BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

west-phoenix-az wrote:

\http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZrdbSJVSVM

Is it me, or did he take cover behind his female coworker, and then fire a gun repeatedly right next to a baby's head?

HITNRUNXX wrote:

west-phoenix-az wrote:

Is it me, or did he take cover behind his female coworker, and then fire a gun repeatedly right next to a baby's head?

it's you







He took position behind the female coworker so he could draw his pistol without the robber seeing him.
From the cameras perspective it's difficult to tell how close the baby was to the line of fire.
He appeared to have control of his firing.
In the end he was successful.
If I remember correctly he is/was a firearm instructor.

Last edited by west-phoenix-az (2012-07-17 14:44:29)

13rin wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Right, so the CCW licensing system works very well, despite it consisting of 'hoops via regulations and asinine tests'.
And it removes peoples CCWs if they commit crimes not involving firearms - which seems reasonable.

Wouldn't it be logical to apply the CCW licensing system to all gun purchases?

There all ready is a screening process to begin with.

but it's not good enough if people are still able to straw purchase for criminals, and mentally unstable people can still purchase weapons.

13rin wrote:

It wouldn't make it 'harder' for the law abiding, just a little longer winded - I bet it could done within the typical mandatory 'cooling off' period for example so really there'd be no real effect.

And I bet it would make it harder for 'bad guys' to get hold of guns in the long run.
So whats the big deal?

CWP's in FL actually eliminate the 'cooling off' period and there is none for buying long guns.

Not a fan of getting a permit that eliminates the cooling off period.  I'm not familiar with the FL CWP procedure, but the potential for some one to get approved for a CWP and then go bonkers is there.

Do "cool off periods" really do much?  How many people decide they are going to commit murder in the next 3 days, then go by a firearm to do it?  One would think that those who are so in the moment that they want to kill a person real soon will simply reach for the most convenient weapon (like say one of the 20 very long and sharp knives in the kitchen or baseball bat in the garage).  Those that are willing to plan out their crimes won't be stopped by a short delay.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

but it's not good enough if people are still able to straw purchase for criminals, and mentally unstable people can still purchase weapons.

There all ready is a check on that when the firearm is purchased.

13rin wrote:

Not a fan of getting a permit that eliminates the cooling off period.  I'm not familiar with the FL CWP procedure, but the potential for some one to get approved for a CWP and then go bonkers is there.

Of the two million issues in the last 20+ years, only 168 have gone on to commit a crime with a firearm.  That isn't even a .01 of a percent.   That makes no argument.

But just ask her about that:

She followed the law and left her gun in her glovebox that day.

Militia v. people argument:

Last edited by 13rin (2012-07-17 22:25:27)

13rin wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

but it's not good enough if people are still able to straw purchase for criminals, and mentally unstable people can still purchase weapons.

There all ready is a check on that when the firearm is purchased.

13rin wrote:

Not a fan of getting a permit that eliminates the cooling off period.  I'm not familiar with the FL CWP procedure, but the potential for some one to get approved for a CWP and then go bonkers is there.

Of the two million issues in the last 20+ years, only 168 have gone on to commit a crime with a firearm.  That isn't even a .01 of a percent.   That makes no argument.

and the statistical probability that you will need to use your concealed weapon is probably lower than that, so that makes no argument for it.

and the checks in place aren't working well enough.  And gun owners aren't being responsible enough in locking their weapons up.  As a gun owner, you should be pushing for more accountability and responsibility, not saying the status quo is fine (because it isn't).

west-phoenix-az wrote:

You can't accurately go off statistics for firearms being used in self defense. How many people pull a gun on someone in defense, don't fire, and nobody calls police? I bet a lot more than you'd think. The bad guy isn't going to call the cops. The guy who pulled the gun may not want the hassle or risk of getting in trouble. Also firearms are used to defend against animals (mostly dogs), but you don't really hear about those either.

You can't accurately go off statistics for CWP issued vs. crime committed.  How many people with CWP commit crimes that go unreported or unannounced?  I bet more than you think.

I agree with you here - you can't go off statistics.  That's my point.

Firearms used to defend against dogs =

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

[
and the statistical probability that you will need to use your concealed weapon is probably lower than that, so that makes no argument for it.

How do you know?  You cite no FACTS and yet you easily dismiss decades of data to a fabricated 'statistical probability'?  You're not trying.

Just curious, do you own any insurance?

and the checks in place aren't working well enough.  And gun owners aren't being responsible enough in locking their weapons up.  As a gun owner, you should be pushing for more accountability and responsibility, not saying the status quo is fine (because it isn't).

I say the checks are working just fine (until you add the DOJ).  But noooo... You want to punish the law abiding citizen.  Gotcha. 

But define 'locked up'.  As far as I'm concerned if my home is locked, and my firearm is inside it.... Then yes, my gun is locked up.  Yet if a guy breaks in and steals a gun you want to punish the victim?  How about if he take a knife?  Should we lock those up too?

Or do you want  federally regulated safes that one must acquire from the government or an approved government vendor?

No, I don't want to punish the law-abiding citizen.  I want people to be responsible - and based on FACTS (which show the majority of guns used in crimes are straw-purchased and stolen), gun owners and sellers aren't doing enough to stop criminals from procuring weapons.  I'm open to ideas too - but too often the deranged NRA-or-bust gun owners don't want to address any type of regulations or increased enforcement of existing laws because they think (erroneously) it is anti-gun.

I don't think simply locking your house is good enough.  I'd like to see some type of wall-mounted safes or lockable gun cabinets legislated.  And I'd like to see a mandate to register your guns yearly, with a government-sponsored check in to make sure a gun owner has proper storage (but i'm not sure if that is feasible).  How is requiring a gun owner to store it under lock and key punishing the gun owner?

To answer your question, yes I own insurance.  I do it for peace of mind - the same reason I've said people carry concealed weapons for.   But when someone challenges why I own insurance, I don't get all emotional and say, "well what if someone comes and runs me over in their car and I need to get surgery?  I'd rather have insurance and not need it than have no insurance. Tut tut!"

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I don't think simply locking your house is good enough. I'd like to see some type of wall-mounted safes or lockable gun cabinets legislated.

Do you really think that will help?  Most residential "safes" can be broken into in a matter of minutes, if not seconds.  If a thief can get past a dead-bolted door, to get your guns, what makes you think an under $4000 safe would hold up better?

And I'd like to see a mandate to register your guns yearly, with a government-sponsored check in to make sure a gun owner has proper storage (but i'm not sure if that is feasible).

Why?  Is the government hiring people to say, "Yep, Bob still owns guns" going to solve or prevent crimes?

How is requiring a gun owner to store it under lock and key punishing the gun owner?

Your plan would require extra expenses, registration, and government inspections of people's homes on a yearly basis.  How often is your home inspected by government employees?

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2012-07-18 14:05:32)

Adams_BJ wrote:

13rin wrote:

Or do you want  federally regulated safes that one must acquire from the government or an approved government vendor?

Yes. I see you're starting to get the hang of responsible gun ownership.

So responsible gun ownership means you have to pay more tax? Because that's all that is. It wouldn't do a damn thing to take guns out of the hands of criminals.