True, but most of the country is still permissive and shall-issue. I believe NJ and HI are also especially restrictive.Turquoise wrote:
It looks like Illinois and Wisconsin are very restrictive.SenorToenails wrote:
It depends on where you live in NY. Many counties are effectively shall-issue, but NYC is a bitch to get a permit in, apparently. And in other city-bearing counties, like Erie and Monroe (both of which I have lived in), it takes 12+ months to get approved for a pistol permit, and a buddy of mine has been trying to get his CCW in Erie county for a few years now...apparently the judges are unsympathetic to his reasons.Turquoise wrote:
Fair point, but two highly populated states are very restrictive about it... NY and California.
I didn't realize only 4 states overall are highly restrictive.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110112/ap_ … e_shooting
FL man, legal CWP owner, shoots (and kills) an attacker while on a jog. Man will not be charged. Why people on the other side of the pond still argue the morality of it, i'll never know. You have your opinions of utopian society, we have ours, based on the reality of modern life. Don't like it, don't come over here. Please stop bitching about us being redneck gun toting renegades, we'll stop snickering at the pussies.
FL man, legal CWP owner, shoots (and kills) an attacker while on a jog. Man will not be charged. Why people on the other side of the pond still argue the morality of it, i'll never know. You have your opinions of utopian society, we have ours, based on the reality of modern life. Don't like it, don't come over here. Please stop bitching about us being redneck gun toting renegades, we'll stop snickering at the pussies.
I find it ironic Arizona allows unrestricted carry, yet no one at the scene was carrying a firearm. Whether there was "no-firearms" zone around the congresswoman or not, it goes to show you even in a state that allows you to carry a firearm, not everyone does carry one.SenorToenails wrote:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … ue2011.gifTurquoise wrote:
What does concealment have to do with it? Plenty of American states don't even allow concealment (or they at least make it hard as hell to get a permit for that).
Quite a few shall-issue states on there...
There is no law against it .. you just have to prove you're worthy of having a gun in the first place.lowing wrote:
from what I have read, self defense is not considered reason enough to own a firearm. So I doubt you can carry concealed.Kmar wrote:
And you can carry concealed as well.. it's just the process to get one is long and complicated. I was going to post this earlier but I didn't want to get dragged into gun debate number 1201 here at bf2s.com. I was trying to actually stay focused on the details of the topic, rather than talking to the proverbial wall here, aka whatever the opposition is.FatherTed wrote:
point out where i said we could carry concealed i was responding to;lowing wrote:
ok kill it. Tell us what it takes for you to own and carry a concealed weapon
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You keep harping on training. What training? It takes less than a day to become proficient with a firearm. Learn how to load, learn how to use the safety, learn not to point at anything you don't intend to shoot, learn to squeeze the trigger instead of pulling and learn how to properly store it. There's really nothing to it. Accuracy only comes with practice.Turquoise wrote:
I think he's suggesting that the training that many gun owners lack is part of the problem of allowing the public to have guns without some sort of training requirement involved.SenorToenails wrote:
No, but conversely you can't just walk into a shop and buy the proficiency to use a firearm, now can you?presidentsheep wrote:
Now that's a good point.
However becoming proficient in martial arts would require years of training and that would involve the discipline and control that came with it, you can't just walk into a shop and purchase years of martial arts training to be downloaded into your brain.
I could teach you all you need to know about the proper use of a firearm inside of an hour.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2011-01-12 13:36:23)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Not necessarily. Take the recent Florida school board shooting. The shooter wasn't proficient with his weapon, and failed to kill anyone but himself.presidentsheep wrote:
No but i'm betting someone can kill more people with less training in firearms than martial arts.SenorToenails wrote:
No, but conversely you can't just walk into a shop and buy the proficiency to use a firearm, now can you?presidentsheep wrote:
Now that's a good point.
However becoming proficient in martial arts would require years of training and that would involve the discipline and control that came with it, you can't just walk into a shop and purchase years of martial arts training to be downloaded into your brain.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
Yea there is quite a few of those lately.. they seem to multiply during an economic crisis. According to his freinds he was neither left nor right. He didn't even pay attention to politics. Surprise Surprise, Sarah Palin didn't make him do it. This guy was borderline talking to dogs.Turquoise wrote:
So, in other words, Jared was just a gullible conspiracy theorist looking for something to confirm his insane fears.Kmar wrote:
Zach Osler, in an interview Wednesday with ABC's "Good Morning America," said: "He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right."
Osler said he instead suspects that Loughner was motivated by a documentary called, "Zeitgeist: The Movie," which slams currency-based economics.
"I really think that this 'Zeitgeist' documentary had a profound impact upon Jared Loughner's mindset and how he viewed the world that he lives in," he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kCbrOi3N7Q
Xbone Stormsurgezz
They are both tools that require some degree of training to be proficient with them. The length of time it takes to learn it is largely immaterial in this discussion, since it is only about people walking around with the ability to harm others in the name of 'protection', right?presidentsheep wrote:
No but i'm betting someone can kill more people with less training in firearms than martial arts.
Assuming that he wanted to kill .. with the first shot at least. At the range he was at you didn't exactly need to be proficient.ROGUEDD wrote:
Not necessarily. Take the recent Florida school board shooting. The shooter wasn't proficient with his weapon, and failed to kill anyone but himself.presidentsheep wrote:
No but i'm betting someone can kill more people with less training in firearms than martial arts.SenorToenails wrote:
No, but conversely you can't just walk into a shop and buy the proficiency to use a firearm, now can you?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It really isn't hard at all. To actually hit what you are aiming at takes some practice like you say--especially when it comes to handguns.JohnG@lt wrote:
I could teach you all you need to know about the proper use of a firearm inside of an hour.
what is the difference? self defense is not reason enough to ALLOW you to own a firearm in England, so stop with the semantics about it regarding the context of this discussion..Kmar wrote:
There is no law against it .. you just have to prove you're worthy of having a gun in the first place.lowing wrote:
from what I have read, self defense is not considered reason enough to own a firearm. So I doubt you can carry concealed.Kmar wrote:
And you can carry concealed as well.. it's just the process to get one is long and complicated. I was going to post this earlier but I didn't want to get dragged into gun debate number 1201 here at bf2s.com. I was trying to actually stay focused on the details of the topic, rather than talking to the proverbial wall here, aka whatever the opposition is.
You are wrong, simply accept it and move on.lowing wrote:
what is the difference? self defense is not reason enough to ALLOW you to own a firearm in England, so stop with the semantics about it regarding the context of this discussion..Kmar wrote:
There is no law against it .. you just have to prove you're worthy of having a gun in the first place.lowing wrote:
from what I have read, self defense is not considered reason enough to own a firearm. So I doubt you can carry concealed.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Which is why I love the Constitution. Rights baby! So FT, how many guns do you have?Kmar wrote:
There is no law against it .. you just have to prove you're worthy of having a gun in the first place.lowing wrote:
from what I have read, self defense is not considered reason enough to own a firearm. So I doubt you can carry concealed.Kmar wrote:
And you can carry concealed as well.. it's just the process to get one is long and complicated. I was going to post this earlier but I didn't want to get dragged into gun debate number 1201 here at bf2s.com. I was trying to actually stay focused on the details of the topic, rather than talking to the proverbial wall here, aka whatever the opposition is.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
can you do more than tell me I am wrong? Because I can not find anywhere where self defense is a "good reason" for gun ownership in EnglandKmar wrote:
You are wrong, simply accept it and move on.lowing wrote:
what is the difference? self defense is not reason enough to ALLOW you to own a firearm in England, so stop with the semantics about it regarding the context of this discussion..Kmar wrote:
There is no law against it .. you just have to prove you're worthy of having a gun in the first place.
http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article15.html
"British women (like men) have no such right to self-defense and are barred from having handguns for self-protection in the home (i.e., when attacked, they are suppose to flee and leave their homes to their assailants hoping they can escape), not to mention the ability to carry concealed guns for self-defense when accosted in the streets."
I think he was on medication of some kind. He opened fire using only using one hand. Less your awesome, you ain't going to do well.ROGUEDD wrote:
Not necessarily. Take the recent Florida school board shooting. The shooter wasn't proficient with his weapon, and failed to kill anyone but himself.presidentsheep wrote:
No but i'm betting someone can kill more people with less training in firearms than martial arts.SenorToenails wrote:
No, but conversely you can't just walk into a shop and buy the proficiency to use a firearm, now can you?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Why are guns so inextricably linked to self defence for you guys?
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Uh, because that is the primary purpose of the modern, non-hunting, firearm?
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
no it's not, it's to kill babies and rape women
get it right rogueddddddd
get it right rogueddddddd
why are you so inextricably linked to empowering a criminal over yourself?presidentsheep wrote:
Why are guns so inextricably linked to self defence for you guys?
i own a rifle and two handguns. not for self-defense, butpresidentsheep wrote:
Why are guns so inextricably linked to self defence for you guys?
because i can.
because they're not bad peoplelowing wrote:
why are you so inextricably linked to empowering a criminal over yourself?presidentsheep wrote:
Why are guns so inextricably linked to self defence for you guys?
just unfortunate misguided people who really will never hurt you if you cower low enough
and the police will be there in seconds to hold your hand
Last edited by krazed (2011-01-12 14:11:50)
I would, if I could...mainly because everyone else does. It would suck to live in a part of the US that doesn't allow guns, because the country is saturated with them. The threshold for any sort of gun control with the general population was passed a long time ago in that country, like before the 19th century
For the same reason that Colt's revolvers were often called 'The Great Equalizer'.presidentsheep wrote:
Why are guns so inextricably linked to self defence for you guys?
No no no, Peacemakers.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
Oh let me see I own:
Glock 30 .45 ACP
My boys own:
M4 rifle
Remington 870 tactical shotgun ( perfect for home defense)
Mosan Nagant WW2 Russian infantry rifle
Ak-47 chamberd in 5.56
each owns a Ruger 10/22
Beretta M9 pistol
We love to shoot them all.
I am torn however on my next purchase either a Springfield micro cmp 1911 or a Kimber ultra carry 2 1911 any advice?
oh and my glock 30 is my carry weapon 11 rounds of .45 ACP I feel protected
Glock 30 .45 ACP
My boys own:
M4 rifle
Remington 870 tactical shotgun ( perfect for home defense)
Mosan Nagant WW2 Russian infantry rifle
Ak-47 chamberd in 5.56
each owns a Ruger 10/22
Beretta M9 pistol
We love to shoot them all.
I am torn however on my next purchase either a Springfield micro cmp 1911 or a Kimber ultra carry 2 1911 any advice?
oh and my glock 30 is my carry weapon 11 rounds of .45 ACP I feel protected
Last edited by lowing (2011-01-12 14:20:04)