Gun control is being able to hit what your aiming at.
[QUOTE=faze;32396239]Don't know. Local laws maybe.[/QUOTE]
it varies by state
[quote]Handguns purchases in PA require a waiting period. I lived in York PA for 12 years of my life.[/quote]
Wrong. You have to be over the age of 18 to apply for the paperwork to carry it, you have to be over 21 to buy them. However, you can have a gun transferred to your name by a relative or someone you know at age 18. There is no "waiting period."
[QUOTE=CrispexOps;32396344]Wrong. You have to be over the age of 18 to apply for the paperwork to carry it, you have to be over 21 to buy them. However, you can have a gun transferred to your name by a relative or someone you know at age 18.[/QUOTE]Well it's changed since I lived there then.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32395718]I've done this millions of times without using the point. You need to sharpen your knives regularily, though.[/QUOTE]
Then that's a cutting hazard, you could slash someone with it and fuck them up á la straightrazor. Still a murder hazard, guess you should ban knife sharpeners for safety too then, especially since people may, oh Iunno, SHARPEN THE ROUNDED TIP, thus making the prohibition of a pointed blade redundant in terms of violence prevention, but a nuisance in terms of utility.
I believe that without gun control laws there would be less crime because people could better defend themselves and criminals might think twice before trying to 'jack someone.
[QUOTE=seano12;32396495]I believe that without gun control laws there would be less crime because people could better defend themselves and criminals might think twice before trying to 'jack someone.[/QUOTE]Yep. If I was legally allowed to carry a gun, when I was mugged I would have shot the guy in the face rather than give him money.
Well you're supposed to go for a non lethal shot I think.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
Otherwise you get convicted for murder.
[QUOTE=seano12;32396573]Well you're supposed to go for a non lethal shot I think.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
Otherwise you get convicted for murder.[/QUOTE]Baltimore area robberies are committed with guns, you're not from the area so I'll cut you some slack. If the guy has a gun out in an offensive manor rather than defensive, I'm not committing murder by shooting him to protect myself or another person, whether it be a lethal shot or a shot in the foot.
But if they'e on the ground you can't shoot them again right?
[QUOTE=RusMar;32394721]I don't have anything against the freedom to own a gun. I just don't understand why anyone would want to. It's seems like a pain to go through the process of getting a license and all that. Plus you don't even need a gun to kill someone for protection.[/QUOTE]
Here in NY, all I have to do it walk in the store, pick out a gun, buy it, fill out a form, wait 10 minutes while the store owners calls the FBI to see if I'm good to go, then walk out.
No restrictions on what firearms you can/cannot own. However, there should be massive background checks and a mental health assessment which determine your eligibility to own a weapon.
[QUOTE=seano12;32396658]But if they'e on the ground you can't shoot them again right?[/QUOTE]Never said I would. I'd neutralize the threat then call the police.
[QUOTE=seano12;32396573]Well you're supposed to go for a non lethal shot I think.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
Otherwise you get convicted for murder.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. Each state has a "castle doctrine" which specifies how many rounds you're allowed to fire at someone before it turns into manslaughter, which will get you a bit of time in prison.
In PA, you're allowed to fire at someone 3 times, unless they keep attacking you.
[QUOTE=CrispexOps;32396747]Wrong. Each state has a "castle doctrine" which specifies how many rounds you're allowed to fire at someone before it turns into manslaughter, which will get you a bit of time in prison.
In PA, you're allowed to fire at someone 3 times, unless they keep attacking you.[/QUOTE]And in New England states, there is a law called "Duty to Flee" where one has a legal obligation to leave their dwelling when broken into. This is why I don't live in any state governed by laws obtained from Britain.
[QUOTE=seano12;32396573]Well you're supposed to go for a non lethal shot I think.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
Otherwise you get convicted for murder.[/QUOTE]
Nope. If they attack you, you shoot them. Any firearms classes, such as to get a CC licence, teach you that if you pull a firearm, you better be damned sure you'll use it if the need be, and that if you're going to fire a firearm, you better be damned sure you're shooting to kill. "Non-lethal" shots are absolutely stupid. Warning shots, too. They both put more than just the criminal at risk. A non lethal shot is usually directed at a thin area of the body, and will more likely than not, go through the person. Then it runs the risk of hitting someone. They always teach the "failure drill" in firearms classes because it's what is recommended you do if you are attacked and you decide to fire back. For reference, the failure drill is a double tap to the heart and one round to the head.
[QUOTE=rosar0980;32396862]Nope. If they attack you, you shoot them. Any firearms classes, such as to get a CC licence, teach you that if you pull a firearm, you better be damned sure you'll use it if the need be, and that if you're going to fire a firearm, you better be damned sure you're shooting to kill. "Non-lethal" shots are absolutely stupid. Warning shots, too. They both put more than just the criminal at risk. A non lethal shot is usually directed at a thin area of the body, and will more likely than not, go through the person. Then it runs the risk of hitting someone. They always teach the "failure drill" in firearms classes because it's what is recommended you do if you are attacked and you decide to fire back. For reference, the failure drill is a double tap to the heart and one round to the head.[/QUOTE]This is another reason to use frangible ammo for defensive weapons.
I feel like CA has some strict laws on this stuff.
[QUOTE=seano12;32396925]I feel like CA has some strict laws on this stuff.[/QUOTE]They do.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;32396358]Then that's a cutting hazard, you could slash someone with it and fuck them up á la straightrazor. Still a murder hazard, guess you should ban knife sharpeners for safety too then, especially since people may, oh Iunno, SHARPEN THE ROUNDED TIP, thus making the prohibition of a pointed blade redundant in terms of violence prevention, but a nuisance in terms of utility.[/QUOTE]ALL knives are cutting hazards, sharpened or not! However, it's hard to kill someone by slashing him to death, whereas knives with points are extremely effective since all your force is concentrated to the point when stabbing. It's impossible to make points on pointless knives with a knife sharpener, you need other tools to do that. The main reason for having pointless knives is to reduce the risk of suicide, not to prevent crimes.
I'd move someday just because of this stuff, then again everyone I know and love is here so meh.
[QUOTE=faze;32396893]This is another reason to use frangible ammo for defensive weapons.[/QUOTE]
If my dumbass neighbor fires a warning shot with frangible ammo, and it hits my kids' window, there's still going to be some serious shit cause there's a whole slew of shit that could happen to my non-yet-existent son or daughter.
[QUOTE=rosar0980;32397218]If my dumbass neighbor fires a warning shot with frangible ammo, and it hits my kids' window, there's still going to be some serious shit cause there's a whole slew of shit that could happen to my non-yet-existent son or daughter.[/QUOTE]Your dumbass neighbors frangible ammo would break apart on his wall. Do you know what frangible ammo is?
[QUOTE=faze;32397241]Your dumbass neighbors frangible ammo would break apart on his wall. Do you know what frangible ammo is?[/QUOTE]
And if he's outside, firing at the guy trying to bust down his door?
[QUOTE=rosar0980;32397279]And if he's outside, firing at the guy trying to bust down his door?[/QUOTE]Then he's at fault for discharging a weapon in city limits, in most states.
[QUOTE=faze;32397294]Then he's at fault for discharging a weapon in city limits, in most states.[/QUOTE]
Not usually. I know a few people who have had similar scenarios happen to them, and they all fired and killed the perpetrator, and were absolved of all criminal accusations.
[QUOTE=rosar0980;32397349]Not usually. I know a few people who have had similar scenarios happen to them, and they all fired and killed the perpetrator, and were absolved of all criminal accusations.[/QUOTE]Again, shoot to kill. Aim for center mass. Going outside to fire at somebody trying to break in is a stupid idea though. Maintain a barricaded area, and call 911 right away. Make sure you have a few mag's in reach and hunker down until help arrives, or until you have to neutralize the threat. And be damn sure you're ready to fire.
Point is, he's at fault for running outside shooting at a guy trying to break in.
[QUOTE=rosar0980;32396862]Nope. If they attack you, you shoot them. Any firearms classes, such as to get a CC licence, teach you that if you pull a firearm, you better be damned sure you'll use it if the need be, and that if you're going to fire a firearm, you better be damned sure you're shooting to kill. "Non-lethal" shots are absolutely stupid. Warning shots, too. They both put more than just the criminal at risk. A non lethal shot is usually directed at a thin area of the body, and will more likely than not, go through the person. Then it runs the risk of hitting someone. They always teach the "failure drill" in firearms classes because it's what is recommended you do if you are attacked and you decide to fire back. For reference, the failure drill is a double tap to the heart and one round to the head.[/QUOTE]
don't know where you're getting this shoot to kill idea
shooting to kill is going up to a criminal and shooting him several times for the chest until you bring him down and then walking up to him once he's on the ground and shooting him several more times in the chest / head. that is shooting to kill someone.
you shoot to stop someone, and once you have stopped them, you stop shooting
[QUOTE=TropicalV2;32397434]don't know where you're getting this shoot to kill idea
shooting to kill is going up to a criminal and shooting him several times for the chest until you bring him down and then walking up to him once he's on the ground and shooting him several more times in the chest / head. that is shooting to kill someone.
you shoot to stop someone, and once you have stopped them, you stop shooting[/QUOTE]And stopped = them being on the floor with you kicking the gun away from their reach.
[QUOTE=TropicalV2;32397434]don't know where you're getting this shoot to kill idea
shooting to kill is going up to a criminal and shooting him several times for the chest until you bring him down and then walking up to him once he's on the ground and shooting him several more times in the chest / head. that is shooting to kill someone.
you shoot to stop someone, and once you have stopped them, you stop shooting[/QUOTE]
No, shooting to kill implies that you shoot them in a spot/spots where it could kill them. That's what the failure shot is. Failure shot is shooting to kill. It's a simple double tap in the heart, which is probably death right there, and then putting a round into their brain, which is a definite death.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
