Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Rant

They're not NRA members, they're gun owners

Jan 29, 2013 5:13AM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
re: better off with a shotgun.
Feb 5, 2013 7:25PM PST

>"In the house, you're actually probably better off with a barely legal length 12 guage shotgun with buckshot for almost all threats."

Wrong. "Clearing" room to room. Intruder takes a (family member) hostage. Intruder behind cover. Intruder wearing body armor (which you probably won't know immediately).

And that's just off the top of my head - Mark

- Collapse -
well unless you're using very high power
Feb 5, 2013 7:59PM PST

or illegal body armor piercing ammo, the body armor is still going to be there when you do a chest shot, which is what is normally trained.

Granted, the impact is suppose to be like being kicked by a mule even if the round doesn't penetrate.

Those pistol and rifle shells if you miss or even a through and through hit will also go through a sheetrock wall and kill someone on the other side.

Clearing room to room? I thinking more about when you heard someone breaking in and are waiting for them. If they get in without you knowing, you're not going to be ready anyway. Or do you sleep with your gun in your hand, safety off?

- Collapse -
re: the body armor is still going to be there.
Feb 5, 2013 8:55PM PST

>"unless you're using very high power or illegal body armor piercing ammo, the body armor is still going to be there when you do a chest shot"

Depends on the class/rating of the body armor.

>"Those pistol and rifle shells if you miss or even a through and through hit will also go through a sheetrock wall and kill someone on the other side."

First, pistol and rifle "shells"?

Second, you're wrong about "a through and through hit will also go through a sheetrock wall". You're right about a miss, though.

Third, while over penetration is admittedly a concern, I would submit that the bigger concern is the guy (or guys) trying to kill you.

Fourth, you should note that most law enforcement agencies only rely on shotguns for breaching.

Fifth, you should also note that many law enforcement agencies have switched from pistol caliber sub-machine guns to rifle caliber carbines because they found that over penetration is less likely with the latter.

>"Clearing room to room? I thinking more about when you heard someone breaking in and are waiting for them."

You're right that that is one instance where a shotgun would be advantageous. However, the questions I would pose to you: are all the members of every family are supposed to sleep in the same room? And they are supposed to call the police every time a cat knocks over a potted plant?

Mark

- Collapse -
are you going to take a shot
Feb 6, 2013 10:03AM PST

if the guy is holding your child in front of him anyway?

You're confidant enough to try a head shot in that case, particularly if he's armed as well as you?

- Collapse -
re: are you going to take a shot
Feb 6, 2013 6:23PM PST

I'm not following. Perhaps I need to be more specific. You questioned my "clearing room to room" scenario, and said that you thought a shotgun would be more appropriate for a situation in which you were barricaded in a "safe room". So I submitted that in order to get to your situation in which everyone was barricaded in the safe room (in which I agree that a shotgun would be more appropriate), a parent may have to clear from their bedroom to their child's bedroom (and while doing so, a handgun would be more appropriate).

I'm not sure how your response follows from that, but to answer your question anyway:

It depends. I'm not trying to dodge the question. There are just too many variables, and the stakes are literally life and death, so I can't say in advance. But I would like to have the option available to me to potentially save my child from being abducted. Why do you want to take that option away from me?

Mark

- Collapse -
re your option
Feb 6, 2013 8:18PM PST

I'm not sure I do want to take it away.

I'm more worried about what is going to happen with weapons away from home, not in the house.

But the point is, if there are no restrictions on weapons, they're not going to stay in the home or at the practice range.

You may never misused them, but plenty other than out and out criminals shouldn't have guns.

But I do have problems believing unlimited weapons and ammo for everyone is going to make you ultimately safe.

And there seem to be more and more that are stockpiling weapons and ammo for after the cataclysm, after a total breakdown of all law and order, the group that believes in their lifetime they will have to kill anyone approaching their shelter where they have hoarded their supplies and weapons.

- Collapse -
also Mark, yes variables always exist and
Feb 6, 2013 8:19PM PST

matter.

- Collapse -
If 10 can't stop the invaders, I have to wonder if
Feb 8, 2013 8:15AM PST

anything less than full auto machine gun could with one person facing the invaders.

I have to believe the home invaders are going to be armed, and heavily.

Even if you have a semi with 30 rounds, if there are enough armed men that 10 rounds won't do it, can you hit all of them even with 30-50 rounds before one shoots you?

Your point about penetration and travel is one of the reasons elsewhere I expressed an opinion that buckshot with a 12 guage semi auto shotgun would be better, and pretty much got told I was stupid about guns and using them.

Can you still actually get pistol that shoot 410 shotgun shellls? seem you could one time.

- Collapse -
.45 caliber
Feb 8, 2013 9:11AM PST

That will shoot the .410 shotgun shells.

- Collapse -
thx James, do most 357 pistols still
Feb 8, 2013 9:35AM PST

handle 38 cal also?

Someone use to make a rifle that shot 30 cal or 357 mags, think it was a company called Marlin? Remember seeing it in the gun catalogs a couple of guys at least employment always had around.

- Collapse -
yes, .38 can be shot from .357
Feb 8, 2013 3:44PM PST

you can't however do in reverse, shoot .357 from a .38 without risking the gun blowing up, although with few exceptions, most that chamber a .38 physically can't do so with the .357 cartridge.

- Collapse -
So now providing factual rebuttal...
Feb 13, 2013 4:33PM PST

...has been escalated from "heckling" to calling someone stupid?

Sad - Mark

P.S. I would also like to note that I agreed with you re: being barricaded in a safe room.

- Collapse -
First who was the tyrant (singular) who felt the colonists
Feb 7, 2013 9:27PM PST

had no rights? Don't say George the Third because he was a constitutional monarch governed by Parliament who had no power, and don't say Lord North because he was merely head of a government of ministers, also not a singular entity.

Your learning, while extensive, has not taught you to parse the argument properly. There was no Tyrant, singular, there was a Parliamentary tyrrany of the Old World politicians over the New based mostly on economic reasons. Read a good history of the causes of the Revolution which discusses the economic basis of the revolt and the Colonists desire to avert taxation on any goods imported, in other words smuggling. If you visit Boston, smugglers' tunnels are on the Historic Tour.

From your post: "Note that "Their swords and every other terrible implement of the
soldier, are the birthright of an American ." indicate that the founders
were aware of new technology in weapons
and expected the citizens to be
able to arm themselves equally as well as any domestic or foreign
soldier whether friend or enemy." Emphasis RTB.
It indicates nothing of the sort. The "other terrible implement"s available at the time were scythes and bill hooks and any other object that could be turned into a weapon, and nobody wanted to go into battle with a bill-hook against a musket. The first broadly organized industry in the rebellious Colonies was the arms industry at Springfield to supply the Continental Army, thus contradicting the assertion of Tench Coxe before he even made it (the Army had the single largest stock of weapons available anywhere by the end of the Revolution, safely stored in armouries).

And as a man of your learning should know, there was very little in the way of innovation in the development of firearms between the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 19th Centuries. The Brown Bess musket was mildly improved by rifling, but the Baker Rifle wasn't invented for another 20 years or so, and it wasn't a rapid fire weapon either. It wasn't until the Post WW2 era that rapid fire accurate small arms began to pose a real threat to people in general (outside of the Elliot Ness tv show) and not until the 1970's that they began to show up on the streets, 200 years after the founding of The US. The Founding Fathers would have needed an amazing crystal ball.

As to mass shootings. Remember Charles Whitman shooting 15 people in and around the University of Texas in 1966, with an M1, a semi auto 12 ga, and other weapons both hand guns and bolt action rifles? HIs behaviour appears to be the first of the suicide by mass murder events at least in my understanding.

The amount of stupidity talked around the Second Amendment is also a recent phenomenon. It was clearly understood until the mid to late 60's that the most important words were in order for there to be a well-regulated Militia citizens shall have the right to keep and bear arms. The right wasn't predicated on the Militia, but the right was there to facilitate the rapid availability of the Militia. It was a right born out of the fear of government turning into tyrrany. The Militia wasn't to fight the British or any other foreign army, it was to prevent one or other of the States from becoming a dictatorship, or going haring off into contradictory interpretations of American Law and the Constitution as occurred in 1861. And even then the Secession was not put down by a self-armed militia, but by a centrally armed Army. The South was the side which tended to be armed with less professional quality arms.

I am tempted to ask: Had an Atomic Bomb or some equally expensive piece of technology
been available to the British, do you think that the Founding Fathers
would have advocated a Nuke in every Settler's house??

There is no evidence that "several thousand of these same (gun) owners did prevent criminals from doing such things." There may be a few dozen incidents per year, maybe a bit more, but gun advocates always inflate the efficacy of weapons' possession as a deterrent, just as they refuse to acknowledge the toll of accidental deaths, suicides and homicides which would not have occurred had the weapon not been present.

In Maryland, in the 50's, I was taught to lock up the guns and the ammunition (we had quite a number) and keep a baseball bat behind the door. I still do. I was also taught to walk facing traffic when there was no sidewalk, and to be aware of what was going on around me, and not to walk down dark alleys. It's worked so far.

Rob

- Collapse -
And until they are cornered
Feb 8, 2013 5:07AM PST

criminals with guns don't shoot themselves.......they just shoot everybody in their way. Not enough criminal suicides, in my opinion.

- Collapse -
poor argument
Feb 8, 2013 8:18AM PST

it doesn't really make any difference if it's a single tyrant or a tyrantual cabal, the results is the same.

- Collapse -
Yes, I object to the Federal Government tracking...
Jan 31, 2013 10:54AM PST

...anyone who owns a Torah or any other law-abiding citizen who is simply exercising a Constitutional Right.

No, I do not agree that a law-abiding citizen who sells his Quran or anything else he legally owns should have criminal charges brought against him.

And you are in no position to "allow" me any of my Constitutional Rights. Nor is anyone else, especially the Federal Government.

That said, I have no problem with crime control, which is what you are talking about when you say, "more penalty for anyone not qualifying to own a gun". I also agree with you re: "straw purchases", although in practice, enforcement gets tricky.

Mark

- Collapse -
So if you sell to a gun to a convicted felon
Feb 1, 2013 8:08AM PST

you don't think you have done anything wrong?

- Collapse -
If the "felon" was released by govt
Feb 1, 2013 7:05PM PST

should they not also have a right to self preservation? If they are too dangerous after release to be armed, then should they not have been retained in prison under guard? Who then is at fault?

- Collapse -
(NT) So you agree with some there should be no restrictions
Feb 1, 2013 8:39PM PST
- Collapse -
re: So if you sell to a gun to a convicted felon
Feb 5, 2013 7:29PM PST

That wasn't the question you asked. You're moving the goal posts.

Continued below - Mark

- Collapse -
goes back to discussion of keeping guns from criminals
Feb 5, 2013 8:00PM PST

individuals who sell to criminals provide them some of their weapons.

If you don't track guns, how will you know if somone is legally buying them and selling them to criminals.

- Collapse -
Mandatory gun convictions?
Feb 5, 2013 8:34PM PST

People with criminal records found with a weapon and/or people who commit crimes with a gun should get an automatic conviction and sentence based on the gun, in addition to any sentence for the crime itself. Build more prisons or use the empty ones we already have, lock them up, hire people for the construction of the prison and the guards. Get the criminal off the street for about ten years for the gun conviction and help the economy at the same time? Stop having a law enforcement system that is nothing more than a revolving door.

- Collapse -
(NT) are we willing to pay for the prisons and staff?
Feb 6, 2013 8:20PM PST
- Collapse -
I would rather pay for that than
Feb 6, 2013 10:31PM PST

pay for BO's AG to keep taking states and citizens to court over stupid crap like their frivolous law suits just to drag something out forever.

- Collapse -
regarding straw purchases being tricky
Feb 1, 2013 8:22AM PST

I don't think an individual should be allowed to sale to an individual with a purchase permit from law enforcement agency just like you have to have to buy a pistol from a dealer. That includes rifles and shotguns from individual to individual.

If I was selling a gun, I'd damn sure have a photocopy of the buyers official ID. If there was a law enforcement agency to report such I would.

If you have good sense you damn sure don't want a gun recorded as sold to you by a dealer turn up as a murder weapon and all you can say is I sold it to some guy at the beach last year.

- Collapse -
(NT) that should be without a purchase permit
Feb 1, 2013 8:53AM PST
- Collapse -
re: regarding straw purchases being tricky
Feb 5, 2013 7:31PM PST

>"If I was selling a gun, I'd damn sure have a photocopy of the buyers official ID."

Personally, I wouldn't even sell a gun in that manner.

>"If there was a law enforcement agency to report such I would."

There is. Process the transaction through an FFL.

>"If you have good sense you damn sure don't want a gun recorded as sold to you by a dealer turn up as a murder weapon and all you can say is I sold it to some guy at the beach last year."

I agree. But again, that wasn't the question you originally asked. The original question you asked (and I answered) was: "Will you agree to criminal charges on anyone that sells one to an uncleared buyer?"

Lacking good sense, in and of itself, is not appropriate grounds for criminal charges - Mark

- Collapse -
Selling to an uncleared buyer, and that buyer
Feb 5, 2013 8:03PM PST

turns out to be criminal, wants the gun for criminal acctivity and can't buy one legally, and buys it from you.

Sounds like aiding and abetting a crime, not just lacking good sense. Lacking good sense leading to illegal activity can be criminal, both morally and legally.

- Collapse -
Private gun sales will be a mute point
Feb 5, 2013 8:34PM PST

when someone starts manufacturing unmarked street guns sold the same way illegal drugs are today. Low power .22 and .38 easily concealed and made from cheap materials able to be crafted by almost anyone with machine shop experience. I guess then they'll have to start tracking lathes and metal working supplies. Lead from old car batteries, and copper stamped from old pennies for making cartridges. Truly "shoot and toss" guns. It probably would already be done if it wasn't cheaper to steal and sell them so far.

- Collapse -
(NT) ok, so your option is to do nothing, understood
Feb 6, 2013 8:21PM PST