Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If there was a law abiding citizen grocery shopping, that was able to carry a gun in her purse......maybe there wouldn`t be so many dead. Maybe the right person would be dead.
What country are you from that you wouldn't surmise right from the outset that there were probably more than one in that store with either a CCW or just carrying regardless???? Some won't leave home without it.
All personal carry training you receive to qualify for a permit preaches over and over again you do not engage if you are not under personal threat of harm. Any personal carry training program that includes the suggestion you move to engage a shooter when you are not under immediate threat will be summarily shut down by any State Licensing Bureau. In other words - there probably were armed people in that store but they did what they were trained to do - escape/avoid the primary danger zone and move AWAY from the shooting.
As in the Arizona Gabby Giffords shooting incident it later came to light there were people armed in the audience who did the smart thing and got the hell out of there. Two others took cover and nearly shot each other thinking they were part of a co-ordinated attack.
As in the Tampa Bay theater shooting a retired police Swat captain, illegally armed in a theater used his firearm to murder an unarmed person for merely viewing his cel-phone during the rolling advertisements prior to the film's commencement and having the nerve to respond to the captain's bullying.
May be general American Reps are. But what about congress? If they are then why don't they (congress) pass it. Did you listen to Cruz the other day. All he can do is the totally bogus thoughts and prayers thing, a more useless past time has yet to be invented.
As far as AR15s and Assault weapons.... (Note the descriptor Weapon, i.e. people killer) I would not be totally against them if they had limited range. Ban long range ammo then, same difference. Any assault rifle that has a long range cartridge has no use at all. and do not hit me with the hunting excuse. The only reason people have them is to look intimidating, and because they can, just look at the idiots that parade in front of government buildings with them, in softy states. They pose absolutely no value as a personal gun.
Now before you go on about me being a lefty anti gun person, I am 67 years old, own a variety of handguns (My preference) and a couple of "Proper" hunting rifles. I have earned numerous awards for shooting and used to be an IPSC competitor. I taught gun safety for god knows how long and I have to tell you, many folks I came across did not have the sense or ability to properly handle a gun of any kind.
May be general American Reps are. But what about congress? If they are then why don't they (congress) pass it. Did you listen to Cruz the other day. All he can do is the totally bogus thoughts and prayers thing, a more useless past time has yet to be invented.
As far as AR15s and Assault weapons.... (Note the descriptor Weapon, i.e. people killer) I would not be totally against them if they had limited range. Ban long range ammo then, same difference. Any assault rifle that has a long range cartridge has no use at all. and do not hit me with the hunting excuse. The only reason people have them is to look intimidating, and because they can, just look at the idiots that parade in front of government buildings with them, in softy states. They pose absolutely no value as a personal gun.
Now before you go on about me being a lefty anti gun person, I am 67 years old, own a variety of handguns (My preference) and a couple of "Proper" hunting rifles. I have earned numerous awards for shooting and used to be an IPSC competitor. I taught gun safety for god knows how long and I have to tell you, many folks I came across did not have the sense or ability to properly handle a gun of any kind.
They do have a limited range, the -15. It's really only good for 100 yards in the hands of an inexperienced shooter. Further, that round loses all its energy with the first thing it hits, hence why it is popular for home defence.
Want to engage out 500-1000 yards? That's the M-14/AR-10.
As far as "the only reasons"......me, if it is not needed, then it is just a bag of equipment in the back. If it is needed, it can be brought on line in under a minute. Further, as previously stated, if one is down a limb such as a broken arm, not having pre loaded magazines can really suck.
Major changes to our gun laws would require a constitutional amendment but even a minor changes like universal background checks would require 60 votes unless they do away with the filibuster. We have a very troubling gun culture in our country when people like this can have easy access to this type of gun.
So you believe that our society would be safer and better off, if government were given the power to forbid "certain people" from buying "certain kinds" of guns?
May be general American Reps are. But what about congress?
Because we already have background checks
The proposed HR 8 law is in regards to person to person sales or transfers of weapons. They want to add a middle man (licensed gun shop) to act as a go-between to process background checks
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlakeJones
Because we already have background checks
The proposed HR 8 law is in regards to person to person sales or transfers of weapons. They want to add a middle man (licensed gun shop) to act as a go-between to process background checks
Gun shows are like a flea market for guns. You have licensed gun dealers who are required in all those states to perform background checks. But people who are selling their weapons second hand in those states are not required to qualify the buyer or recipient in order to transfer the weapon. Seems like there's something that could be done there, but as I understand it HR 8 has a lot of extra stuff in it and people are objecting to requiring a gun store act as a go-between even if you're selling a revolver to your brother in law
Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks.
From your link^^^
Which is no different than buying a gun out of the back of your car, where criminals buy their stuff...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
