As to Luke's question of what type of gun is suitable from life and property defense... In the boonies I would say a shotgun with a non-lethal load is the best option for basic home defense vs people. I suppose with a double barrel you could put a non lethal load in one side and lethal in the other. If the non lethal shot does not quickly end the incident the lethal shot is there as a backup.
I would agree with you to a certain extent, but the law doesn't. Basically you're only allowed to use a firearm in defense if lethal force is necessary. Using a less lethal round may make it look as though it wasn't necessary to use a gun in the first place, which could get you some jail time. And many of these less lethal rounds can still be lethal at close range, so if you shoot someone and kill them accidentally, or "only meant to shoot him in the leg" with normal rounds then you're going to prison. As much as I'd like to recommend a 12 gauge filled with rock salt, that might get you in some trouble unless you truly live in the middle of nowhere.
As for open carry, a lot of that pisses me off. I get that some people are trying to show that just because they have a gun doesn't mean anyone is going to get hurt and all that, but those guys walking into malls with AR-15's slung over their backs are usually just hoping to get the cops called on them so they can film it and put it on youtube bashing them. Its one thing if you have a little pistol on your side and you live somewhere where no one cares and another when you're going out looking for trouble. I still say concealed carry if you're actually carrying for self defense. On the slim chance you actually were in a bank robbery or a mall shooting rather than a mugging or something, you're probably just saying "shoot me first."
I was reading something recently about concealed vs open carry and police. Something about how open carry just makes you a target (cops are often shot at the beginning of the crime because they are known to carry if they are on site). There was also some data on how many cops end up being shot with their own gun because the criminal sees a chance and grabs their open carried firearm.
Hello from Saudi Arabia, good to be back on the internet.
This is why open carry of a loaded gun is illegal in California.
Steve: Cops who have their guns taken from them are usually taken from the holster after a fight. There is not an epidemic of officers having their drawn firearm taken from them.
While I support the right to open carry where it is the law, I think the open carry crowd is a bunch of dumb asses. In some states a gun on your hip is the culture, or a rifle in your truck window is the norm. That is less common now than it was.
I know they are posing for the camera, but carrying a gun at what is known as the "low ready' position with your hand on the grip to me is an aggressive stance and not appropriate for being in public. I am not looking to scare people with my guns and I know that guns are scary for many people.
When it comes to school shootings I keep seeing some information float around facebook (which I'm always very leery of considering how much bad info gets passed around the internet).
the tl:dr is that the vast majority of school shootings have been committed by individuals taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs.
Overall crime and gun crime are both dropping in this country and are at lows nearing the 1950's. Gun ownership is at an all time high. There has not been a mass spike in shootings in general, however the one common factor in these school shootings are the drugs the shooters have been prescribed.
There has not been a mass spike in shootings in general, however the one common factor in these school shootings are the drugs the shooters have been prescribed.
That's an idea promoted by opponents of modern psychiatry, who inevitably are coming in afterward, having had no contact with the shooters. It's been bandied around since at least the time of the Columbine shooting(since Harris was found to have therapeutic doses of Luvox present in his system post-mortem), but there's no substantial evidence beyond mild correlation - which isn't a surprise, considering that most often, these crimes are committed by people with mental health issues, who are more likely than your average person to also be using psychiatric drugs.
Though, I do find it interesting that there is a venn diagram to be made of an issue where the far right, firearms enthusiasts, Michael Moore(and his fans) and the Alt-med community overlap.
On the the reason you see younger people with rifles in a lot of these places is the law in Texas, is apparently people either under 18 or 21 can only open carry a rifle legally. So if someone takes part in those open carry events and is under 21 they can only legally open carry a rifle.
On the the reason you see younger people with rifles in a lot of these places is the law in Texas, is apparently people either under 18 or 21 can only open carry a rifle legally. So if someone takes part in those open carry events and is under 21 they can only legally open carry a rifle.
Because of course it would just be irresponsible to let them open carry a pistol.
I have not read the complete ruling yet but it sounds like any time you transfer a gun after purchase to a third party (even a person legally able to own one) you are a straw buyer and a felon.
The particulars of the case were that person one wanted a gun and person two went to a gun shop to buy it using person one's money because person two had a special cop discount. After purchase person two transferred the gun to person one via an FFL.
The sticking point appears to be that when filling out the original purchase paperwork person two told the seller that he was the original owner (or whatever the verbiage is.)
So does this mean you can never purchase a gun as a gift? If person two used their own money and person one later reimbursed would that have been OK?
Edit: unclear on when the money changed hands between persons one and two.
Edit 2: this one is weird because the buyer of the gun followed all of the legal processes to legally transfer ownership of the gun and what he was convicted for was lying on a federal form. I agree with the disent in that the straw buyer law was not meant to go after legal gun owners.
It also raises the question - What about the simplest loophole in the world, a peppercorn payment? Would that mean you were no longer a straw buyer, and now it's a private sale? Or does the law demand the market price be paid?
I thought the purpose of the straw buyer laws was to stop people from buying guns for prohibited people. How long must you now own a gun before you resell it?
If I find a real good deal on a 1911 and buy it how long do I have to hold it before I can resell it?
If my friend calls me from a gun show to tell me the rare gun I want is for sale can my friend be arrested for legally buying the gun with an intent to legally sell the gun to me?
What if that same friend is a dick and buys the rare gun without telling me and a week later offers to sell it to me for a small markup?
All questions that would have to be brought before a judge, unfortunately when/if such situations occur. I would hope that a sensible judge would see it on a case-by-case basis (and the only real question would be to determine if Person C in the exchange was legally able to purchase the gun themself), but we all know I might as well hope one day Twilight Sparkle knocks on my door and snogs me.
Just finished reading the entire thing. Still have to agree with the disent. He was found guilty of falsely answering a question on the form that is not a required question.
Majority: any falsehood on a federal form is a crime. Dissent: only a falsehood on a mandated question on a federal form is a crime.
Tldr: lying about age, sex or name would be a crime to both. Lying about your favorite color would only be a crime for the majority unless "favorite color" was a question mandated to be on the form by the statute.
If my friend calls me from a gun show to tell me the rare gun I want is for sale can my friend be arrested for legally buying the gun with an intent to legally sell the gun to me?
What if that same friend is a dick and buys the rare gun without telling me and a week later offers to sell it to me for a small markup?
Not sure about how long between buying and selling but I know the law states that you must be buying it for yourself, unless its a gift. Even mowing the guys lawn for it can be considered a straw purchase. Unfortunately, even buying a gun for someone who is perfectly legally capable of buying a gun themselves is still illegal if any money is exchanged between them. Your friend could probably get in some trouble if caught, but depending on the state that might be unlikely though I still wouldn't recommend it. I have heard of guys buying several hard to find guns (I think they were KSG's) and then selling them on gunbroker and getting a call from the ATF or some other agency for selling firearms without an FFL since they obviously had not purchased the guns for their own personal use.
If I was in a restaurant, and a dude came in carrying a rifle in low-ready, I would instinctively assume they were going to shoot up the place. You don't walk around ready to fire a rifle unless you're ready to fire that rifle. Sling it on your back or something, or better yet don't walk around in public in a civilized society brandishing a weapon.
If I was in a restaurant, and a dude came in carrying a rifle in low-ready, I would instinctively assume they were going to shoot up the place. You don't walk around ready to fire a rifle unless you're ready to fire that rifle. Sling it on your back or something, or better yet don't walk around in public in a civilized society brandishing a weapon.
I do see a difference between those two groups, but the difference is slight. If I saw someone like the group on the right at a cafe, I'd assume that said person would perhaps be a plainclothes cop or a member of some other security organization that had proper training and professionalism with respect to carrying firearms. Granted, that assumption may be wrong, but the way they carry themselves does give me that impression. The folks on the left, they look like gun brandishing wannabe cowboy yahoos of the "shoot first and ask questions later" type in the best case. In the worst case, I'd suspect them of being nutjobs who want to open fire on innocents.
What if the guns were swapped? If the yahoos were wearing pistols and the well dressed were carrying the rifles?
We do make snap decisions based on our own preconceived stereotypes.
Very true... My impressions would probably still be similar. If you dress like a yahoo, I'll assume you're a yahoo, for better or worse. Of course, it's not just carrying rifles vs. pistols, it's how you're carrying it as well. If the yahoos were carrying pistols, properly holstered, etc., then I may assume that they are maybe "off duty cops" or something along those lines whereas if I see someone wearing a shirt and tie and carrying an AR-15 in a threatening manner, I'd be concerned that he's someone who's about to go postal and shoot up his work place (it has happened in the past). There are certainly shades of gray here. Dressing like a yahoo may not be enough, but if you dress and act like a yahoo, then I'm more likely to consider you a yahoo.
All I'm saying is that it's propaganda. Open carry is open carry.
True, but if we're going to have open carry, for better or worse, I'd certainly feel less uncomfortable with it if the people partaking of open carry had an air of responsibility and training. Heck, I think a reasonable open carry law should require the carrier to have extensive training.
I guess it's just different from an Australian perspective where only the cops or plain clothes detectives on duty carry guns.
Quite true, and I'm comfortable with that view, which is why I have the tendency to assume that the people on the right are plain clothes detectives or something along those lines, even if that assumption is incorrect.
So the purpose of open carrying a gun is for self defense. Having a rifle at the ready may work for that, but it also makes it look like you're ready to shoot up the place. On the other hand, having it slung over your back may look less aggressive (arguably) but then if you actually did have to defend yourself with it you'd be at a disadvantage. I just don't see either of these being a good option.
Even though I don't agree with everything he says, I like James Yeager's stance on open carry. Basically, your gun is appropriate out in the open everywhere your cock is.
matter, the detectives that walked into the clinic I worked at in Sydney were literally wearing board shorts, t-shirt, thongs (flip flops) and a gun. (They were there because some drug dealer had thrown a bag of their stuff into our backyard when they were being chased.
So it is confusing, if everyone is carrying a pistol rather than a rifle of some sort and dressed however they like. It is hard to tell who is going postal and who isn't.
Comments
As for open carry, a lot of that pisses me off. I get that some people are trying to show that just because they have a gun doesn't mean anyone is going to get hurt and all that, but those guys walking into malls with AR-15's slung over their backs are usually just hoping to get the cops called on them so they can film it and put it on youtube bashing them. Its one thing if you have a little pistol on your side and you live somewhere where no one cares and another when you're going out looking for trouble. I still say concealed carry if you're actually carrying for self defense. On the slim chance you actually were in a bank robbery or a mall shooting rather than a mugging or something, you're probably just saying "shoot me first."
This is why open carry of a loaded gun is illegal in California.
Steve: Cops who have their guns taken from them are usually taken from the holster after a fight. There is not an epidemic of officers having their drawn firearm taken from them.
While I support the right to open carry where it is the law, I think the open carry crowd is a bunch of dumb asses. In some states a gun on your hip is the culture, or a rifle in your truck window is the norm. That is less common now than it was.
I know they are posing for the camera, but carrying a gun at what is known as the "low ready' position with your hand on the grip to me is an aggressive stance and not appropriate for being in public. I am not looking to scare people with my guns and I know that guns are scary for many people.
When it comes to school shootings I keep seeing some information float around facebook (which I'm always very leery of considering how much bad info gets passed around the internet).
the tl:dr is that the vast majority of school shootings have been committed by individuals taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs.
Overall crime and gun crime are both dropping in this country and are at lows nearing the 1950's. Gun ownership is at an all time high. There has not been a mass spike in shootings in general, however the one common factor in these school shootings are the drugs the shooters have been prescribed.
Though, I do find it interesting that there is a venn diagram to be made of an issue where the far right, firearms enthusiasts, Michael Moore(and his fans) and the Alt-med community overlap.
For those interested in LEO deaths for any given year.
I have not read the complete ruling yet but it sounds like any time you transfer a gun after purchase to a third party (even a person legally able to own one) you are a straw buyer and a felon.
The particulars of the case were that person one wanted a gun and person two went to a gun shop to buy it using person one's money because person two had a special cop discount. After purchase person two transferred the gun to person one via an FFL.
The sticking point appears to be that when filling out the original purchase paperwork person two told the seller that he was the original owner (or whatever the verbiage is.)
So does this mean you can never purchase a gun as a gift? If person two used their own money and person one later reimbursed would that have been OK?
Edit: unclear on when the money changed hands between persons one and two.
Edit 2: this one is weird because the buyer of the gun followed all of the legal processes to legally transfer ownership of the gun and what he was convicted for was lying on a federal form. I agree with the disent in that the straw buyer law was not meant to go after legal gun owners.
If I find a real good deal on a 1911 and buy it how long do I have to hold it before I can resell it?
If my friend calls me from a gun show to tell me the rare gun I want is for sale can my friend be arrested for legally buying the gun with an intent to legally sell the gun to me?
What if that same friend is a dick and buys the rare gun without telling me and a week later offers to sell it to me for a small markup?
Majority: any falsehood on a federal form is a crime.
Dissent: only a falsehood on a mandated question on a federal form is a crime.
Tldr: lying about age, sex or name would be a crime to both. Lying about your favorite color would only be a crime for the majority unless "favorite color" was a question mandated to be on the form by the statute.
The notion of open carry is to seem threatening in an urban setting.
Walking around with a shotgun in the middle of a farm or at marshland for shooting game is completely different.
This is going to be the start of another circle but non automatic guns plus gun licenses, no open carry with appropriate storage thumbs up?
We do make snap decisions based on our own preconceived stereotypes.
Open carry is open carry.
I guess it's just different from an Australian perspective where only the cops or plain clothes detectives on duty carry guns.
When I go to south east Asian countries usually the open carry automatic rifles or SMG's are carried by police army and also some guards at banks.
Even though I don't agree with everything he says, I like James Yeager's stance on open carry. Basically, your gun is appropriate out in the open everywhere your cock is.
So it is confusing, if everyone is carrying a pistol rather than a rifle of some sort and dressed however they like. It is hard to tell who is going postal and who isn't.