing that should be fairly innocuous. That if you're flagged you can appeal it and there is a process to gain the right back. We just don't have any framework at this point and even discussing it before someone brings in the big guns from the weeds.
 
2012-07-24 09:02:37 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: redmid17: Plus I imagine that pistol whipping someone is much more satisfying that hitting them with the butt of a shotgun.

Never pistol whip anyone. You could damage the finish on your gun.

redmid17: /shotgun owner

Same, and I love it, but if someone breaks into my home I'm reaching for something else. Most likely my GP100.


The pistol whipping part was supposed to be a joke.
 
2012-07-24 09:03:06 PM  

USP .45: The only problem with shopping around for a used one is it means prolonged interaction with gun store/show staff which means a lot of herp derp about "what you should get."


Yeah, there's definitely some idiots out there. If they start talking too much about home defense and 'stopping power' instead of trying to make sure you get something that you can shoot well, it's probably safe to either ignore them or just walk out. Caliber is certainly a factor in a gun's ability to stop a threat, but accuracy is a much bigger factor. I have a little Walther P22 that I occasionally carry when I'm going for deep concealment. I have zero issues with carrying it, because I know I can get rounds on target every farking time with it, and in my buddy's words "If I can put a .22 round in each knee, one in each eye, one in your nose and two in your nuts, you're gonna stop moving, and I can do that."
 
2012-07-24 09:05:05 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Saw R. Lee Ermey fire one of those on "Lock and Load." Sent shock waves up his arm that were cool in super-slow-mo, but probably hurt like a biatch in real life. No, thanks. I'm pretty sure I won't encounter a brown bear in the woods where I hang out, just black bears that are more interested in my ice chest than in me.


They are not that bad. The muzzle break takes the vertical recoil away and turns it into a push. Many of the .44 mags I have shot have worse recoil.

I'd go for the 45-70 revolver over the 500, but would buy the 454 Casull over either.
 
2012-07-24 09:10:27 PM  

IQof20: But we haven't had this discussion and it needs to come from the medical profession vs. politics.


Sure, but nobody seems to want to have that discussion, they just skip over it to the part where they start discussing restrictions based on non-existent parameters, then get all worked up when the other side of the argument doesn't want to listen to them.

While I appreciate the rest your post, I've already made it to my couch and beer, and I'm not really feeling up to discussing it right now. I've switched gears to new buyer recommendations. Catch me in another thread sometime and I'll mix it up with you again.

redmid17: The pistol whipping part was supposed to be a joke.


Same for ruining finishes :D
 
2012-07-24 09:12:13 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: I have a little Walther P22 that I occasionally carry when I'm going for deep concealment.



wtf? Are you a drug dealer? A narc?
 
2012-07-24 09:13:54 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: IQof20: But we haven't had this discussion and it needs to come from the medical profession vs. politics.

Sure, but nobody seems to want to have that discussion, they just skip over it to the part where they start discussing restrictions based on non-existent parameters, then get all worked up when the other side of the argument doesn't want to listen to them.

While I appreciate the rest your post, I've already made it to my couch and beer, and I'm not really feeling up to discussing it right now. I've switched gears to new buyer recommendations. Catch me in another thread sometime and I'll mix it up with you again.

redmid17: The pistol whipping part was supposed to be a joke.

Same for ruining finishes :D


Haha whoosh.
 
2012-07-24 09:16:59 PM  

intelligent comment below: wtf? Are you a drug dealer? A narc?


No. Are you?
 
2012-07-24 09:18:11 PM  

ronaprhys: And I'm very leery of expanding it. Caregivers should necessarily have to go through a very rigorous process to declare some mentally defective enough to start restricting rights. Very rigorous. Maybe I could understand a 10 day insta-ban, but the caregiver would then need to pony up with comprehensive proof and enough to convince a judge a trial is needed.


And that's essentially what it is currently. Meanwhile the person accused who isn't mentally unstable is sitting around just fine and able to mount a defense of some sort while the mentally unstable person goes and buys a gun... Again, the fear that somebody you cut off in traffic will declare you mentally incompetent is just not viable and there are remedies clearly available for false accusations through the courts and to take action vs. someone. But again, in mental health cases it is just difficult for people to be found needing care in such a short span of time. All of the tests are geared toward "never have a false diagnosis" primarily because the cost of care and the fact that our current system is not properly geared around mental health at all.

Too many people would struggle to afford a legal defense in this sort of a case...Almost the equivalent of a poll tax.

This is just about process and about putting it in place.

I want to hammer this home though. When someone is not mentally stable, there isn't a great deal of time to handle the situation (suicide crisis lines exist for a reason). Also, particularly in the case of Schizophrenia, the common person suffering from it IS EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT. If they *want to* that can fake being entirely normal for large spans of time. Depending upon the facility, their focus on care and how seriously they take this, it is almost unheard of to judge someone as having it when they don't vs. the reverse.

Also, in this particular case the mother was in one state vs. the son in another. That is a whole different ballgame. If you've ever had to deal w/ interstate family issues legally then it is difficult to fully appreciate. States show preference to their own residents and flip the burden of proof commonly. W/o a federal framework on something like this, it is particularly difficult in such situations to get another state to cooperate.

And "poll tax"? Really? I get it, but this isn't voting, this is having a truly immediate dangerous weapon in your hands vs. a 1/100,000,000,000 or so chance at electing Newt Gingrich to be moon president. On the scale of "losing one's rights due to diminished capacity" I'd put voting notably down the chain. In fact, I'd probably be able to understand a situation where a person can't own/carry, can't be allowed to live outside of an institution and still be able to vote. I'm still find it abhorrent per felony disenfranchisement here in the US.
 
2012-07-24 09:25:51 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Same, and I love it, but if someone breaks into my home I'm reaching for something else. Most likely my GP100.


My ol grand pappy said the only reason to have a pistol in the house was to fight your way to the shotgun.
 
2012-07-24 09:32:07 PM  

NightOwl2255: Noticeably F.A.T.: Same, and I love it, but if someone breaks into my home I'm reaching for something else. Most likely my GP100.

My ol grand pappy said the only reason to have a pistol in the house was to fight your way to the shotgun.


Only if you aren't familiar with a pistol. I'd say that the typical shotgun is to large to wield in close quarters, and generally only hold 3 shells with the plug installed.
 
2012-07-24 09:47:10 PM  

BGates: NightOwl2255: Noticeably F.A.T.: Same, and I love it, but if someone breaks into my home I'm reaching for something else. Most likely my GP100.

My ol grand pappy said the only reason to have a pistol in the house was to fight your way to the shotgun.

Only if you aren't familiar with a pistol. I'd say that the typical shotgun is to large to wield in close quarters, and generally only hold 3 shells with the plug installed.


Yeah, I've heard that one before (swapping rifle for shotgun), and I can see how it would make sense on a battle field, but not in a house. A shot gun is big, heavy and long (relatively speaking), and for it's recoil it doesn't necessarily do that much damage while still going right through residential walls. Birdshot will still go through a couple layers of sheetrock, and Dick Cheney proved that even an old fart can take a load of it to the face and survive. If you step it up to buckshot, your going through more walls and you're only going up to handgun levels of oomph (per each shot, anyway). You also still have to aim, there's no such thing as 'point it in the general direction and pull the trigger". At most ranges in a house you're only looking at a few inches of spread.

Basically, shotguns were designed to take down flying birds. They do that really well, but flying birds aren't exactly hard targets. I'd encourage anyone wondering about it to visit Box-O-Truth and take a look at some of their tests. Or, google 'swat entry team' and count the shotguns. You'll see a few, but most of those will be in the hands of the guy taking out door locks. All the guys actually going after people either have small rifles, submachine guns, or pistols.
 
2012-07-24 10:40:17 PM  

intelligent comment below: Noticeably F.A.T.: I have a little Walther P22 that I occasionally carry when I'm going for deep concealment.


wtf? Are you a drug dealer? A narc?


That's the one I shoot most often, after my P-11. Carries surprisingly well considering all the controls hanging off of it. Good choice.
 
2012-07-24 10:55:42 PM  

redlegrick: That's the one I shoot most often, after my P-11. Carries surprisingly well considering all the controls hanging off of it. Good choice.


Yeah, I'm not entirely in love with the controls, especially the safety. It somehow manages to be completely different than all my other pistols, to the point where even after a couple years of shooting it I still don't the muscle memory to hit it every time. Any more I just leave it off, lower the hammer and leave the safety up to the double action. It's got a stiff enough trigger pull that I trust it pretty well.
 
2012-07-24 11:00:47 PM  
Not talking about blazers.

Differentiate the cost between box of FMJ 9mm and FMJ 45.

Where I live its about $13 for 50 of the 9 and $22 for 50 of the 45.
 
2012-07-24 11:03:56 PM  
MorePeasPlease




Buffalo77: Yeah, I already have a .357 for home defense and Ruger Millenium PT145 for personal (Although I am not happy with it, yet). Just want something to shoot at range that is farily cheap to shoot (9mm).

I wouldn't be happy with having an imaginary pistol for personal defense either.

Read the slide again?


Ruger on the brain, Taurus.
 
2012-07-24 11:17:43 PM  
I should've bought stock in an ammo company. These things are like gold now; price just keeps going up.
 
2012-07-24 11:27:03 PM  

Buffalo77: Not talking about blazers.

Differentiate the cost between box of FMJ 9mm and FMJ 45.

Where I live its about $13 for 50 of the 9 and $22 for 50 of the 45.


Not sure, I make my own. It's easy, you should look into it.
 
2012-07-25 12:41:31 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Mitch Taylor's Bro: I actually did. I went to a range with two friends, one of whom told me to get the 9mm because cheap, available ammo. I shot .380 and 9mm pistols, 20 and 12 gauge shotguns, and two AR-15s chambered for different rounds. I felt comfortable with the 9mm, but the .380 did have less recoil. But this guy said the rounds for the .380 were a lot more expensive.

I'm not saying to ignore your buddys' advice, I'm just saying that convenience shouldn't be a higher priority than being able to comfortably shoot. It's not going to matter how cheap the ammo is if you can't hit anything with it. that's why I was recommending shooting as many different guns as possible. And not just basic types (though that may be all that is really feasible for you to do), I mean different makes and models. For instance, I can shoot a GLOCK 30 if I need to, but the SA XD45 fits my hand like it grew there. You won't be able to tell the difference without shooting them.

Though it's going to work out better to do as much research as possible up front, don't be afraid of having to get it absolutely right the first time. Guns hold their value very well, so if you end up changing your mind you can always sell it and get something else.

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I guess I could rent a .38 revolver as snocone suggested and give that a try, too.

If you're going to do that, also try a .357. It'll shoot .38 and .375, so you have some more options, but it will be a larger and heavier gun.

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I think a shotgun is better for home defense

Not necessarily. I wouldn't turn one down, but I'd take a good pistol over a shotgun any day of the week. Movies and games have given shotguns an undeserved reputation for being unstoppable.


All good advice, thanks. I read learnaboutguns.com and the site owner recommends a shotgun for home defense because if you miss, the buckshot has less penetrating power than a bullet and is less likely to injure or kill your neighbor. Sounded reasonable to me :-)
 
2012-07-25 12:44:57 AM  

redmid17: Noticeably F.A.T.: Mitch Taylor's Bro: I think a shotgun is better for home defense

Not necessarily. I wouldn't turn one down, but I'd take a good pistol over a shotgun any day of the week. Movies and games have given shotguns an undeserved reputation for being unstoppable.

Plus I imagine that pistol whipping someone is much more satisfying that hitting them with the butt of a shotgun.

/shotgun owner


Hmm, 15 rounds plus pistol whipping vs. 6-7 rounds and turn it around and you have a club. Sounds like a toss-up.
 
2012-07-25 12:48:33 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Saw R. Lee Ermey fire one of those on "Lock and Load." Sent shock waves up his arm that were cool in super-slow-mo, but probably hurt like a biatch in real life. No, thanks. I'm pretty sure I won't encounter a brown bear in the woods where I hang out, just black bears that are more interested in my ice chest than in me.

I got to shoot one once, and wasn't completely impressed. Don't get me wrong, it was fun, it just didn't strike as particularly useful. For a handgun it's heavy and unwieldy, and it doesn't have the range or accuracy of a rifle. I just can't stop thinking that I have better guns for that level of oomph.


I thought it was designed to be a hunter's last line of defense against something big and dangerous, like a bear? As in, your rifle is empty and a bear is charging you, so you pull out your .50 cal pistol? Given the choice of running, using a knife or pulling that sucker out, I'd take my chance with the big-ass pistol. But I'm no hunter, either.
 
2012-07-25 12:57:44 AM  

USP .45: Mitch Taylor's Bro: I was thinking about getting a revolver as a Boobiesol due to the simplicity and reliability, but several friends have said that semi-automatics (specifically a Glock 17 or 19) are very reliable and easy to maintain. (Also that 9mm ammo is cheaper and easier to get.) What say the reasonable Fark Gun Owners?

Absolutely a Glock 17 or 19, depending on what is more ergonomic for you. No shame in getting a used one. The only problem with shopping around for a used one is it means prolonged interaction with gun store/show staff which means a lot of herp derp about "what you should get."


I like the idea of renting/demoing guns at a range before buying. That way, I could go with a more knowledgeable friend who could run interference for me. Plus, we'd get some shooting in :-)
 
2012-07-25 01:14:12 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: intelligent comment below: wtf? Are you a drug dealer? A narc?

No. Are you?



Unless you're one of those, or a cop, you have no reason to do that. Visiting your family in Zeta territory? You gun nuts are straight up scared lunatics
 
2012-07-25 01:16:26 AM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: All good advice, thanks. I read learnaboutguns.com and the site owner recommends a shotgun for home defense because if you miss, the buckshot has less penetrating power than a bullet and is less likely to injure or kill your neighbor. Sounded reasonable to me :-)


That's been the prevailing wisdom for a long time, but a few guys decided to actually test it one day, and found that birdshot will go through something like three layers of 1/2" sheetrock, and IIRC, 00 buck will make it through nine. So, even set on stun a 12GA round will make it through at least one residential wall. Sheetrock doesn't hardly stop anything (other than a glaser slug), so it's honestly not something to count on. Better to just make sure you don't miss, which is why it's important to get something you can shoot well other than something with a lot of wallop.

Box O' Truth, now with more linkification

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I thought it was designed to be a hunter's last line of defense against something big and dangerous, like a bear? As in, your rifle is empty and a bear is charging you, so you pull out your .50 cal pistol? Given the choice of running, using a knife or pulling that sucker out, I'd take my chance with the big-ass pistol. But I'm no hunter, either.


I think you're right, and that'd be a decent enough use for it. I just can't think of anything beyond that. Well, other than just having fun with it, and there's nothing wrong with that. But personally, I didn't find it that fun to shoot, and I don't want to drop that much cash on something I'm not going to enjoy using.
 
2012-07-25 01:19:27 AM  

intelligent comment below: Unless you're one of those, or a cop, you have no reason to do that. Visiting your family in Zeta territory? You gun nuts are straight up scared lunatics


Denver doesn't allow any carry other than concealed, and since I live in Denver I end up concealing. If I'm leaving Denver, I only need to conceal well enough to get to my truck. If I'm staying in town, I have to make sure that I don't accidentally expose my sidearm. The smaller gun makes that much easier.
 
2012-07-25 01:24:35 AM  
Non-American here: You know, I'm kind of glad that most of you mouth breathers don't have passports. And reading through this thread... The insanity burns.

Problem: We have a lot of insane people who can easily access guns and act out their whims.
Proposed solution: Make access to guns more easy (for law-abiding citizens) so they (the law-abiding citizens) can shoot bad guys when they come a-shootin'...

i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-07-25 01:25:35 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: USP .45: The only problem with shopping around for a used one is it means prolonged interaction with gun store/show staff which means a lot of herp derp about "what you should get."

Yeah, there's definitely some idiots out there. If they start talking too much about home defense and 'stopping power' instead of trying to make sure you get something that you can shoot well, it's probably safe to either ignore them or just walk out. Caliber is certainly a factor in a gun's ability to stop a threat, but accuracy is a much bigger factor. I have a little Walther P22 that I occasionally carry when I'm going for deep concealment. I have zero issues with carrying it, because I know I can get rounds on target every farking time with it, and in my buddy's words "If I can put a .22 round in each knee, one in each eye, one in your nose and two in your nuts, you're gonna stop moving, and I can do that."


Hmm, they are certainly cheaper than a 9mm. And cheaper, to me, means more $$$ for practicing. But I bet your margin for error is pretty slim compared to a larger caliber pistol, right?
 
2012-07-25 01:26:17 AM  

ansius: Problem: We have a lot of insane people who can easily access guns and act out their whims.
Proposed solution: Make access to guns more easy (for law-abiding citizens) so they (the law-abiding citizens) can shoot bad guys when they come a-shootin'...


With that kind of reading comprehension, I'm kinda happy you don't live here.
 
2012-07-25 01:32:52 AM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: And cheaper, to me, means more $$$ for practicing


While that's true, I think you might be focusing a tad much on price of ammo. Yes, some types cost more than others, and yes, it's getting more expensive, but I don't think you'll have an issue with affording enough to practice, unless you manage to find something really rare and unusual.

Another thing a lot of gun owners will do is also buy a .22 that is similar to their other gun(s), and do most of their practicing with that. You get plenty of practice just shooting a pistol, and you can spend a little less on ammo for you other guns. That may not be feasible for you, but it's something to consider.
 
2012-07-25 01:42:20 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Mitch Taylor's Bro: All good advice, thanks. I read learnaboutguns.com and the site owner recommends a shotgun for home defense because if you miss, the buckshot has less penetrating power than a bullet and is less likely to injure or kill your neighbor. Sounded reasonable to me :-)

That's been the prevailing wisdom for a long time, but a few guys decided to actually test it one day, and found that birdshot will go through something like three layers of 1/2" sheetrock, and IIRC, 00 buck will make it through nine. So, even set on stun a 12GA round will make it through at least one residential wall. Sheetrock doesn't hardly stop anything (other than a glaser slug), so it's honestly not something to count on. Better to just make sure you don't miss, which is why it's important to get something you can shoot well other than something with a lot of wallop.

Box O' Truth, now with more linkification


I remember reading that site when I first got interested in guns a while ago (like post-Katrina). Good stuff.
 
2012-07-25 01:46:44 AM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I remember reading that site when I first got interested in guns a while ago (like post-Katrina). Good stuff.


Yep. There's nothing quite like actually shooting something to see what would happen if it got shot.
 
2012-07-25 02:01:03 AM  
Second paragraph FTFA:

"It's been insane," Jake Meyers, an employee at Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo in Parker, said Monday.

Yup. Concealed carry is.
 
2012-07-25 02:17:01 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Second paragraph FTFA:

"It's been insane," Jake Meyers, an employee at Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo in Parker, said Monday.

Yup. Concealed carry is.


Yep. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is insane. That sounds like an intelligent way to think.
 
2012-07-25 02:29:50 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: ansius: Problem: We have a lot of insane people who can easily access guns and act out their whims.
Proposed solution: Make access to guns more easy (for law-abiding citizens) so they (the law-abiding citizens) can shoot bad guys when they come a-shootin'...

With that kind of reading comprehension, I'm kinda happy you don't live here.


Look through the first 20 comments my friend.
 
2012-07-25 03:07:55 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: intelligent comment below: Unless you're one of those, or a cop, you have no reason to do that. Visiting your family in Zeta territory? You gun nuts are straight up scared lunatics

Denver doesn't allow any carry other than concealed, and since I live in Denver I end up concealing. If I'm leaving Denver, I only need to conceal well enough to get to my truck. If I'm staying in town, I have to make sure that I don't accidentally expose my sidearm. The smaller gun makes that much easier.



Holy shiat man, you live a scared life.
 
2012-07-25 04:03:13 AM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Noticeably F.A.T.: Mitch Taylor's Bro: I actually did. I went to a range with two friends, one of whom told me to get the 9mm because cheap, available ammo. I shot .380 and 9mm pistols, 20 and 12 gauge shotguns, and two AR-15s chambered for different rounds. I felt comfortable with the 9mm, but the .380 did have less recoil. But this guy said the rounds for the .380 were a lot more expensive.

I'm not saying to ignore your buddys' advice, I'm just saying that convenience shouldn't be a higher priority than being able to comfortably shoot. It's not going to matter how cheap the ammo is if you can't hit anything with it. that's why I was recommending shooting as many different guns as possible. And not just basic types (though that may be all that is really feasible for you to do), I mean different makes and models. For instance, I can shoot a GLOCK 30 if I need to, but the SA XD45 fits my hand like it grew there. You won't be able to tell the difference without shooting them.

Though it's going to work out better to do as much research as possible up front, don't be afraid of having to get it absolutely right the first time. Guns hold their value very well, so if you end up changing your mind you can always sell it and get something else.

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I guess I could rent a .38 revolver as snocone suggested and give that a try, too.

If you're going to do that, also try a .357. It'll shoot .38 and .375, so you have some more options, but it will be a larger and heavier gun.

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I think a shotgun is better for home defense

Not necessarily. I wouldn't turn one down, but I'd take a good pistol over a shotgun any day of the week. Movies and games have given shotguns an undeserved reputation for being unstoppable.

All good advice, thanks. I read learnaboutguns.com and the site owner recommends a shotgun for home defense because if you miss, the buckshot has less penetrating power than a bullet and is less likely to injure or kill your neighbor. ...


I like the Bond Arms Snake Slayer .410 pistol. Only two rounds, though, so you better have backup close if you miss. When I am in a state where my CCW is valid, it's my backup.
 
2012-07-25 06:53:00 AM  

POO_FLINGA: How many guns did Timothy McVeigh use? Or Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeff Dahmer?


Manson had at least one when he shot a black guy before the Tate murders. He didn't kill him, even though he thought he did. That's what set off his whole Helter Skelter race war paranoia.
 
2012-07-25 07:41:09 AM  

IQof20: And that's essentially what it is currently. Meanwhile the person accused who isn't mentally unstable is sitting around just fine and able to mount a defense of some sort while the mentally unstable person goes and buys a gun... Again, the fear that somebody you cut off in traffic will declare you mentally incompetent is just not viable and there are remedies clearly available for false accusations through the courts and to take action vs. someone. But again, in mental health cases it is just difficult for people to be found needing care in such a short span of time. All of the tests are geared toward "never have a false diagnosis" primarily because the cost of care and the fact that our current system is not properly geared around mental health at all.


And it seems to work in the vast majority of the cases. You cannot and should not attempt to legislate to the exception, which is exactly what you're pushing for.

No one is arguing the cut off in traffic diagnosis. What I am arguing is that this can place an unreasonable defense requirement on the accused. We have a strong tradition of innocent until proven guilty here. What you're doing is, in essence, flipping that around.

This is just about process and about putting it in place.

A process exists, but you find it lacking. That's a different thing than what you're stating.

I want to hammer this home though. When someone is not mentally stable, there isn't a great deal of time to handle the situation (suicide crisis lines exist for a reason). Also, particularly in the case of Schizophrenia, the common person suffering from it IS EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT. If they *want to* that can fake being entirely normal for large spans of time. Depending upon the facility, their focus on care and how seriously they take this, it is almost unheard of to judge someone as having it when they don't vs. the reverse.

Okay - I'm not sure why this changes the discussion all that much. What you're pushing for is a mental state that impacts a very small percent of the population. Even then, the suicide rate is a fairly small percentage of that already small group. So I come back to the attempting to legislate to the extremely rare circumstance.

Additionally, you've not proven that what you're promoting would've stopped any incidents like this nor that the system is broken, just that you don't think it's applied liberally enough.

Also, in this particular case the mother was in one state vs. the son in another. That is a whole different ballgame. If you've ever had to deal w/ interstate family issues legally then it is difficult to fully appreciate. States show preference to their own residents and flip the burden of proof commonly. W/o a federal framework on something like this, it is particularly difficult in such situations to get another state to cooperate.

Burden of proof should always fall on the accuser. If they had proof, then there shouldn't be too much of an issue. A cost associated with travel, but the accuser needs bear the burden.

And "poll tax"? Really? I get it, but this isn't voting, this is having a truly immediate dangerous weapon in your hands vs. a 1/100,000,000,000 or so chance at electing Newt Gingrich to be moon president. On the scale of "losing one's rights due to diminished capacity" I'd put voting notably down the chain. In fact, I'd probably be able to understand a situation where a person can't own/carry, can't be allowed to live outside of an institution and still be able to vote. I'm still find it abhorrent per felony disenfranchisement here in the US.

Yes - a poll tax. Because, in spite of your view of concern, this will be politicized. Which means that the potential exists for doctors to be very liberal with it's application, especially amongst the poor who have no real good way to mount a legal defense. So yes, conceptually it's very similar.
 
2012-07-25 07:53:11 AM  

IQof20: But we haven't had this discussion and it needs to come from the medical profession vs. politics. But the politics will have to define the concept of "diminished capacity" in some form that it is at least lucid enough for a framework. INAL but I'd take a stab at "diminished capacity" so you'd have something to kick around.


And as soon as politics gets involved, it becomes a tool to manipulate the populace. Remember, this is the same government that keeps voting in the Patriot Act, which is a definite and huge infringement upon our rights.

"A physician or mental health professional (defined somewhere probably at the nurse practitioner level) who acts as an unbiased 3rd party shall judge the individual to be operating at a "reduced mental capacity" either via prescription medication, medical procedural recovery, or temporary or permanent mental disorder. The state medical board shall provide a list of recommendations for physicians. Individuals seeking purchase of a firearm will be flagged to any firearm dealer as requiring manual state approval. Approval consists solely as an appeal available via district court solely on the nature of any bias of the physician. Alternatively a change in diagnosis from 2 physicians also acting as unbiased 3rd parties who must physically examine and review the patient files for consensus. Caregivers may also appeal via the same methods solely upon bias of the alternate physicians.

Seems overly liberal to me. First off, your solution still leaves the accused with the burden of proving themselves innocent. That's backwards. Secondly, to get other physicians or practitioners to examine the accused will take a significant amount of money which the accused may not have.

Try this - use actual stats to demonstrate the current system is broken and that your proposal would drive a measurable and meaningful change to the current state.


I think most people would agree that a diagnosis of Schizophrenia for example would flip the switch on "right to bear" vs. "prove you can handle the responsibility". I personally also think that when we are prescribed medication that has similar side effects (hallucinations, paranoia, etc.) that we should be flagged in some way so that the bar goes higher. That ones a little muddier, but I think over time the law would encompass this. But while I know the fear goes deep, it is unlikely people could push this into "you're a Ron Paul supporter so you're crazy" as a matter of medical record for any length of time if at all.

A truly diagnosed person - sure. No one argues that someone who is a clear danger to themselves and society in general should be running around with anything dangerous. That means vehicles, axes, firearms, strong chemicals, etc. I.e., they should be institutionalized. What you seem to be arguing for is an fairly large expansion of a system that you've not clearly demonstrated is broken.

In so many ways this is just about flipping it over from "I have a right to carry" in these scenarios to "I have to prove I have a mental capacity to exercise this right responsibly." I also clearly defines IMHO that citizens are ASSUMED to have the mental capacity to carry a firearm unless otherwise found.

Yeah, no. There is no burden of proof defined in the exercising a right. None. It should be defined as, "I have a right to live as a free person unless the government can clearly demonstrate that I've actually acted in a manner showing I don't deserve said right OR that I am such an imminent threat that I should be removed from society completely or supervised at all times."

I know many folks would feel this is some step toward complete surrender on gun rights, much like people screaming that an extra $25/month of social security is socialism. But the reality for us all is that this is a just a minor step in what is the right direction that reasonable adults should agree on.

I don't want this to be a path to banning guns, but I also don't want it s f'ing easy to get on legally when you are suffering from real diminished mental capacity and we have to wait for you to kill someone before anything can be done. I personally see this as the kind of thing that should be fairly innocuous. That if you're flagged you can appeal it and there is a process to gain the right back. We just don't have any framework at this point and even discussing it before someone brings in the big guns from the weeds.


We do have the framework - you just don't like it. That's a different story all together.
 
2012-07-25 09:13:47 AM  

intelligent comment below: Walther P22


Whoa. Don't knock the Walther P22, it's incredibly fun to shoot.
 
2012-07-25 09:58:39 AM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: HotIgneous Intruder: Mitch Taylor's Bro: snocone: Buffalo77: I going today. I am going to get a 9MM with 15 round mags and with buy couple extra mags. I was thinking Ruger or Berretta.

Get a revolver. Not an expensive one, no larger than .38.
Practice, practice, practice.
Automatics are secondary pistols.
15 rounds are heavy.

I was thinking about getting a revolver as a Boobiesol due to the simplicity and reliability, but several friends have said that semi-automatics (specifically a Glock 17 or 19) are very reliable and easy to maintain. (Also that 9mm ammo is cheaper and easier to get.) What say the reasonable Fark Gun Owners?

This is my CC weapon.
Bear protection.

Saw R. Lee Ermey fire one of those on "Lock and Load." Sent shock waves up his arm that were cool in super-slow-mo, but probably hurt like a biatch in real life. No, thanks. I'm pretty sure I won't encounter a brown bear in the woods where I hang out, just black bears that are more interested in my ice chest than in me.


A good stout piece ash will do very well against a bear.
I carry a whittled ax handle in the woods.
Or a machete if out of the park.

Yes, tried and true just outside of Deadhorse. That bear recognized/respected the club. Not so much my bodyguard's gun.
 
2012-07-25 10:01:03 AM  

intelligent comment below: Holy shiat man, you live a scared life.


Not at all. Why should I be scared? I don't go out of my way to get hurt, and I take precautions to keep myself safe. It's the exact same thing you do in your life, we just arrived at different solutions to the problem.
 
2012-07-25 10:16:32 AM  

Galloping Galoshes: I don't want a bunch of folks running around with tools they don't know how to use, or are no longer proficient with.


90% of self defense incidents occur within 10 ft. It doesn't take a sharp shooter to take someone down at 10 ft. Yes, people should be proficient but I'm pretty sure someone who has never fired a gun before could hit someone at typical self defense distances.
 
2012-07-25 10:27:54 AM  
Interesting. The man that said that the prosecutor in the Zimmerman case acted criminally when she filed charges said that ...there's no evidence that I'm aware of that guns reduce crime...there's massive evidence that easy access to guns has a direct correlation with high murder rates.
 
2012-07-25 10:30:52 AM  

Nytfall: I like the Bond Arms Snake Slayer .410 pistol. Only two rounds, though, so you better have backup close if you miss. When I am in a state where my CCW is valid, it's my backup.


I've heard of .410 shotgun pistols, but don't think they're a good home protection option. Might be fun to shoot, though :-)
 
2012-07-25 11:24:02 AM  

intelligent comment below: Noticeably F.A.T.: intelligent comment below: Unless you're one of those, or a cop, you have no reason to do that. Visiting your family in Zeta territory? You gun nuts are straight up scared lunatics

Denver doesn't allow any carry other than concealed, and since I live in Denver I end up concealing. If I'm leaving Denver, I only need to conceal well enough to get to my truck. If I'm staying in town, I have to make sure that I don't accidentally expose my sidearm. The smaller gun makes that much easier.


Holy shiat man, you live a scared life.


I'll confess that about 90% of me being interested in owning a gun is due to fear. After watching society degrade rapidly in the Hurricane Katrina aftermath, I thought about what life would be like here in the San Francisco area after a major earthquake. So I keep a few days' worth of food and water and other supplies because I'm afraid that I would not be able to get those things if basic utilities were interrupted. So, now I'm prepared for the lack of available food and water.

After Katrina, if you could even call the cops, law enforcement was spotty at best. I'm afraid that in a lawless situation, I would not be able to count on the police, or defend myself against a loosely organized gang/small mob, let alone the actual organized gangs we have around here. My stash of supplies would be at risk. So I'm thinking that a gun, and the training to properly use and secure it, would be a good way to prepare for that possibility.

And I can't legally carry here in CA, but if I were going on a road trip, and knew how to properly transport a gun, I'd probably keep one in the car with me in case I broke down in some remote area and needed to protect myself against predators--of the two-legged or four-legged varieties.

The other 10% of my interest in gun ownership is that shooting a gun is fun! But I sincerely hope that 100% of my gun usage would be target shooting and 0% home/personal defense. I don't WANT to be in a situation where I would have to draw a gun to defend myself any more than I would WANT to deal with the aftermath of a severe earthquake.

But yeah, I'd imagine most gun owners who list personal and home defense as a reason for owning a gun do so out of some kind of fear. But they view it as a rational response to that fear. They're prepared for a bad scenario, like having homeowners insurance prepares you for when your washing machine floods your house. You will probably never need to use a gun in self-defense, but if you do, you'll be glad you have it.
 
2012-07-25 11:27:24 AM  

snocone: A good stout piece ash will do very well against a bear.
I carry a whittled ax handle in the woods.
Or a machete if out of the park.

Yes, tried and true just outside of Deadhorse. That bear recognized/respected the club. Not so much my bodyguard's gun.


why not the whole axe? Seems like it would be a pretty useful thing against more than just bears. Like gathering firewood, cutting wood to build an emergency shelter, etc.
 
2012-07-25 11:52:16 AM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I'll confess that about 90% of me being interested in owning a gun is due to fear. After watching society degrade rapidly in the Hurricane Katrina aftermath, I thought about what life would be like here in the San Francisco area after a major earthquake. So I keep a few days' worth of food and water and other supplies because I'm afraid that I would not be able to get those things if basic utilities were interrupted. So, now I'm prepared for the lack of available food and water.

After Katrina, if you could even call the cops, law enforcement was spotty at best. I'm afraid that in a lawless situation, I would not be able to count on the police, or defend myself against a loosely organized gang/small mob, let alone the actual organized gangs we have around here. My stash of supplies would be at risk. So I'm thinking that a gun, and the training to properly use and secure it, would be a good way to prepare for that possibility.


Even in a normal situation, the police are minutes away. However, in that situation seconds count and you may not even be able to call the police (Pardon me Mr Burglar/Mugger/Assaulter while I call the police so they can get here in 3-7 minutes). You might, however, have the chance to defend yourself within seconds.

And I can't legally carry here in CA, but if I were going on a road trip, and knew how to properly transport a gun, I'd probably keep one in the car with me in case I broke down in some remote area and needed to protect myself against predators--of the two-legged or four-legged varieties.

Definitely worth it to know how to legally transport. There is an over-arching law that means CA can't stop me from legally transporting a weapon through their state as I'm not a resident, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't know the local and other laws.

The other 10% of my interest in gun ownership is that shooting a gun is fun! But I sincerely hope that 100% of my gun usage would be target shooting and 0% home/personal defense. I don't WANT to be in a situation where I would have to draw a gun to defend myself any more than I would WANT to deal with the aftermath of a severe earthquake.

From my experience, the vast majority of firearm owners fall in this category. Just like the vast majority of Xtians and Atheists are pretty nice folks just interested in living a non-offensive life. However, a vocal minority tends to draw undue attention on the group.

But yeah, I'd imagine most gun owners who list personal and home defense as a reason for owning a gun do so out of some kind of fear. But they view it as a rational response to that fear. They're prepared for a bad scenario, like having homeowners insurance prepares you for when your washing machine floods your house. You will probably never need to use a gun in self-defense, but if you do, you'll be glad you have it.

I disagree that it's fear. It's not fear that causes me to have a fire extinguisher. Or one of those handy tools for getting out of a wrecked vehicle. Or having a first aid kit on me when we go hiking, mountain biking, or driving (I've got one in my Xterra). It's preparedness. Two totally different things.
 
Displayed 50 of 619 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report