@clevfan4life said:

"right" just means "very" so any time.

@gftchris said:

ah good catch, for some reason I thought it was spelled the same. No just "shite". lols

@mld-woody said:

that was awesome.

@gftchris said:

Honestly, it comes out of my mouth more than it should.

Hahaha. That's fantastic

@the-cysko-kid said:

Honestly, it comes out of my mouth more than it should.

@mld-woody said:

Neighbourhoods.

Nobody says pip pip. I have been known to say cheerio. And jolly good. Though, never good show.

Pip pip cheerio. Jolly good show

Colour

Absent common sense in a lot of people, though, it falls on the government to try to legislate common sense in to people, and those *with* the common sense already see themselves being forced to jump through hoops to continue living their lives as they were.

Mass shootings w/ "traditional" hunting rifles: hard to say without really googling. My point was that the weapons used and reported as used are more about inciting and provoking fear than their capabilities.

For the walking / driving in a dodgy (gonna start using that word. I dig it) neighborhood my point is about preparedness for the unknown. Again the amount of bullets I *need* may only be 4. Or 6. Or 10. I'd prefer not to find that out if I was limited to 3 or 5 or 9. And yes staying in the car and driving away is option 1 always. Sometimes that's not feasible (breakdown, accident, victim of road rage, etc). As reliable and infallible as I believe my Glock's to be, semi-autos can and do jam. So i practice clearing jams (drop the mag, clear, load new mag, chamber a rd). Again I'd prefer not to be limited to the magazine in the gun if it jams. I know in about 1-2 seconds I can clear & reload if necessary.

Also these are all obviously what ifs and worst case scenarios. My goals of self defense and carrying a gun are that I *never* have to use it. Or leave the situation, call for help, contact law enforcement etc. But, people are shitheads so i make sure that I can do my best to get home safely and get my family home safely. Someone made the remark about law enforcement being minutes away when seconds count. Our law enforcement here is among the best, and that remark isn't a knock on them, but it is the truth. I'm not the type to be victimized if there's something I know I can prepare for. It's the same reason I always read before class, studied for exams, practiced dental procedures on fake/extracted teeth before on real patients, etc..

@pumpkin-eater said:

I've seen this before, and shockingly, it's using misleading information to reach its conclusion.

I could go in to the statistics underlying this, but it basically comes down to this:

In the US, violent crime is defined as murder/manslaughter, rape, robbery and assault.

In the UK, violent crime is defined as all of those things, along with any instances of any time someone felt a bit threatened, was pushed, 'jostled' is even in the definition - because, you know, we're british - regardless of whether there was intent or any harm done.

So, people are whiny bitches and a lot of 'assaults' get reported which actually aren't all that violent. This makes up the overwhelming majority of the total number of supposedly violent crimes in the UK.

So comparing like for like, ignoring the 'assaults' for the above reason, you find that rape and robbery are at about the same levels in the US and UK, but you're about 5 times more likely to be a victim of murder/manslaughter in the US.

I hope that helps clarify the situation.

If guns are going to be legal, of any kind, you should be free to have whatever kind you want in the home for home defence. So:

If I am defending my home, I shouldn't have any restrictions on owning/using magazines.

Agreed.

Walking/driving through an unfamiliar area where there is potentially trouble (again, this isn't me seeking out trouble vigilante-style as is portrayed in the media) I would like the ability to DEFEND myself meaning - neutralize a threat so that I am able to remove myself safely from the situation. This is important: stop the threat, get to safety.

Agreed, but if you're driving through a dodgy neighbourhood (maybe one of those fictional 'no-go zones'?) you can probably drive away quickly enough. Stopping and getting involved in a gun fight doesn't seem like the safest course of action.

For walking, yes, you might need to neutralise someone (or a couple of people) and run for safety, as you said. Does it take 30 bullets to do that?

A weapon that can take a 500lb elk from 800-1000 yards isn't going to have much trouble with humans. Yet it's easier to obtain (if you have the $$) than a handgun. Why? Because it isn't "scary" looking.

Sure, but how many mass shootings, or really any shootings, have there been with hunting rifles? Legislation against that is missing the point. I agree some people just want to ban 'scary looking' things, and I'm torn on that. I can see that if the practical application of a gun is no different to a handgun, why should it be banned? At the same time, open carry of a 'big scary gun' makes a non-negligible proportion of the public feel unsafe, and that leads to rising tensions.

I would certainly not be against open carry for hunting trips, that's just stupid. But when dropping timmy and sally off at ballet and little league, it's a bit unnecessary. Lock it in the boot trunk if you're on your way and you need to stop via somewhere where it's out of place. If you're going in to a hunting supply store nobody's going to bat an eye.

That whole thing though, should be common sense. It shouldn't even be a law, people should be smart enough to not carry a 'big scary gun' in to a supermarket or mcdonalds. Of course you have the right to, but why would you? You have the right to do all kinds of things, but people don't exercise those rights just because they can.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@the-cysko-kid said:

People don't want to address it because it is probably really complicated and just saying "it is the guns!" is easier than dipping into the root causes.

@logicisforsquares said:

exactly.

@logicisforsquares said:

That is a training issue which I strongly recommend people do. I am a shooting instructor.

That said, even without training, having the ability to potentially stop the threat is better than using the "not getting eaten by the bear" method of survival.

And again, yes. plenty of other professions & situations where the ability to remain calm and rely on training to perform under intense pressure is applicable: Trauma surgeons, firemen, airline pilots, search & rescue, EMTs, EOD (bomb squads) etc.