New York State just became a Revolver town thanks to Cuomo VOL. super gun restriction passed.

[essential1]

One doesn't need to be around guns his whole life to have knowledge about the subject.. I've never driven a Ferrari, or had the privilege of seeing one other than it driving by, but I can tell you it's top speed, it's MSRP, and horsepower of individual models.

You just want me to say something that will make you feel more comfortable to prove my level of knowledge about guns.. Because I guess it will make you sleep better at night? I suppose one can't be knowledgeable about guns, and be anti-gun at the same time.

And AR, you can ask your questions. I can go through why, when, for what reason including ability to carry, the better twist, other advantages and disadvantages of the 5.56 including how it compared to other countries who switched long after us, and some still use the 7.62.. And it would give you little solace into my knowledge of guns...Again don't misconstrue one not being outwardly pro-gun as whether or not they know anything about it..

Also I'm sure regardless of my answer, if I choose not to answer, you'll take it as me not knowing.... If I did answer, I could have just looked it up.. Basically how almost any question posed over the internet can be answered.

You tried to pit me into a no-win. Where regardless of answer, you will question if I'm cognoscente of guns..

Basically what you wanted was Marisa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny to prove she knew about cars.

No gun is interchangeable. They weigh differently, have to be held differently, cause you to move in a certain way, require different levels of aiming, different recoil, etc.

The point is that no one can say they absolutely need the AR-15 to defend their home. A person who says they cannot defend their home with a handgun is lying to themselves. And of course even in handguns, one would be better than another.

 

[big j 33]

If you gave an answer similar to this, I wouldn't have had a problem. I'm not trying to trick you or pit you into a no-win situation... that's your problem, I wasn't looking to "win" anything.

Prior to this, your comments have appeared to be coming from a person who doesn't know much about guns, just that you're pro gun control. That's why I raised the point, because you saying that a handgun fires bullets the same as an AR and why couldn't someone just use that. That stuck out as either a gross simplification to further your point... or you really don't know the difference between a rifle round and a 9mm round. Had you given an answer like the one above, it wouldn't have been an issue.

You're still defensive and condescending so I'll leave you to it..

 

[bandit country]

Jon Stewart is beefing with Paul krugman. It's been a very trying time for essential. Do try and cut him some slack.

 

[ar guy]

One doesn't need to be around guns his whole life to have knowledge about the subject.. I've never driven a Ferrari, or had the privilege of seeing one other than it driving by, but I can tell you it's top speed, it's MSRP, and horsepower of individual models.

You just want me to say something that will make you feel more comfortable to prove my level of knowledge about guns.. Because I guess it will make you sleep better at night? I suppose one can't be knowledgeable about guns, and be anti-gun at the same time.

And AR, you can ask your questions. I can go through why, when, for what reason including ability to carry, the better twist, other advantages and disadvantages of the 5.56 including how it compared to other countries who switched long after us, and some still use the 7.62.. And it would give you little solace into my knowledge of guns...Again don't misconstrue one not being outwardly pro-gun as whether or not they know anything about it..

Also I'm sure regardless of my answer, if I choose not to answer, you'll take it as me not knowing.... If I did answer, I could have just looked it up.. Basically how almost any question posed over the internet can be answered.

You tried to pit me into a no-win. Where regardless of answer, you will question if I'm cognoscente of guns..

Basically what you wanted was Marisa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny to prove she knew about cars.

No gun is interchangeable. They weigh differently, have to be held differently, cause you to move in a certain way, require different levels of aiming, different recoil, etc.

The point is that no one can say they absolutely need the AR-15 to defend their home. A person who says they cannot defend their home with a handgun is lying to themselves. And of course even in handguns, one would be better than another.

If you had some firearms knowledge than you would know; Rifle>Shotgun>Pistol for home defense. Plus why wouldn't I want to defend my home with the best weapon possible? There is a reason why pistol caliber sub-guns have fallen way side while ARs have flourished in police tactical units and Special Operational Forces. A 75gr HP 5.56 round will penetrate fewer layers of drywall than buckshot and any popular pistol caliber.

What I wanted was someone who had an idea about what they were talking about and not talking out of their *** on a subject they didn't have full knowledge of.

 

[ilpadrino9]

Does this mean that my eight shot revolver is now an assault weapon?

 

[Nike Jordan]

guns don't kill people....people kill people

Let me use a gun on you to find out how true your statement is.

Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!

Not serious.

 

[Nike Jordan]

Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Stop overreacting

This will UNDOUBTEDLY hurt your boy Cuomo when he runs for president.

Hillary Clinton is going to win anyway.

Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!

That is if she runs.

 

[Nike Jordan]

Real men don't use guns.

 

[seasoned vet]

If you had some firearms knowledge than you would know; Rifle>Shotgun>Pistol for home defense.

how is a rifle>shotgun for home defense?

 

[gatorbeltsnpattiemelts]

is Texas the state with the most guns per capita? is there a correlation between guns per capital and the number of mass shootings? shouldnt we looks at that before passing more draconian laws?

very interesting... I live in Dallas, and I gotta say I don't hear about a lot of "mass" shootings. The last one that comes to mind is the Ft. Hood incident.

 

[gatorbeltsnpattiemelts]

It's very hard to find stats that show the weapons the burgalars use in home invasions... though I came across something from the 90s :\


Weapon involvement in home invasion crimes.
Kellermann AL, Westphal L, Fischer L, Harvard B.
Source
Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University, Atlanta, Ga 30322, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To study the epidemiology of home invasion crimes and determine the frequency with which firearms are used to resist these crimes.
DESIGN:
Prospective case series.
SETTING:
Atlanta, Ga (population 402,877).
METHODS:
Between June 1 and August 31, 1994; Atlanta Police Department reports were screened to identify every case of unwanted entry into an occupied, single-family dwelling. Cases of sexual assault and incidents that involved cohabitants were excluded.
RESULTS:
A total of 198 cases were identified during the study interval. Half (99 cases) involved forced entry into the home. The victim and offender were acquainted in one third of cases. A firearm was carried by one or more offenders in 32 cases (17%). Seven offenders (3.5%) carried knives. In 42% of cases, the offender fled without confronting the victim. Victims who avoided confrontation were more likely to lose property but much less likely to be injured than those who were confronted by the offender. Resistance was attempted in 62 cases (31%), but the odds of injury were not significantly affected by the method of resistance. Forty cases (20%) resulted in one or more victims' being injured, including six (3%) who were shot. No one died. Three victims (1.5%) employed a firearm in self-protection. All three escaped injury, but one lost property.


CONCLUSION:
A minority of home invasion crimes result in injury. Measures that increase the difficulty of forced entry or enhance the likelihood of detection could be useful to prevent these crimes. Although firearms are often kept in the home for protection, they are rarely used for this purpose.

 

[gatorbeltsnpattiemelts]

Also here's a site that chronicled that past mass killings of the last 30 years

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2

Interesting article to go along with it

More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence?
America now has 300 million firearms, a barrage of NRA-backed gun laws—and record casualties from mass killers.
—By Mark Follman |

In the fierce debate that always follows the latest mass shooting, it's an argument you hear frequently from gun rights promoters: If only more people were armed, there would be a better chance of stopping these terrible events. This has plausibility problems—what are the odds that, say, a moviegoer with a pack of Twizzlers in one pocket and a Glock in the other would be mentally prepared, properly positioned, and skilled enough to take out a body-armored assailant in a smoke- and panic-filled theater? But whether you believe that would happen is ultimately a matter of theory and speculation. Instead, let's look at some facts gathered in a five-month investigation by Mother Jones.


MoJo's map, timeline, and analysis of 30 years of mass shootings in America.

In the wake of the massacres this year at a Colorado movie theater, a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, and Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. And in other recent (but less lethal) rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, those civilians not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public places, including bars, parks, and schools.

America has long been heavily armed relative to other societies, and our arsenal keeps growing. A precise count isn't possible because most guns in the United States aren't registered and the government has scant ability to track them, thanks to a legislative landscape shaped by powerful pro-gun groups such as the National Rifle Association. But through a combination of national surveys and manufacturing and sales data, we know that the increase in firearms has far outpaced population growth. In 1995 there were an estimated 200 million guns in private hands. Today, there are around 300 million—about a 50 percent jump. The US population, now over 314 million, grew by about 20 percent in that period. At this rate, there will be a gun for every man, woman, and child before the decade ends.

There is no evidence indicating that arming Americans further will help prevent mass shootings or reduce the carnage, says Dr. Stephen Hargarten, a leading expert on emergency medicine and gun violence at the Medical College of Wisconsin. To the contrary, there appears to be a relationship between the proliferation of firearms and a rise in mass shootings: By our count, there have been two per year on average since 1982. Yet, 25 of the 62 cases we examined have occurred since 2006. In 2012 alone there have been seven mass shootings, and a record number of casualties, with more than 140 people injured and killed.

Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, says Hargarten, "given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances." A chaotic scene in August at the Empire State Building put this starkly into perspective when New York City police officers trained in counterterrorism confronted a gunman and wounded nine innocent bystanders in the process.

Surveys suggest America's guns may be concentrated in fewer hands today: Approximately 40 percent of households had them in the past decade, versus about 50 percent in the 1980s. But far more relevant is a recent barrage of laws that have rolled back gun restrictions throughout the country. In the past four years, across 37 states, the NRA and its political allies have pushed through 99 laws making guns easier to own, carry, and conceal from the government.


The NRA surge: 99 recent laws rolling back gun regulations in 37 states.

Among the more striking measures: Eight states now allow firearms in bars. Law-abiding Missourians can carry a gun while intoxicated and even fire it if "acting in self-defense." In Kansas, permit holders can carry concealed weapons inside K-12 schools, and Louisiana allows them in houses of worship. Virginia not only repealed a law requiring handgun vendors to submit sales records, but the state also ordered the destruction of all such previous records. More than two-thirds of these laws were passed by Republican-controlled statehouses, though often with bipartisan support.

The laws have caused dramatic changes, including in the two states hit with the recent carnage. Colorado passed its concealed-carry measure in 2003, issuing 9,522 permits that year; by the end of last year the state had handed out a total of just under 120,000, according to data we obtained from the County Sheriffs of Colorado. In March of this year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that concealed weapons are legal on the state's college campuses. (It is now the fifth state explicitly allowing them.) If former neuroscience student James Holmes were still attending the University of Colorado today, the movie theater killer—who had no criminal history and obtained his weapons legally—could've gotten a permit to tote his pair of .40 caliber Glocks straight into the student union. Wisconsin's concealed-carry law went into effect just nine months before the Sikh temple shooting in suburban Milwaukee this August. During that time, the state issued a whopping 122,506 permits, according to data from Wisconsin's Department of Justice. The new law authorizes guns on college campuses, as well as in bars, state parks, and some government buildings.

And we're on our way to a situation where the most lax state permitting rules—say, Virginia's, where an online course now qualifies for firearms safety training and has drawn a flood of out-of-state applicants—are in effect national law. Eighty percent of states now recognize handgun permits from at least some other states. And gun rights activists are pushing hard for a federal reciprocity bill—passed in the House late last year, with GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan among its most ardent supporters—that would essentially make any state's permits valid nationwide.

Indeed, the country's vast arsenal of handguns—at least 118 million of them as of 2010—is increasingly mobile, with 69 of the 99 new state laws making them easier to carry. A decade ago, seven states and the District of Columbia still prohibited concealed handguns; today, it's down to just Illinois and DC. (And Illinois recently passed an exception cracking the door open to carrying). In the 62 mass shootings we analyzed, 54 of the killers had handguns—including in all 15 of the mass shootings since the surge of pro-gun laws began in 2009.

In a certain sense the law was on their side: nearly 80 percent of the killers in our investigation obtained their weapons legally.

We used a conservative set of criteria to build a comprehensive rundown of high-profile attacks in public places—at schools, workplaces, government buildings, shopping malls—though they represent only a small fraction of the nation's overall gun violence. The FBI defines a mass murderer as someone who kills four or more people in a single incident, usually in one location. (As opposed to spree or serial killers, who strike multiple times.) We excluded cases involving armed robberies or gang violence; dropping the number of fatalities by just one, or including those motives, would add many, many more cases. (More about our criteria here.)

There was one case in our data set in which an armed civilian played a role. Back in 1982, a man opened fire at a welding shop in Miami, killing eight and wounding three others before fleeing on a bicycle. A civilian who worked nearby pursued the assailant in a car, shooting and killing him a few blocks away (in addition to ramming him with the car). Florida authorities, led by then-state attorney Janet Reno, concluded that the vigilante had used force justifiably, and speculated that he may have prevented additional killings. But even if we were to count that case as a successful armed intervention by a civilian, it would account for just 1.6 percent of the mass shootings in the last 30 years.


Advertise on MotherJones.com

More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to stop shooting rampages are rare—and successful ones even rarer. There were two school shootings in the late 1990s, in Mississippi and Pennsylvania, in which bystanders with guns ultimately subdued the teen perpetrators, but in both cases it was after the shooting had subsided. Other cases led to tragic results. In 2005, as a rampage unfolded inside a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, a civilian named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with a licensed handgun he was carrying. The assailant pumped several bullets into McKown and wounded six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. (A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.) In Tyler, Texas, that same year, a civilian named Mark Wilson fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson—who was a firearms instructor—was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47. (None of these cases were included in our mass shootings data set because fewer than four victims died in each.)

Appeals to heroism on this subject abound. So does misleading information. Gun rights die-hards frequently credit the end of a rampage in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia to armed "students" who intervened—while failing to disclose that those students were also current and former law enforcement officers, and that the killer, according to police investigators, was out of bullets by the time they got to him. It's one of several cases commonly cited as examples of ordinary folks with guns stopping massacres that do not stand up to scrutiny.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

 

[ar guy]

how is a rifle>shotgun for home defense?

Easy. Lighter, less recoil, adjustable length of pull, more compact, less penetrate through drywall with most ammunition, the ability to defeat soft armor, and magazine capacity.

 

[seasoned vet]

Easy. Lighter, less recoil, adjustable length of pull, more compact, less penetrate through drywall with most ammunition, the ability to defeat soft armor, and magazine capacity.

all in the close quarters of a home? a rifle?

 

[dankenstien88]

It's very hard to find stats that show the weapons the burgalars use in home invasions... though I came across something from the 90s :\


Weapon involvement in home invasion crimes.
Kellermann AL, Westphal L, Fischer L, Harvard B.
Source
Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University, Atlanta, Ga 30322, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To study the epidemiology of home invasion crimes and determine the frequency with which firearms are used to resist these crimes.
DESIGN:
Prospective case series.
SETTING:
Atlanta, Ga (population 402,877).
METHODS:
Between June 1 and August 31, 1994; Atlanta Police Department reports were screened to identify every case of unwanted entry into an occupied, single-family dwelling. Cases of sexual assault and incidents that involved cohabitants were excluded.
RESULTS:
A total of 198 cases were identified during the study interval. Half (99 cases) involved forced entry into the home. The victim and offender were acquainted in one third of cases. A firearm was carried by one or more offenders in 32 cases (17%). Seven offenders (3.5%) carried knives. In 42% of cases, the offender fled without confronting the victim. Victims who avoided confrontation were more likely to lose property but much less likely to be injured than those who were confronted by the offender. Resistance was attempted in 62 cases (31%), but the odds of injury were not significantly affected by the method of resistance. Forty cases (20%) resulted in one or more victims' being injured, including six (3%) who were shot. No one died. [COLOR=#red]Three victims (1.5%) employed a firearm in self-protection. All three escaped injury,[/COLOR] but one lost property.

[COLOR=#red]CONCLUSION: 100% of "Victims" with a guns dont become casualties. [/COLOR]

 

[ar guy]

all in the close quarters of a home? a rifle?

Yes a rifle. It is much easier to maneuver around your home with a rifle than it is with a shotgun. The shortest barrel you can get on a shotgun without going the NFA route is 18" with a rifle it's 16". Many ARs have an adjustable length length of pull while many shotguns do not. Another factor is it is much easier and cheaper to mount a white light on an AR than most shotguns and having a white light on your HD weapon is a absolute must.

 

[gatorbeltsnpattiemelts]

[COLOR=#red]CONCLUSION: 100% of "Victims" with a guns dont become casualties. [/COLOR]

but one still lost property.... if that's the case just sit back and let them take it.


The real conclusion was clearly stated, everybody says they need a gun for home protection but most of them aren't used for home protection.

 

[david bowman]

Dudes itching to put one in the back of a criminal running away scared.

Don't pretend like its all about protection

 

[superantigen]

Dudes itching to put one in the back of a criminal running away scared.

Don't pretend like its all about protection

QFT.

Anyway, I suggest y'all read post #162 by Gatornpattiemelts. Really insightful.


...

 

[gatorbeltsnpattiemelts]

^ thanks

doubt people will read it tho cuz I didn't include a cliffs notes.


I may be way off, but I think people own guns but deep down they WANT to have to use it. It's in the music we listen to, the video games we watch, the movies we watch, the TV shows... it always makes shooting someone look so easy. It's like you walk around with that "wish a ***** would mentality".... cuz you really do wish a ***** would . Maybe not shoot to kill, but to have said that you shot someone and it brought them injury. The burglar could've been out of your house but that's not enough... you gotta be able to say you defended your house and really mean it.

 

[david bowman]

^ thanks

doubt people will read it tho cuz I didn't include a cliffs notes.


I may be way off, but I think people own guns but deep down they WANT to have to use it. It's in the music we listen to, the video games we watch, the movies we watch, the TV shows... it always makes shooting someone look so easy. It's like you walk around with that "wish a ***** would mentality".... cuz you really do wish a ***** would . Maybe not shoot to kill, but to have said that you shot someone and it brought them injury. The burglar could've been out of your house but that's not enough... you gotta be able to say you defended your house and really mean it.

Agreed. Obviously not every gun owner is blood thirsty but many are. Want to pop a cap in a criminal to brag to their friends. Be part of the club

 

[seasoned vet]

Yes a rifle. It is much easier to maneuver around your home with a rifle than it is with a shotgun. The shortest barrel you can get on a shotgun without going the NFA route is 18" with a rifle it's 16". Many ARs have an adjustable length length of pull while many shotguns do not. Another factor is it is much easier and cheaper to mount a white light on an AR than most shotguns and having a white light on your HD weapon is a absolute must.

really?

 

[estebii.cho]

Yes a rifle. It is much easier to maneuver around your home with a rifle than it is with a shotgun. The shortest barrel you can get on a shotgun without going the NFA route is 18" with a rifle it's 16". Many ARs have an adjustable length length of pull while many shotguns do not. Another factor is it is much easier and cheaper to mount a white light on an AR than most shotguns and having a white light on your HD weapon is a absolute must.

really?

 

[ar guy]

really?

So you didn't even read my post.
*Sigh*
What you posted are defined as "Any Other Weapons" under the National Firearms Act of 1934. They require Form 4 and a $5 tax stamp to be paid to the BATFE before you can ever take it home. The wait to get an approval for your tax stamps is around 6 months now. Also because it is a NFA item they are prohibited in certain states.

So like I orginally posted

The shortest barrel you can get on a shotgun without going the NFA route is 18" with a rifle it's 16".

Besides why would anyone want that as a HD weapon? It only holds three shells and there's no place to attach a white light.

 

[seasoned vet]

So you didn't even read my post.
*Sigh*
What you posted are defined as "Any Other Weapons" under the National Firearms Act of 1934. They require Form 4 and a $5 tax stamp to be paid to the BATFE before you can ever take it home. The wait to get an approval for your tax stamps is around 6 months now. Also because it is a NFA item they are prohibited in certain states.

So like I orginally posted
Besides why would anyone want that as a HD weapon? It only holds three shells and there's no place to attach a white light.

oh i read it, but 6 months is no big deal.

im in the market myself for a gun and a friend was trying to sell me on the AR15. ive used one before but i just dont find them practical for reasonable home defense at all.

i found the super shotty a while back and find it to be just as effective for home defense.

3 rounds? sure. LOL how many rounds do i need? it wont be the only gun in the house.