Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I might have missed something.

OK, I'll accept that the handgun might have had a trigger safety, not a separate lever. Yes, I know Glocks rely on the trigger safety thing.

I'll also accept that firearms discipline is different from country to country.

Over here, it's not allowed to have the weapon LOADED - let alone having one up the spout and off safe - whilst in transit to a place it can legally be used (aka "condition 4") unless your job requires you to carry one (when it would probably be in "condition two"). The only reason the LEOs and (those with the firearms training) Security guards for banks, etc - get to carry in C2 is because they generally carry the Glock.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
"Our Ignore function can't repel idiocy of that magnitude!!"

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh but I am sick and tired of being lectured by a bunch of people who aren't willing to get their hands dirty, hiding behind our military while blathering on about how barbaric we are. He we left you alone in WWII

Oh man, you played that card.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
"Our Ignore function can't repel idiocy of that magnitude!!"

Whew Good thing my Spear Gun was loaded!

 chromedog wrote:
Over here, it's not allowed to have the weapon LOADED - let alone having one up the spout and off safe - whilst in transit to a place it can legally be used (aka "condition 4") unless your job requires you to carry one (when it would probably be in "condition two").

Over here I'm not familiar with any legislation that covers what condition you carry your firearm in. There are plenty of conditions about transporting a firearm - in states where you have no CCW, you have to keep it in unloaded in a case with the ammunition seperately - but I've never heard of a law here that would preclude you going cocked and locked vs condition 3 (which is my preferred carry).

If I had a gun with a decocker I'd probably roll condition 2, but I don't so I don't. I know some people are adherents of carefully dropping the hammer on a live round in a 1911 to do so but I feel like that's a good way to put a half inch hole in something.

She lacked what we call a "Situational Awareness"

... and a holster.

 djones520 wrote:
Personally, I just get tired of the lack of respect for our culture.

Why should I have any respect for a culture that has such an obsession with fearmongering and gun ownership?And your country produced Me like Burnaz....

 Da krimson barun wrote:
And your country produced Me like Burnaz....

Ok, Bono.

 Ouze wrote:
... and a holster.

Yeah, this mainly. Would people be opposed to a law that required carried handguns to be in a proper holster to prevent this kind of thing?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
... and a holster.

Yeah, this mainly. Would people be opposed to a law that required carried handguns to be in a proper holster to prevent this kind of thing?

I'd be good with it, personally, but I only get one vote. There was a story here just a few weeks ago about a moron who accidentally lit up a can of pineapple slices in walmart while fumbling around in his pocket for his wallet, which also had his loose pistol in there like pack of gum or something.

Figure a hammer guard of some sort

 Jihadin wrote:
<---Gunnut

So what's the justification of me not owning weapons?

Because classy, civilized people say you have no need for it and it will only end up breaking out of your safe, walking itself to the nearest pediatric ward and start murdering babies...

 Alex C wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
<---Gunnut

So what's the justification of me not owning weapons?

Because classy, civilized people say you have no need for it and it will only end up breaking out of your safe, walking itself to the nearest pediatric ward and start murdering babies...

Hey, guns in safes aren't the problem and nobody has ever said that they are. Guns left about the house, unsecured, and those carried in unsafe ways are.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
<---Gunnut

So what's the justification of me not owning weapons?

Because classy, civilized people say you have no need for it and it will only end up breaking out of your safe, walking itself to the nearest pediatric ward and start murdering babies...

Hey, guns in safes aren't the problem and nobody has ever said that they are. Guns left about the house, unsecured, and those carried in unsafe ways are.

Actually, several people in the thread called our right to keep and bear arms into question. It was those folks I was alluding to.

I think the point being made is that in places with little to no access to firearms, there is little to no death, injury or crime related to firearms, nor any particular need to own or carry a firearm.

Personally if you are not willing to ban the ownership of firearms, the sale and use of firearms should be more carefully controlled: firearms should only be sold if there is evidence that proper storage (both for transport and the home) exists (ie gun safe and holster/carry case, depending on if a CCL has been obtained), that sufficient training has been undertaken and passed (much like a driving licence is required to hire a car - a requirement for sale is the proof that you are, nominally, safe and aware and know what you are doing), and where appropriate, insurance/fees/etc have been paid and paperwork has been completed to register the gun to the person.

The police should be able to check that guns are stored and maintained in an appropriate condition and paperwork is kept up to date, much like they can pull you over if your plates say you have lapsed insurance, unpaid fines, or you appear to be driving unsafely, or your vehicle looks to be unroadworthy.

Hello. Not chiming in with great ideas how to run the US here. I was just wondering, how many people own and wear body armor, like kevlar vests for example? I always found it interesting that a lot of Americans are apparently carrying a gun for protection - which is fine by me, so far! - but I rarely hear anything about people also investing in passive protection for a potential firefight. Wouldn't it be ...prudent? to also reduce personal injury in those cases where you aren't able to get the drop on a bad guy?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I think the point being made is that in places with little to no access to firearms, there is little to no death, injury or crime related to firearms, nor any particular need to own or carry a firearm.

.

If I smash the exalt button with a hammer will It count as more exalts?

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
"Our Ignore function can't repel idiocy of that magnitude!!"

Holy crap, no kidding. I can't think of any way to respond to a few of those comments without breaking half of the terms of use rules, I'm just not going to touch the crazy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I think the point being made is that in places with little to no access to firearms, there is little to no death, injury or crime related to firearms, nor any particular need to own or carry a firearm.

Personally if you are not willing to ban the ownership of firearms, the sale and use of firearms should be more carefully controlled: firearms should only be sold if there is evidence that proper storage (both for transport and the home) exists (ie gun safe and holster/carry case, depending on if a CCL has been obtained), that sufficient training has been undertaken and passed (much like a driving licence is required to hire a car - a requirement for sale is the proof that you are, nominally, safe and aware and know what you are doing), and where appropriate, insurance/fees/etc have been paid and paperwork has been completed to register the gun to the person.

The police should be able to check that guns are stored and maintained in an appropriate condition and paperwork is kept up to date, much like they can pull you over if your plates say you have lapsed insurance, unpaid fines, or you appear to be driving unsafely, or your vehicle looks to be unroadworthy.

It would be great if things worked that way, and the logic sounds decent on paper, but if you spend the time to look at the statistics nothing here really seems to actually address and of the real issues involved.

First, gun ownership does not drive violence. In fact, even if you only look at gun related violence the correlation isn't particularly strong. But if you look at things like overall homocide rate, there isn't even a correlation to even theoretically back the idea. Fewer guns does not mean less death, not even close. The factors that drive violence are completely independent of gun ownership. It's almost trivial to prove this, you just have to take the time to research gun ownership rates and compare to worldwide violent crime rates.

In cases where a nation has suddenly and significantly restricted firearms, the trend is consistant that rater than dropping the violent crime rate, criminals simply use different tools. Fewer people get shot, sure, but more people are, say, stabbed instead, and even the drop in gun crime isn't as big as you might expect as most crimes are alreadt committed with illegally owned firearms anyways.

Additionally, while cases like this make for good sensationalist headlines, owning firearms is remarkably safe. In the USA, there are something like three times as many homes with guns inside as there are homes with swimming pools. Despite this, for every kid injured by a firearm there are in the ballpark of a hundred who drown in their home pool. Similarly, more kids die from drinking chemicals, falling out of trees, car crashes, and a whole lot of other things. I will note that I have no issue with offering some sort of training class, so long as it does not require any sort of firearm registry (that's a whole 'nother can of worms).

It's not so much that your proposals are inherently bad as that the address an imaginary problem while ignoring a far more serious one. The time and energy wasted on some stupid check where police officers would be requred to get a warrant to regularly and pointlessly check the homes of tens of millions of Americans would be far better spent revamping our welfare system to reduce poverty, something which actually is strongly tied to violent crime, or on any one of a number of issues that actually matter.

you can kill someone with anything. guns are just a bit easier. if someone wants someone else dead, it isn't very hard.

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Personally, I just get tired of the lack of respect for our culture.

Why should I have any respect for a culture that has such an obsession with fearmongering and gun ownership?And your country produced Me like Burnaz....

Obsession? Instead of casting stones, why not try to learn a few things first.

If we wanted to just form opinions on entire nations based on bad news stories... why should I give a gak about a culture like yours that raises terrorists?

 djones520 wrote:

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Personally, I just get tired of the lack of respect for our culture.

Why should I have any respect for a culture that has such an obsession with fearmongering and gun ownership?And your country produced Me like Burnaz....

Obsession? Instead of casting stones, why not try to learn a few things first.

If we wanted to just form opinions on entire nations based on bad news stories... why should I give a gak about a culture like yours that raises terrorists?

Ok, I was about to say too far, but your right. in the way you mean, not the way it sounds like.

Can't we just go back to good old victim blaming rather than bad mouthing a culture who throw tea away like rubbish, never think of the children, and all carry guns so they can personally thank Obama.

 Jihadin wrote:
<---Gunnut

So what's the justification of me not owning weapons?

You are likely a PTSD addled trained killer veteran who probably can't adjust to civilian life, and even if you COULD, why should us gun fearing folk have to accept the risk of you snapping?

 CptJake wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
<---Gunnut

So what's the justification of me not owning weapons?

You are likely a PTSD addled trained killer veteran who probably can't adjust to civilian life, and even if you COULD, why should us gun fearing folk have to accept the risk of you snapping?

no. you...no.

Just wanted to add a few things to the original topic at hand. This article has some good information about how she was carrying it and what that entails:
http://www.kxly.com/news/north-idaho-news/woman-shot-by-toddler-called-responsible-gun-owner-by-friends-family/30482132
I have to say though that despite what her friends and family say, she was NOT being a responsible gun owner.

The purse carry is fairly common in states that allow concealed carry, and there are alot of purses designed for discretely carrying handguns and allowing easy access to them. The victim was reportedly using one of these kind of purses. The complication with this type of carry is that it requires a complete reevaluation of what the purse is. When one chooses to purse carry, it is no longer a purse. It is now a bulky holster with a gun in it. It can never be removed from your body, and cannot simply be set down. She evidently forgot this.

To clarify, the woman didn't just leave her purse with her kid, she handed her child a loaded pistol in a holster. When you realize this it becomes clear just how terribly foolish she was and unfortunately that foolishness cost her life.

Me Like Burnaz wrote:

A friend of mine has a Thunder Five. Google it if you don't know what it is. He keeps it loaded and in the sock drawer. His rule is if a bad guy breaks in and he hears it (which is very likely as his doors have good locks on them, something I make sure of for all my friends) he will stand at the end of the hallway where the bedrooms are. The hall is around that magical distance. As long as the bad guy stays out of that hall he wont do anything. But if the bad guy starts down that hall, well the Thunder Five holds five .410 shotgun shells and he loads 00 buck. His motto, three balls-no waiting.

Despite his reasoned approach to when to use the gun, your friend is an idiot. With availability of affordable fast-access safes -which grant access to a firearm faster than digging into a sock drawer- there's no reason to have an unlocked loaded firearm in one's home. His family may be very responsible, but the chance for a nosey friend or worse, a friend's child to get a hold of the gun is just too easy. That's to say nothing of someone who breaks in when your friend is not home and suddenly your buddy is responsible for another gun on the street.

If you have to have instant access to a gun, buy a holster otherwise, lock that thing up!

EDIT:
I just noticed that you also advocate drug dealers shooting cops. Clearly you have only a thin tether to reality, so I'm not surprised you didn't immediately see the folly of your friend's actions.

It is a shame that this entirely preventable tragedy occurred because of the mother's decision to leave her firearm where it could be accessed by an infant.

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Personally, I just get tired of the lack of respect for our culture.

Why should I have any respect for a culture that has such an obsession with fearmongering and gun ownership?And your country produced Me like Burnaz....

There really is no need for this thread to devolve into nationality bashing and personal attacks. I was born in Ireland and moved to the US, there is a lot (good and bad) to be said for each country. Why don't we stick to discussing the issues instead of one another?

What I was refferring to was edged weapons..
I do not believe in firearms for anything but hunting.
My family has a long history of hunting and fishing.
I am Saami, the equivalent of the American First Nation people.

And I have had home invasions..
One was sorted with a Tonfa between the eyes of the perp.
The other was sorted with a Wakisashi put at the throat of the perp. For the record I collect and train with edged weapons.
Every weapon I own I can use. With proper skill and safeguards. My swords are not available for people.
My knives are kept hidden but accessible.
The only thing I have readily available, meaning not hidden is my cane.
My EDC is a Kubaton. More than adequate for self defence here. This doesn't mean that I can't use firearms safely.
I have been taught firearms safety from an early age.
And yes I have been shooting since I was eight.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:


Yup. I've got no problem with shooting those that would follow such an unlawful order as to forcibly disarm American citizens or otherwise enforce laws that are blatantly against the ideals of America. Which BTW is why I've no problem with drug dealers shooting cops. I think drug laws are against all that America stands for. But that's another thread so I wont go ant further into it.

Wow.... you slipped in right at the buzzer but you definitel;y win Most Asinine Post of 2014!

Welcome to Ignore.

Might as well add me too. I agree with him. Enemies foreign and domestic, tree of liberty, yadda yadda yadda.

You did read everything he wrote, right? The part about having no problem with drug dealers shooting police, too?

Yep. Read the whole thing. I don't like it per se, but I have a lot more sympathy for the drug dealers who shoot cops than the cops who shoot innocent people in their own homes after kicking the wrong door.

Me Like Burnaz wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
You have to realise, every other country in the developed world thinks that the situation in the US with regards to ownership of weaponry is absolutely, fething nuts. That people are walking around armed with lethal weapons, something where it is so simple and quick to take the life of another that even a 2-year old can do it.

You have to realize that we Americans don't give a pile of steaming dog excrement what you Europeans think of us. Not a one of you has a military large enough to take on the South Dakota National Guard so why should we care?

This, in essence, is the problem. It's 'might makes right'. That is the essence of barbarism, and is the reason your predictions of the US becoming a totalitarian state will likely come true. It's also the reason the US is hated by many. Not by me, you understand, I like America and Americans for the most part, but Americans like you are a disgrace to your fine nation, for reasons that will illustrate further below.

In this world you can blather on all you want about peace and civilization but in the end it's people with guns and the balls to use them that make it safe to go to bed at night in a house that doesn't have iron bars on every window and door. A majority of Americans accept that responsibility ourselves instead of hoping for a government agent to come save the day with a gun.

You are talking about mob rule, not democracy. You have also talked about simply disregarding the law of the land and murdering police officers because you disagree with drug policy. I think that illustrates the sort of person that you are quite neatly: an anti-democratic thug. Government is there to exercise the will of the people, based on a democratic consensus reached by society as a whole. Armed insurrection against a tyrannical US government is an infantile power fantasy perpetuated by immature inadequates, and is stupid not least because it's a matter of perspective. Timothy McVeigh committed his atrocity for that specific reason - do you feel that action was justified? What about if there was a armed socialist revolution in the US? Would that be justified?

Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh but I am sick and tired of being lectured by a bunch of people who aren't willing to get their hands dirty, hiding behind our military while blathering on about how barbaric we are. He we left you alone in WWII like we should have you would have gone on having a war every ten to twenty years like you had done prior to WWII getting lots of your young men killed while we could have enjoyed some serious economic success spending money on our own people instead of keeping yours safe.

Stop acting like the US got involved in WWII out of anything other than their own interest. Hitler would have been defeated with or without the intervention of the US in the last two years of the war, it just would have taken longer. The US came out of that war as a superpower, and the British Empire spent years of blood and toil and came out of it with barely anything, indeed, was blocked by the US at regaining its position. That's the only reason anyone is 'hiding behind your military' - the US saw to it that that would be the case. Running the world used to be our job, now it's yours, a situation engineered by the US post-WWII. Stop pretending the US's position is not overwhelmingly to your benefit. You're not policing the world on my behalf, you're policing the world so that you can continue to exploit it to serve your national interests.

And how exactly is the UK 'not willing to get it's hands dirty'? That's the most ludicrous statement I've heard all year. Saying that, it's the 1st of January so you've still got plenty of time to top it.