Guns in the USA, Take a Stand

[Alyeska]

Ryan, you've been on the forums all day, and yet strangely have stopped responding. Looks to me like your trying to run away from the discussion.

[Tellos]

See military is limited by the Geneva convention but civilians can buy expanding, incendiary, armor piercing and even exploding rounds these can modify how the ammo acts causing more damage with a single shot. So against a normal round fully automatic weapon lets say a 9mm MP5 against a 8mm German Mouser bolt action rifle give the rifle steel core bullets it will punch past body armor and even cinder blocks while the MP5 will fail to punch past even the most basic of armored vests. Also the rifle will have longer range and far more accuracy making it far more deadly at long ranges. Obviously most criminals as noted won’t ever do this but it is a valid point that weapons type skill and ammo can make the difference.

[Ryan Thunder]

Ryan, you've been on the forums all day, and yet strangely have stopped responding. Looks to me like your trying to run away from the discussion.

I had a tab open while I was at the office.

And I grudgingly concede that there is virtually no harm in allowing my neighbours to own goddamn machine guns.

[Sea Skimmer]

The most powerful weapon in US civilian hands
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvncpT4EVzQ

90mm T8 towed anti tank gun prototype from 1945. Powerful enough to threaten the flanks of modern tanks at long range and destroy absolutely any AFV other then a tank without trouble. Also shatters rocks and appears at Machine Gun Shoots. No drive by anti tank gunnery attacks yet.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

But clearly according to Ryan these guys are going to fill out a class III for each of all of, oh, 500 shells or so, spend a thousand dollars on each one, and buy the gun for another hundred thousand dollars, and get an nine ton truck and haul this gun into the middle of a city centre and open fire on a crowded rush hour bridge as part of some complex plan to rob a bank.

[Bluewolf]

Zeon what was the point of that post above? I mean come on, you clearly proved him wrong, there is no point to keep rubbing it in his face. Also please don't peddle the whole "Mockery of stupid people" bullshit excuse. A lot of people have been using it recently and frankly it is getting old.

Relating to the whole high powered weapons/ammo stuff, well It would not be used in criminal practises as it is counter productive. If you want to rob a bank then you want weapons that don't give away your intentions, are easy to use and are effective. On top of that using too much force will warrant a much greater police response which could make a bank robbery untenable. Likewise such weapons take more skill to use more effectively and criminals are not always the sharpest knives in the drawers.

Also my stance on guns? Well I am in favour of a license that is strict. Also I am OK with stuff like assault rifles but they should have their own separate license and tests and the person applying should at least have had a previous license for X amount of time to show they have used a gun before. It may not be needed but I'd like to think that the user has some experience with firearms before using more advanced ones.

Guns should be allowed for shooting and hunting but not self defence and a harsh penalty should be applied on anyone who tries to claim self defence while killing someone with a firearm. I am also in favour of a strong tax on them.

[Knife]

Guns should be allowed for shooting and hunting but not self defence and a harsh penalty should be applied on anyone who tries to claim self defence while killing someone with a firearm.

How does that even make sense?

[Darth Wong]

Guns should be allowed for shooting and hunting but not self defence and a harsh penalty should be applied on anyone who tries to claim self defence while killing someone with a firearm.

How does that even make sense?

I'm not sure what the hell he's talking about either. If killing someone is considered potentially acceptable in a self-defense situation, why wouldn't it be acceptable to use a gun for that purpose?

Maybe he's talking about people who bullshit self-defense as an excuse for shooting someone. Police here in Canada take a very dim view of guns used in self-defense, in part because they believe that given all of the regulations on gun storage and transport, if you had the gun ready for use at short notice then there was probably some premeditation.

[Knife]

I'm not sure what the hell he's talking about either. If killing someone is considered potentially acceptable in a self-defense situation, why wouldn't it be acceptable to use a gun for that purpose?

Indeed. It is a tool, and for that particular circumstance, it seems a good tool.

Maybe he's talking about people who bullshit self-defense as an excuse for shooting someone. Police here in Canada take a very dim view of guns used in self-defense, in part because they believe that given all of the regulations on gun storage and transport, if you had the gun ready for use at short notice then there was probably some premeditation.

Well, I can see that argument. When it comes to dead robbers, outside the house facing away from the house, then obviously that's hard to play the 'self defense' card on; as was your example. However, that's really not an issue with the tool used, rather the law and circumstances in which 'self defense' was applied. I look forward to him fleshing out that particular opinion a bit more.

[Serafine666]

I can legally order incendiary 7.62x54R rounds for my semi-automatic bolt-action rifle developed in 1891.

Wait, WHAT?

Yeah, sorry, I just realized that that makes no sense at all. What I meant was that the rifle in question has a magazine; you can load 5 bullets into it and every time you open and close the bolt, it loads another round. It's sort of a bridge between a conventional bolt-action rifle (load a round by hand, close the bolt, fire, open the bolt to eject the round, repeat) and a semi-automatic (round is automatically loaded each time the trigger is pulled). Sorry about the confusion.

[Serafine666]

The most powerful weapon in US civilian hands
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvncpT4EVzQ

90mm T8 towed anti tank gun prototype from 1945. Powerful enough to threaten the flanks of modern tanks at long range and destroy absolutely any AFV other then a tank without trouble. Also shatters rocks and appears at Machine Gun Shoots. No drive by anti tank gunnery attacks yet.

Actually, I think it may go a bit beyond just this, Sea Skimmer. Have you ever seen "Lock 'n' Load with R. Lee Ermey" where he's doing a special on the evolution of the tank? The working models of such things as the very first British tank and the Sdvk armored car (armed with a larger cannon) seemed to both be privately-owned. I cannot imagine HOW this would occur (although I can see why; the armored vehicles are generations behind modern weaponry) and they're obviously not 90mm anti-tank weaponry but they're somewhat of a bigger deal than, say, a machinegun.

[Simon_Jester]

I think by "Serafina" you must mean "Serafine666" since as of yet, I've not seen Serafina address gun gifting and transfers and she appears to be strongly oppose allowing someone to purchase an automatic weapon (where you seem to feel that they should be legal with the restrictions that are already in place). If I'm mistaken, feel free to correct me.

Ah, yes, I do. Thank you. I apologize to both you and Serafina; it was an honest slip.

My opinions are unchanged, but I misattributed them.

Another angle: Terrorism, especially domestic terrorism.
It may well be that the typical criminal has next to no use for automatic guns.
But what about people who do not want to gain money, but political goals?
Right now, i am thinking about groups like the german Rote-Armee Fraktiojn (RAF), or other domestic paramilitary groups.
Since that thematic is not too unreasonable in the USA right now, i am suggesting that a ban on automatic weapons would reduce the threat of such groups by a significant margin.

I know you conceded, but this is interesting, since for all I know it might.

I speculate that the registration process in the US tends to weed out dangerous political radicals, to the point where only a small fraction of private automatic weapons belong to them. And, as others have pointed out, automatic weapons are expensive to use because they run through so much ammunition, and are often easy to trace. For instance, there are only so many people in the country who own heavy machine guns, so if one of the legal ones is used in a crime it will not take long to find out which gun it was. This may act as a deterrent: it is safer to use a gun of which there are hundreds of thousands of registered copies, so that there's no way the government can simply interview everyone who owns one.

Yeah, sorry, I just realized that that makes no sense at all. What I meant was that the rifle in question has a magazine; you can load 5 bullets into it and every time you open and close the bolt, it loads another round. It's sort of a bridge between a conventional bolt-action rifle (load a round by hand, close the bolt, fire, open the bolt to eject the round, repeat) and a semi-automatic (round is automatically loaded each time the trigger is pulled). Sorry about the confusion.

My understanding is that single-shot hand loaded rifles are normally called "breech loading," because you load individual rounds at the breech instead of the muzzle. Rifles that "automatically" load the next round into the firing chamber are "automatic" or "semiautomatic"*

If I'm not mistaken, and I could easily be, "bolt-action" normally refers to clip or magazine-fed rifles (like your Mosin-Nagant), which are NOT self-loading at all. They are distinct from breechloaders, the difference being that the back end of the gun has machinery to hold rounds in storage so that the same process of opening the bolt to eject the round also loads the next round. But you still have to do it by hand; the exploding propellant charge doesn't do it for you the way it would with a self-loading weapon like an American Garand or a machine gun.

*I gather that people started using "semiautomatic" for single shot self-loading weapons after the first use of "automatic," which is why single shot self-loading pistols were called "automatic" at a time when no single shot self-loading rifles existed.

Actually, I think it may go a bit beyond just this, Sea Skimmer. Have you ever seen "Lock 'n' Load with R. Lee Ermey" where he's doing a special on the evolution of the tank? The working models of such things as the very first British tank and the Sdvk armored car (armed with a larger cannon) seemed to both be privately-owned. I cannot imagine HOW this would occur (although I can see why; the armored vehicles are generations behind modern weaponry) and they're obviously not 90mm anti-tank weaponry but they're somewhat of a bigger deal than, say, a machinegun.

Only if the weapons and ammunition are available for them. Even if you've got a British Mk. I tank parked on your lawn, you'd be hard pressed to find shells for the Hotchkiss QF 6-pounder these days.

As to how it happened, my best guess is that when the military no longer had even a slight use for the things, they started looking for someone to take them off their hands. Sometimes that sort of weapon gets foisted off on another country (the US does this all the time), but if no one is buying (and if we're talking about a British Mk. I, no one would be), then that avenue is closed. Sometimes a museum is interested- but the museum may be privately operated. Or some individual with more money than sense might want it.

Since it's not all that difficult to demilitarize an armored vehicle to the point where it's just a big metal box on wheels, and not a lethal artillery platform or anything... I don't see why they shouldn't offer to sell to private collectors.

[Azazal]

I can legally order incendiary 7.62x54R rounds for my semi-automatic bolt-action rifle developed in 1891.

Wait, WHAT?

Yeah, sorry, I just realized that that makes no sense at all. What I meant was that the rifle in question has a magazine; you can load 5 bullets into it and every time you open and close the bolt, it loads another round. It's sort of a bridge between a conventional bolt-action rifle (load a round by hand, close the bolt, fire, open the bolt to eject the round, repeat) and a semi-automatic (round is automatically loaded each time the trigger is pulled). Sorry about the confusion.

Figured you meant you have a Mosin-Nagant and you were using mail order ammo

[Commander 598]

I can legally order incendiary 7.62x54R rounds for my semi-automatic bolt-action rifle developed in 1891.

Wait, WHAT?

Yeah, sorry, I just realized that that makes no sense at all. What I meant was that the rifle in question has a magazine; you can load 5 bullets into it and every time you open and close the bolt, it loads another round. It's sort of a bridge between a conventional bolt-action rifle (load a round by hand, close the bolt, fire, open the bolt to eject the round, repeat) and a semi-automatic (round is automatically loaded each time the trigger is pulled). Sorry about the confusion.

Your "conventional bolt-action rifle" is what is termed a "single-shot rifle". The ones with internal magazines are and have always been called "bolt-action rifles".

[Aaron]

Not to be a pedantic ass hole but the weapons action is separate from whether is is magazine fed or not. A weapon can be bolt action but be single shot or it can have a mag, it's action doesn't with the addition of a magazine.

[Sea Skimmer]

Actually, I think it may go a bit beyond just this, Sea Skimmer. Have you ever seen "Lock 'n' Load with R. Lee Ermey" where he's doing a special on the evolution of the tank? The working models of such things as the very first British tank and the Sdvk armored car (armed with a larger cannon) seemed to both be privately-owned. I cannot imagine HOW this would occur (although I can see why; the armored vehicles are generations behind modern weaponry) and they're obviously not 90mm anti-tank weaponry but they're somewhat of a bigger deal than, say, a machinegun.

Prior to 1934 a civilian in the US could own any weapon they wanted, period. No regulation whatsoever. After the 1934 National Firearms Act the Class III licensing system was introduced for machine guns, any smokeless powder (but not black powder) gun with a bore over .50cal and all forms of explosive devices. Collectively these are known as ‘Destructive Devices’. Still if you had the license you could obtain such items new and the military sold surplus stuff all the time to collectors.

It was not until Gun Control Act of 1968 that importing Destructive Devices from overseas was banned, and various regulations on US military sales and a few other things made it pretty well impossible to obtain anymore military surplus artillery, tanks or mortars with functional armament. However you could still get new US built machine guns until the Gun Control Act of 1986 which banned introducing new Destructive Devices into the Class III system. So if you had a tank with working gun or a 90mm cannon prior to 1968 you can still have it and still buy ammo and still transfer it, but no new ones can be legally obtained. Same for machine guns as of 1986. So the supply of legal weapons like this is very finite but none the less folks have them.

Of course you can very much still buy a working tank without a functional armament. I’m not sure what the law says on buying a demilitarized tank, and then arming it with a separately obtained machine gun but it is likely not allowed. Prior to 1934 you could have bought an entire fully equipped tank battalion if you wanted without a law in the way... and if you'd already owned it in 1968 it would still be legal to this day.

[Coyote]

Skimmer, does this have any standing on obtaining armored military vehicles that do not, intrinsically, mount weapons? I remember after Eastern Europe opened up, a lot of surplus Czech OT-810 halftracks were imported and sold, with WW2 re-enactment groups snatching them up because they bore such a close resemblance to the German SdKfz-251 series. It seems to me that things such as halftracks were pretty much just bought & sold as one would an ordinary truck.

[Sea Skimmer]

If it doesn’t mount a weapon in a protected manner then it’s just another vehicle, no matter how many millions of SWAT bullets the armor might repel while you shoot gangster style out an open hatch with a Glock. Open pintle mounts don’t count, but if you want to bring the machine gun with the mounting you'll have to make a couple cuts into the receiver and barrel.

If it does have some kind of protected fixed armament, then you have to jump through a couple legal hoops to certify it’s been demilitarized in a permanent manner. This can get very expensive on an import because you have to get it examined by the ATF overseas, and then again after it arrives but people still do it. This applies to military aircraft as well as ground vehicles. In the latter case you have to destroy the hard points and any gun mounts.

[mingo]

Do you support the right of a private citizen in the United States to own a firearm?
If yes then to what extent? Are handguns okay? Automatic weapons? Concealed weapons?

And for anybody who actually does own a gun, any general tips? My brother is ex-mil so he'll be covering safety very extensively.

I am left leaning myself, but I own 3 rifles, one shotgun, and intend to purcase a muzzle-loader pistol very soon. I was raised in a hunting family. We don't "stock pile weapons", we own guns for a purpose, to hunt with. Now would I use one of my guns to defend myself/family/property/country/random innocents? Absolutely, but the need has never come up. I think most people should be allowed to own firearms, excluding convicted felons, the mentally incompetent, members of terrorist organizations.

In general I support the current restrictions on what type of firearms should be available to the general public, ( no full autos, no "silencers", no sawed off shotguns etc) I am distressed over the current trend to loosen concealed carry restrictions. Until 10 to 15 years ago, concealed carry was allowed only by permit and the applicant had to demonstrate a need, (employment as a police officer, diamond courier, professional bodyguard, that sort of thing), lately in many states, all you have to do is WANT one and prove not to be a felon and you can't be denied. I'm concerned that this allows, frightened bigots, paranoids, wannabe bad-asses, and people much too interested in proving their machismo, to carry deadly weapons for any reason at all.

As for advice, remember that any firearm is not in and of itself, evil (a mistake many lefties make). It's a machine, liike a chainsaw or a car, and like those machines, you can kill, maim and raise all kinds of hell with it. If you do cause trouble with a gun though, it's you that did it, not the evil gun. Also remember that unlike punches, bullets can not be "pulled", once you pull the trigger, the decision has been made.

Think about what you want a gun for and what kind is best suited to your purpose. Don't get an elephant gun to hunt deer, and don't, (as a friend living in a downtown apartment almost did) buy a deer rifle for home defense.

Do not think that just having a gun, or even holding in you hand makes you "safe". If you are concerned for your physical safety, I highly recommend martial arts training. A gun (or any weapon for that matter, is only as useful as your ability and willingness to use it). Never point a gun at some-one to scare them, if the situation is so dire it requires a gun, KILL them, if it isn't that dire leave it alone.

[Swindle1984]

See military is limited by the Geneva convention but civilians can buy expanding, incendiary, armor piercing and even exploding rounds these can modify how the ammo acts causing more damage with a single shot. So against a normal round fully automatic weapon lets say a 9mm MP5 against a 8mm German Mouser bolt action rifle give the rifle steel core bullets it will punch past body armor and even cinder blocks while the MP5 will fail to punch past even the most basic of armored vests. Also the rifle will have longer range and far more accuracy making it far more deadly at long ranges. Obviously most criminals as noted won’t ever do this but it is a valid point that weapons type skill and ammo can make the difference.

As someone who works with firearms for a living and has obsessively researched and collected them, I'm going to make a few corrections here.


1) The US is not a signatory to the Geneva conventions, and the Geneva conventions only apply if both sides of a conflict are signatories. So even if your country agreed to the Geneva conventions, if the enemy didn't, neither of you have to follow the rules.

2) Civilians can buy expanding ammunition identical to that used by law enforcement. Incendiary ammunition in civilian hands is extremely rare; the military uses it fairly often, for obvious reasons. Armor piercing ammunition is legal (in most states, some ban it) so long as it is a rifle caliber; AP ammo is forbidden in pistol calibers. The law also specifically protects AP ammo in 5.56mm, 7.62 NATO/.308, and .30-06 caliber as being legal for civilians. The only AP ammo I see for sale on a regular basis is .30-06 left over from WWII and .50BMG ammunition sold by the belt (since it's mostly for the M2 heavy machine gun.). AP ammo is pretty obscure and expensive though. Exploding ammunition is 100% illegal unless you jump through the ATF's hoops and pay $200 per round for the privilege of registering explosive ammunition with the government. That doesn't include the cost of the ammo itself. I should also point out that every explosive projectile available to civilians in the US is current or prior US military issue. The only people I know who own explosive ammunition are people who are well off (as in, they have two or three million in the bank) and collect machine guns and grenade launchers.

3) Standard FMJ/ball ammunition (what the military uses, and what civilians use for cheap practice ammo) out of an MP5 WILL penetrate a level IIa kevlar vest thanks to the increased velocity from the longer barrel. A 9mm handgun firing the same ammo? Not so much. There's also ammo designed for use in submachine guns only, that is not safe for use in handguns as they cannot handle the increased pressure. This ammo makes penetration of soft armor even more likely. Additionally, comparing an MP5 firing a pistol caliber (9x19mm) to a Mauser K98 firing a rifle caliber (7.92x57mm) using a steel-core bullet is like comparing a Yugo to a Ferrarri. Apples and oranges.


Body armor comes in several flavors:

Level I: Commonly called a flak jacket. Designed only to protect against shrapnel. The only caliber it will consistently stop is a .22 rimfire. No one has produced soft armor with this level of protection in years.

Level IIa: A step up from Level I. Will consistently stop small pistol calibers, but is defeated by the same calibers in SMG's or carbines and larger pistol calibers.

Level II: A step up from IIa. Will stop most, but not all, pistol calibers. Most concealable vests worn by civilians, police officers, and politicians are level IIa or level II.

Level IIIa: Will stop all pistol calibers, including those fired from SMG's and carbines. Rifles will, of course, sail right through as if nothing was there most of the time.

Level III: Combines level IIIa soft armor with a steel or ceramic plate in the front and back. The plate, combined with the soft armor, will stop most rifle rounds, but large calibers and AP ammo will penetrate. This is what most soldiers wear into combat.

Level IV: The highest level of protection available without highly specialized gear that makes movement difficult. Will consistently stop nearly all rifle rounds, including most AP rounds. Obviously all armor can be defeated by multiple hits to the same area, hits to a weak area (usually the sides), or calibers they weren't meant to protect against.

[Aaron]

As someone who works with firearms for a living and has obsessively researched and collected them, I'm going to make a few corrections here.


1) The US is not a signatory to the Geneva conventions, and the Geneva conventions only apply if both sides of a conflict are signatories. So even if your country agreed to the Geneva conventions, if the enemy didn't, neither of you have to follow the rules.

Would you mind citing where you got this info from? I've had to sit through many a Geneva briefing and it was always stated that if your signatory to the Conventions then you are bound to them, regardless of whether your opponent has or not. It was also my understanding that the US abides by all of them save the fourth.

[Swindle1984]

I am left leaning myself, but I own 3 rifles, one shotgun, and intend to purcase a muzzle-loader pistol very soon. I was raised in a hunting family. We don't "stock pile weapons", we own guns for a purpose, to hunt with. Now would I use one of my guns to defend myself/family/property/country/random innocents? Absolutely, but the need has never come up. I think most people should be allowed to own firearms, excluding convicted felons, the mentally incompetent, members of terrorist organizations.

I started out owning guns exclusively for hunting. Now I've added a few antiques and a couple firearms suitable for combat to my collection. Why? Partly because I can, partly because it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, and partly because the intent of the 2nd Amendment requires us to be armed so we can form a militia and fight off an invading army or our own government gone wrong. Kinda hard to do that with just Grandpappy's old deer rifle. Thankfully, the odds of ever having to do that are ridiculously low.

In general I support the current restrictions on what type of firearms should be available to the general public, ( no full autos, no "silencers", no sawed off shotguns etc)

Full-auto weapons are legal in 35 states. And since 1934, when they began requiring registration of full-auto weapons, only two legally-owned machine guns have been used to commit a crime, both by police officers. One was an officer who used his privately-owned MAC-10 to murder an informant (he was a dirty cop and afraid of being ratted out), the other was an officer who used his department-issued MP5 to murder his supervisor and his girlfriend for reasons I've forgotten the details of. Machine guns make up less than 1% of firearms used in crime. With the exception of a handful of high profile gangsters in the Prohibition era, machine guns have never been common in crime.

Silencers are legal in 37 states. Even before laws requiring their registration in 1934, they were never popular in crime. And considering how ridiculously easy they are to make (far easier than making a machine gun), just about any criminal who wanted to use one could do so. In many European nations, silencers are completely unrestricted and dirt cheap. Some REQUIRE you to attach a silencer to your weapon so as to avoid bothering people with the sound of gunfire. In England, I could walk into a gun shop, hand over cash for a silencer, and walk out the door. There's far more hassle involved with buying a silencer in the US, and for what?

Sawed-off shotguns are legal in 39 states. Again, they're rarely used in crime. In Canada, you can have any length barrel you want on a shotgun or rifle. What is it about having a shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18" or a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16" that makes them sooooo dangerous and evil?

Grenade launchers, mortar, rocket launchers, and other explosive ordnance are legal in 34 states. I've failed to see any point in American history, including before laws were passed requiring their registration, where it was common for criminals to use such weaponry.

As for guns with a bore larger than .50-cal, most states allow those too. You can buy a 20mm anti-tank rifle fairly easily. And if you buy a gun designed for African big game hunting, like a .700 Nitro Express, those don't even count in the law. Neither do shotguns whose bore exceeds .50-cal, which would be most of the ones on the market. Guess what? Big bore guns aren't popular in crime either. Heck, there's only ONE instance where anyone can point to someone using a dreaded ".50-caliber sniper rifle" during a crime (the infamous Killdozer incident), and not only didn't he not kill anyone (he deliberately avoided doing so, and instead just caused property damage and scared people away), no one really knows for certain if he even had a .50-caliber rifle with him or if it was just a rumor started by the media.

Let's not even get into the ridiculous laws against having a foregrip or stock on a pistol, or a pistol with a smoothbore, or the idiocy in the expired "assault" weapons ban like banning bayonet lugs and barrel shrouds.

So what's the big deal with the restrictions?

I am distressed over the current trend to loosen concealed carry restrictions. Until 10 to 15 years ago, concealed carry was allowed only by permit and the applicant had to demonstrate a need, (employment as a police officer, diamond courier, professional bodyguard, that sort of thing), lately in many states, all you have to do is WANT one and prove not to be a felon and you can't be denied. I'm concerned that this allows, frightened bigots, paranoids, wannabe bad-asses, and people much too interested in proving their machismo, to carry deadly weapons for any reason at all.

So it's ok to carry a gun if you're a celebrity, politician, or can prove a need (which can be ignored at the whim of whoever is in charge of approving these things), but not if you're Joe Citizen? As law enforcement, I can carry a concealed handgun without a permit in places civilians with a permit cannot carry their guns (court houses, hospitals, schools, bars) so long as my commission is active.

But what about the little old lady who lives in a bad neighborhood? Should she have to prove to some stranger that she NEEDS a permit to carry a gun in her purse, or should be able to do that simply because SHE thinks she should? After all, it's HER life, her responsibility, and her judgement involved, not some stranger who knows nothing of her situation.

What about the guy who carries a gun because he got mugged once and is afraid to be mugged again? He doesn't sell or carry expensive jewelry, isn't a bodyguard, and doesn't have a restraining order against someone, so by your standards he can't carry a gun.

Further, if someone wants to play Billy Badass or wear bedsheets and shoot at black people, why does he need a permit to do that? Laws against carrying guns only discourage those who already weren't inclined to carry them for the purpose of harming others or being a dumbass.

Finally, since people with concealed carry permits are statistically five times less likely to commit a crime than the rest of the populace, I fail to see what the problem is. Especially considering that many states allow people to carry an UNconcealed firearm with no license whatsoever. Alaska and Vermont both allow concealed carry with no license or registration, and they both have low crime rates. In fact, Vermont is consistently in the top five safest states in the nation. Meanwhile, cities like D.C., Chicago, Detroit, and NYC, all of which have long-standing bans on firearms (the details vary, of course), consistently have the highest crime rates in the nation. Because only the bad guys are carrying.

As for advice, remember that any firearm is not in and of itself, evil (a mistake many lefties make). It's a machine, liike a chainsaw or a car, and like those machines, you can kill, maim and raise all kinds of hell with it. If you do cause trouble with a gun though, it's you that did it, not the evil gun. Also remember that unlike punches, bullets can not be "pulled", once you pull the trigger, the decision has been made.

Sound advice. I get pissed every time I read a news article about someone who shot himself or a family member and blames it on the gun. "I was just cleaning it and it went off!" No dumbass, you made it go off. Guns can't go off by themselves. Most can't go off even if you toss them out a moving car or beat them with a hammer. In order for a gun to go off, it has to be loaded, the safety (if it has one) disengaged, and YOU HAVE TO PULL THE TRIGGER. Moreover, cleaning a gun requires you to dismantle it and run a brush through the bore and chamber, which makes having it loaded during cleaning impossible. I also fail to see what part of the cleaning process requires you to point the gun at yourself or another person and pull the trigger.

Think about what you want a gun for and what kind is best suited to your purpose. Don't get an elephant gun to hunt deer, and don't, (as a friend living in a downtown apartment almost did) buy a deer rifle for home defense.

Oh gosh, yes. The best thing for home defense is a handgun, preferably with a light attached and night sights. For instances with multiple intruders (usually in areas with high gang activity), a semi-auto carbine with a 30-round magazine is better. Better accuracy, better penetration, better ammo capacity. And while you likely won't need even a third of the ammo in there, the odds of you having time to reload during a violent home invasion are pretty low, so have as much on hand as you can. A shotgun is also suitable for self-defense, so long as you get one with an appropriate barrel length (hint: duck guns with 28" barrels are a bad idea) and the right ammo selection. I'd place a shotgun dead last after the handgun and carbine for home defense because of the low rate of fire and high recoil.

Also, bear in mind that guns are loud enough to damage your hearing. And even louder in confined spaces like a house or apartment. Hearing protection (mainly electronic hearing protection that doesn't muffle normal sounds, so you can hear the intruder) is a good idea to prevent you from going deaf, but you'll almost never have time to put it on. If you live in a state that allows silencers, sticking one on your home defense weapon is a good idea. SWAT teams use silencers specifically to protect their hearing.

Finally, while it's a good idea to leave your other guns unloaded when not in use, if your home-defense (or concealed carry) gun is unloaded when someone breaks in, you don't have a gun, you have an expensive paperweight. If you're worried about your kid getting hold of it, some education goes a long way to prevent it. Having an instant-open bedside safe is good too, if you can't trust your kid. Never use a gun lock on your home defense gun; they take way to long to get off the gun and have gotten people killed before.

Do not think that just having a gun, or even holding in you hand makes you "safe". If you are concerned for your physical safety, I highly recommend martial arts training. A gun (or any weapon for that matter, is only as useful as your ability and willingness to use it). Never point a gun at some-one to scare them, if the situation is so dire it requires a gun, KILL them, if it isn't that dire leave it alone.

Also sound advice. If you own a gun, no matter what you intend to use it for, get some training on how to safely handle it before you ever load the thing. Then buy a few hundred rounds of ammo, take it to the range, and start practicing. For those unfamiliar with firearms, "a few hundred" sounds excessive, but it takes quite a bit of ammo to practice to the point where you're good with a gun. I went through 2,000 rounds just qualifying at the range with my service pistol. Additionally, most guns need to be fired around three hundred times (on average) to break them in. Until the gun is broken in, it isn't 100% reliable and the point of impact for the bullets isn't quite consistent. The exception to this is deer rifles and precision rifles, which require far fewer rounds to be broken in thanks to the mechanism and nature of the firearms. If you don't have the money for all that ammo, remember that you don't have to do it all at once and dry-firing the gun (if it's safe to dry-fire; some firearms can damage the firing pin by dry-firing) is almost as good for the gun as actually firing it.

If you're getting a concealed carry permit, they not only drill you on all the laws involved, they also require you to take a safety and marksmanship course and have you role-play scenarios where you have to decide whether or not it's appropriate to draw the gun.

According to FBI statistics, over 2 million crimes are prevented annually by the victim pulling a gun, and only 15% of those involve shots being fired. That said, don't think you can just pull out a gun and the bad guy will run away or give up. If you're pulling a gun, you're pulling it for the express purpose of killing someone. If they run or surrender before you shoot them, then that's just icing on the cake.

If you draw a gun, it's because you're going to shoot someone. If you're going to shoot someone, shoot to kill. Never shoot to wound. This is because most of the time when you shoot someone with the intent of simply wounding them, you miss. People aren't easy targets. The easiest way to hit them is to aim for the center of mass, which just happens to be where the heart, lungs, and spinal column are. When you shoot to kill, it's also the most likely way of stopping an attack, even if it doesn't actually kill your attacker. If someone is absolutely determined to kill you or just hopped up on drugs (which can make them fearless, immune to pain, and easily enraged), then killing them ASAP is the only way to keep them from tearing you a new asshole.

And for pete's sake, get ammunition appropriate to what you intend to use the gun for. If I see one more idiot advocate using birdshot for home defense, I'm going to smack him over the head. Birdshot is for small animals with hollow bones; humans are large animals with solid bones, and they tend to wear heavy clothing, especially in winter. If you're using a shotgun for anything but birds and squirrels, get 00 buckshot or slugs. Rifle or pistol, use hollowpoints and not non-expanding FMJ/ball ammo.

[Swindle1984]

As someone who works with firearms for a living and has obsessively researched and collected them, I'm going to make a few corrections here.


1) The US is not a signatory to the Geneva conventions, and the Geneva conventions only apply if both sides of a conflict are signatories. So even if your country agreed to the Geneva conventions, if the enemy didn't, neither of you have to follow the rules.

Would you mind citing where you got this info from? I've had to sit through many a Geneva briefing and it was always stated that if your signatory to the Conventions then you are bound to them, regardless of whether your opponent has or not. It was also my understanding that the US abides by all of them save the fourth.

I'm about to leave, so I don't have time to look up the details on the conventions applying/not applying if your opponent isn't a signatory. However, while the US generally abides by the Geneva conventions, we do so on a voluntary basis, not because we have to. We never agreed to anything, so we don't have to abide by them if we don't want to.

ETA: And isn't it actually the Hague conventions that involve what weapons can be used in warfare?

[Simon_Jester]

1) The US is not a signatory to the Geneva conventions, and the Geneva conventions only apply if both sides of a conflict are signatories. So even if your country agreed to the Geneva conventions, if the enemy didn't, neither of you have to follow the rules.

Wait, what? Umm... I don't think that's actually true, if we're talking about the famous Geneva Conventions I-IV regarding the laws of war.

[Aaron]

ETA: And isn't it actually the Hague conventions that involve what weapons can be used in warfare?

Yes

I'm about to leave, so I don't have time to look up the details on the conventions applying/not applying if your opponent isn't a signatory. However, while the US generally abides by the Geneva conventions, we do so on a voluntary basis, not because we have to. We never agreed to anything, so we don't have to abide by them if we don't want to.

Following info from here.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

You are obligated to follow the Conventions regardless of whether your opponent has signed or not.

You'll also find that the US has signed them.