Where are my Gun Owners?

[columbia]

I'd definitely just (accidentally) hurt might self with the first two; hate myself with the 3rd.

[TheHammer24]

FYI: My brother competes in rifle and owns a gun. I've shot one recently. Doesn't do much for me, but he loves it. I have no problem with it, I guess, but I do think liberal gun laws lead to the proliferation of them among bad guys.

[Shyster]

Just so we're all clear, we all know that you're unbelievably more likely to shoot and kill yourself with the gun than you are to ever use it to shoot an intruder, right?

Are you referring to the Kellerman study and its claim that a gun in the home is “43 times” more likely to shoot someone in the family than a criminal? That study is massively flawed and misleading. For only one refutation, see: http://old.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

For just one example of the study’s flaws, Kellerman only counted people shot and killed by firearms. The vast majority of family members shot by a gun in the home are suicides, and a gun suicide is quite likely to be fatal. Around 90% of suicide attempts with guns are successful—a gun to the temple or to the roof of the mouth will do that. On the other hand, not nearly that percentage of intruders and criminals shot by homeowners die, and many cases of defensive gun usage do not involve shots fired at all. Do we judge police officers my how many criminals they kill? No, we judge them on criminals caught and crimes averted. Then why should be judge gun owners only on killing criminals? The study was biased from the start to produce a high, headline-grabbing ratio that could be used to justify gun-control measures.

[TheHammer24]

Just so we're all clear, we all know that you're unbelievably more likely to shoot and kill yourself with the gun than you are to ever use it to shoot an intruder, right?

Are you referring to the Kellerman study and its claim that a gun in the home is “43 times” more likely to shoot someone in the family than a criminal? That study is massively flawed and misleading. For only one refutation, see: http://old.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

For just one example of the study’s flaws, Kellerman only counted people shot and killed by firearms. The vast majority of family members shot by a gun in the home are suicides, and a gun suicide is quite likely to be fatal. Around 90% of suicide attempts with guns are successful—a gun to the temple or to the roof of the mouth will do that. On the other hand, not nearly that percentage of intruders and criminals shot by homeowners die, and many cases of defensive gun usage do not involve shots fired at all. Do we judge police officers my how many criminals they kill? No, we judge them on criminals caught and crimes averted. Then why should be judge gun owners only on killing criminals? The study was biased from the start to produce a high, headline-grabbing ratio that could be used to justify gun-control measures.

I think Freakanomics had the example of children drowning being more likely than them using the gun, and I originally though that that is where I got the the "hurt yourself" example. It probably isn't, and if it's that study, I am not going to defend it, lol. Measuring suicides in that manner is quite fallacious.

[shafnutz05]

FYI: My brother competes in rifle and owns a gun. I've shot one recently. Doesn't do much for me, but he loves it. I have no problem with it, I guess, but I do think liberal gun laws lead to the proliferation of them among bad guys.

That's reasonable. Regardless of your stance on guns it is almost impossible to argue that strict gun laws do anything but limit the possession of guns to those that obtain them illegally for nefarious purposes. But that's a discussion for the political thread

[Shyster]

I actually found a reasonable purpose for Hornady Zombie Max ammo. The Z-Max bullet is essentially the Critical Defense bullet with a green polymer expander plug rather than a red one. The cases are also regular brass instead of nickel, and I bet the powder composition doesn’t have as much flash suppressant and the like as the Critical Defense cartridges. Hornady’s web site lists the performance of the 9mm versions as within a cat’s whisker of one another.

So I was thinking of switching my carry ammo from Black Hills’ 115 Gr. EXP 9mm load to the Critical Defense 115 gr. 9mm. I wanted to shoot several boxes of ammo to make sure the Critical Defense round would feed smoothly in my Kahr PM9. As the size, shape, and performance of the Zombie Max is the same as the Critical Defense, I did most of the function testing with the Z-Max, which is about $3 less per box. It fed perfectly, and the Critical Defense fed perfectly, and that testing saved me money from using the Zombie Max.

[viva la ben]

17+1 9mm 124g +p speer gold dots in my Glock 17.

[tifosi77]

....but I do think liberal gun laws lead to the proliferation of them among bad guys.

I live in a state and city that has some of the most restrictive gun ownership laws in the nation. I've seen some studies that indicate as many as 80% of people who commit crimes with guns are not legally permitted to own one. I've seen others that show the rate of gun crimes committed by legally purchased firearms by the legal owner is somewhere in the sub-1% region.

And yet.... the 'bad guys' have plenty of guns.

I just don't understand the line of thought that if a gun is easier to obtain legally, then people who intend to use the gun for ill purposes will be more inclined to get their guns at the local FFL. Think about it - I'm a criminal and I want a gun. Am I going to buy it from the dude who is selling Glocks out of the trunk of his low rider? Or am I going to go fill out paperwork, present my ID, subject myself to the background check (which will possibly uncover a criminal record and invalidate my purchase attempt), pay the permit fees, create a paper trail that connects me to this gun, etc?

There are what I believe to be common sense laws that I support. Fingerprinting guns at the factory, for one thing. (Not necessarily an effective tool in tracking criminals, but to me it's such a minor thing to do.) Mandatory proof of financial responsibility in case of an accident (i.e. insurance), minimum annual competency requirements, shoring up the background check process, etc.

[ffemtreed]

Everyone who all for more gun laws and thinks guns hurt innocent people need to read "shooting blanks" by Alan Gottlieb. You can get it for 10 bucks on amazon.

He presents a very good rational case backed up with facts that show a lot of the hype you hear coming out of the brady center and mayors against guns and such are pretty much non-sense that is only intended to scare the folks who don't take the time to educate themselves on firearms.

Even if you still don't agree with people owning firearms, or how effective they are at keeping people safe, you will have a better understanding of the arguments.

Now on topic

for anyone who wants to carry a gun you should start with a subcompact pocket gun that you can easily conceal. You are a lot more likely to have that gun when you need it. Most of these guns are in .380acp, which isn't the most effective round, but surely better than nothing. My two top choices are Ruger LCP and S/W bodyguard.

Now once you have some extra money you should get a higher caliber larger frame gun to carry when clothing allows it. any Glock, S/W M&P, Ruger SR, Springfield XD is going to be a great gun for you. Go to a range that rents them and get the one that feels best in your hand. There are also higher end guns like SIG / HK , FNH that are quite a bit more pricey than glocks and etc. To me for the normal person these higher priced guns aren't worth the extra money. Sure they are great guns, but not 300 dollars greater than a glock.

Now the most important thing you can do with your new gun is take a class that shows how to conceal and use a holster properly. Unless you need it to defend yourself it should be in a holster. You need to get to the range and practice drawing correctly out of the holster and shooting from different positions and on the move. Don't go to a range and blast 50 holes through the bullseye and think you are trained. Anyone with the fundamentals of sight alignment and trigger control can put rounds on target.

Now more on caliber, for new owners I suggest 9mm for one reason, you can shoot more often and not break the bank. The newer 9mm ammo out there is very good and some argue just as good as .45acp. currently 9mm ammo is 1/2 the cost of .45 unless you find some really good deals. pretty much any handgun round is a POOR human stopper its 90% shot placement, 10% caliber.

For at home, very few things beat a nice pump 12G with 00 buck. Don't be fooled though, you still have to aim. The pattern spread of 00 buck at any normal room distance is less than the size of a softball. Don't even think about using bird shot as a self defense round, i seen it twice point blank and it doesn't work. No I wouldn't want to get shot with it, but I wouldn't rely on it either to save my life. A Remington 870 or Mossberg 500 is a great choice with an 18.5" barrel.

[ffemtreed]

There are what I believe to be common sense laws that I support. Fingerprinting guns at the factory, for one thing. (Not necessarily an effective tool in tracking criminals, but to me it's such a minor thing to do.) Mandatory proof of financial responsibility in case of an accident (i.e. insurance), minimum annual competency requirements, shoring up the background check process, etc.

I sorta agree with you, but the problem I have is there are millions upon millions of people carry everyday and we don't have any widespread problems with people shooting up the neighborhood or harming innocent people. Its almost unheard of actually. But yet people want to create laws and place burdens on people to prevent problems that don't exist in the first place.

As for ballistic fingerprinting, the technology just isn't there to support that and only increases costs of guns to the legal law abiding citizens that want to own them. After the first 500 rounds fired from a gun out of the factory the ballistic makeup is completly changed, the firing pin is changed, the extractor marks are changed. Now even if it didn't change, how to run a search on such microscopic detail against millions and millions of potential suspect guns. Most states that have tried this approach have failed, actually every state has failed.

[Pitt87]

For home defense, I have a Remington 20 gauge shotgun stashed under the bed rail. I have four shells in my bedstand; two short brass bird loads and two slugs... two slowers, and two stoppers.

I don't own a handgun, but I've fired enough to have lots of semi auto slides jam after two quick taps. I like revolvers for that reason, and don't really know if/why you might need more than 6 rounds, unless you needs more for a tactical reason (law enforcement?).

[ffemtreed]

For home defense, I have a Remington 20 gauge shotgun stashed under the bed rail. I have four shells in my bedstand; two short brass bird loads and two slugs... two slowers, and two stoppers.

I don't own a handgun, but I've fired enough to have lots of semi auto slides jam after two quick taps. I like revolvers for that reason, and don't really know if/why you might need more than 6 rounds, unless you needs more for a tactical reason (law enforcement?).

if you shoot at someone you want to STOP, not SLOW. Get rid of the bird shot and stuck to slugs and #3 buck for your 20G.

Also plenty of situations where you might need more than 6 rounds. Multiple people breaking in is one. Remember handgun rounds are POOR STOPPERS so between misses and poor hits you will need multiple shots to STOP the threat. Would you be surprised to hear that most people shot with a handgun live to tell about it? (self inflicted not included). It is a very bad misconception that you only need to shoot someone once and they fall down instantly like in the movies.

On the other side, I agree with you 90% of the time 6 shots in a revolver is more than sufficient, but I would rather have the extra at hand just in case. You sure can't beat the reliability of the revolver though.

PS -- a reliable well maintained semi auto should never fail or jam. I have about 10,000 rounds through my m&p9 and it has NEVER malfunctioned. If it did it would be going to a gunsmith before I relied on it for self defense.

[tifosi77]

As for ballistic fingerprinting, the technology just isn't there to support that and only increases costs of guns to the legal law abiding citizens that want to own them. After the first 500 rounds fired from a gun out of the factory the ballistic makeup is completly changed, the firing pin is changed, the extractor marks are changed. Now even if it didn't change, how to run a search on such microscopic detail against millions and millions of potential suspect guns.

To me it's honestly more about something that's minimally invasive and, frankly, it sounds impressive to the layperson.

"Ballistic fingerprinting"...... oooh......

It's like "assault weapons ban". It sounds serious, therefore it must be effective. (Except, it isn't.)

Also, I wouldn't have a problem at all with gun permits being issued on a temporary basis, like a drivers license.

[TheHammer24]

Shaf, tifosi, Shy, and FFM, I'm really more on your side than you think. Let me explain.

....but I do think liberal gun laws lead to the proliferation of them among bad guys.

I live in a state and city that has some of the most restrictive gun ownership laws in the nation. I've seen some studies that indicate as many as 80% of people who commit crimes with guns are not legally permitted to own one. I've seen others that show the rate of gun crimes committed by legally purchased firearms by the legal owner is somewhere in the sub-1% region.

And yet.... the 'bad guys' have plenty of guns.

I just don't understand the line of thought that if a gun is easier to obtain legally, then people who intend to use the gun for ill purposes will be more inclined to get their guns at the local FFL.

I agree with your observations, but I would respond that the fact that cigarettes are legal for people 18+ makes it easier for people under 18 to obtain them. Indeed, cigarettes are easier to obtain than marijuana, which is illegal for everyone. But in California, where it is legal for some people, I again bet it is much easier for those that shouldn't have it to obtain. In other words, the operative inquiry isn't whether those that are prohibited from possessing guns are the ones committing crimes, but rather, are they able to get guns because guns are abundantly available for other people in this country.

Shaf is entirely right--gun control limits the guns to those that shouldn't have them. (Shaf and I have recently agreed to an uncomfortable extent). So even if the U.S. completely outlaws guns, some bad guys will have them. We still have cocaine and opium in this country; I'm not naive. As I also said, I think guns are enjoyable for a lot of people, and I don't have a problem with it. So really the operative question is: "will gun control laws reduce their nefarious use greater than the decrease in utility suffered by those that enjoy them"?

Guns are fun; that's fine. And I mean suffer--why punish them? I just absolutely reject the "if it saves one life argument." That's not fair--we could save 1,000,000 lives my outlawing cars, but we don't do it because they are utility-enhancing.

As for my conclusions? I think our liberal laws proliferate guns, but I probably agree with ffm in the end.

Its almost unheard of actually. But yet people want to create laws and place burdens on people to prevent problems that don't exist in the first place.

There's just such a reactionary and unnecessary. We should probably just maintain the status quo. I don't think we can really eliminate all the guns we have here now. Maybe we could slowly try to limit all handguns, and that would have a good effect, but I'm not sure.

[ffemtreed]

Shaf, tifosi, Shy, and FFM, I'm really more on your side than you think. Let me explain.

I agree with your observations, but I would respond that the fact that cigarettes are legal for people 18+ makes it easier for people under 18 to obtain them. Indeed, cigarettes are easier to obtain than marijuana, which is illegal for everyone. But in California, where it is legal for some people, I again bet it is much easier for those that shouldn't have it to obtain. In other words, the operative inquiry isn't whether those that are prohibited from possessing guns are the ones committing crimes, but rather, are they able to get guns because guns are abundantly available for other people in this country.

Shaf is entirely right--gun control limits the guns to those that shouldn't have them. (Shaf and I have recently agreed to an uncomfortable extent). So even if the U.S. completely outlaws guns, some bad guys will have them. We still have cocaine and opium in this country; I'm not naive. As I also said, I think guns are enjoyable for a lot of people, and I don't have a problem with it. So really the operative question is: "will gun control laws reduce their nefarious use greater than the decrease in utility suffered by those that enjoy them"?

Guns are fun; that's fine. And I mean suffer--why punish them? I just absolutely reject the "if it saves one life argument." That's not fair--we could save 1,000,000 lives my outlawing cars, but we don't do it because they are utility-enhancing.

As for my conclusions? I think our liberal laws proliferate guns, but I probably agree with ffm in the end.

There's just such a reactionary and unnecessary. We should probably just maintain the status quo. I don't think we can really eliminate all the guns we have here now. Maybe we could slowly try to limit all handguns, and that would have a good effect, but I'm not sure.

Even with the assertion that you can get rid of all guns to create the utopia, you are still going to have bad guys who are going to use weapons and other objects to create fear and commit crimes. Are we going to get rid of all knives as well? Are we going to get rid of all the gasoline and matches? You see where I am going with this, its not the guns that are bad, its bad people. until we can solve the bad people problem, we aren't going to solve the perceived gun problem. Just look at other countries who have outlawed guns or have much stricter laws than the USA. They are either loosening their laws because they found the strict laws don't work (I am talking about you Canada), or they have a LOT worse crime since their "gun bans" (I am talking about you U.K, and Australia). Then look at Mexico, they have a pretty much de facto ban on guns for normal citizens for a LONG time and that place is like a war zone in some parts, the cartels run the place because the law abiding citizens have no way to protect themselves (at least part of the problem, surely deeper issues there).

Even look at the U.S. there is a direct correlation between strict gun laws and high crime rates. Now is this because of the socio economics of the areas and all those laws to try and fix the problem? maybe...... but after all these years those strict gun laws didn't do anything to fix the problems.

Now look at all the states over the past 15 years who have relaxed their laws on CCW, almost everyone, if not everyone, of those states has had crime decrease. The reasons for the crime decrease can't be known, I am sure it has a lot more to do with something other than just CCW laws being relaxed, but just as I said before, its clear that relaxing CCW laws didn't create more problems.

As much as the anti gun groups cried blood running on the streets and return to the wild wild west, it just hasn't happened. All of their fear mongering has turned out to be false. While they may have won some battles early on with those scare tactics, it is now costing them the war because its coming back to bite them on the ass.

The status quo would be Ok if everyone followed the same standards, I don't mind a quick background check to purchase a gun but you have places like Illinois, California, Maryland, DC, Hawaii, and New York who have overly oppressive laws that make it time consuming and difficult to own firearms or get a CCW.

[Rylan]

Utopia would be boring.

Anyways, yea Maryland has crazy gun laws. And yet, still is a terrible state

[ffemtreed]

Utopia would be boring.

Anyways, yea Maryland has crazy gun laws. And yet, still is a terrible state

tell me about it, I been living here for 6 years now.

In all actuality MD is not at bad as some other areas like California, Illinois, DC and NY. MD is more quirky with the laws than restrictive. You have to jump through some hoops to get stuff, but if you jump how high they tell you can at least get most stuff.

The only real bad things about MD is the fact its virtually impossible to get CCW permit and the 7 day waiting period when you buy a regulated firearms (all handguns and some rifles) hopefully the CCW status will be changing soon since a federal judge recently ruled the law unconstitutional.

[shafnutz05]

Yeah I'm pretty much in tif's boat. I'm all for "common sense" laws regarding guns, but I am pretty vehemently against most forms of actual gun control. And I have no issue with felons, etc not being allowed to own firearms. That is a "common sense" law.

[Rylan]

No Maryland is very interesting study. It is very much fragmented into different factions. In the west is very right wing with its more outdoors types that love their guns. To the east is very liberal and generally dominates the state. But it has always provided for fun stuff while living there.

[mac5155]

Think this is going to be my next purchase. 45/410 rounds? yes please!

[ffemtreed]

Think this is going to be my next purchase. 45/410 rounds? yes please!

Not a good idea in my personal opinion unless your shooting snakes or groundhogs.

The .410 2.5" shells for self defense are pretty new and not proven at all. They use some gimmicks to try and make them more effective such as plastic discs in the shell and etc. The judge also has some quality control problems that are inherent to most modern Taurus brand firearms. If you do get one, make sure you put it through its paces on the range. The .45LC rounds are good as long as you can find self defense rounds.

As I said earlier don't think you don't have to aim, or aim isn't as important with shotshells. Most of the .410 personal defsnse rounds now use 3 pellets of 000 buck and a couple plastic discs. at 5 yards (15ft) the spread is only about 6 inches and usually you only get a few of the projectiles on target when you aim at center mass (heart).

My biggest problem with the judge is that its HUGE and very hard to control when fired, it just doesn't fit in your hands well unless you got bear paws.

I would suggest if you want a revolver for self defense check out the rugers or smith and wessons and get something in .357mag.

The Judge and S/W Governor are fun to place with at the range and blow watermelons up with but you defiantly don't want to carry one everyday and there are more proven self defense calibers out there.

[ffemtreed]

Yeah I'm pretty much in tif's boat. I'm all for "common sense" laws regarding guns, but I am pretty vehemently against most forms of actual gun control. And I have no issue with felons, etc not being allowed to own firearms. That is a "common sense" law.

I would agree with that and i am all for "true" common sense laws. The problem is that certain interest groups try and pass poison laws off as "common sense" that are really designed to further limit ownership by law abiding citizens. There new strategy is to chip away at little things until the whole thing fractures. They come up with these innocuous laws that sound great in theory but have hidden gems in them. When they pass these laws the very next year they are at it again trying to further strengthen that law and make it more burdensome year after year.

These groups like the violence policy center, brady organization, and mayor against guns all have a common goal to get rid of gun completly. It is these organizations that put every gun owner in America against pretty much any restrictive gun law because, even if it is common sense, they know the those organizations will try and mold it into something its not and try and make that simple common sense law more and more burdensome year after year.

[tifosi77]

The status quo would be Ok if everyone followed the same standards, I don't mind a quick background check to purchase a gun but you have places like Illinois, California, Maryland, DC, Hawaii, and New York who have overly oppressive laws that make it time consuming and difficult to own firearms or get a CCW.

I live in Los Angeles (county and city) and have been told by my local FFL that I have about a <1% chance of getting a CCW if I am not a police officer, or other type of security officer actively plying a trade in a high-risk environment. You may even have to subject yourself to a psychological evaluation that may cost upwards of $150.

[thepittman]

In on gun crew.

[Digitalgypsy66]

Think this is going to be my next purchase. 45/410 rounds? yes please!

Not a good idea in my personal opinion unless your shooting snakes or groundhogs.

The .410 2.5" shells for self defense are pretty new and not proven at all. They use some gimmicks to try and make them more effective such as plastic discs in the shell and etc. The judge also has some quality control problems that are inherent to most modern Taurus brand firearms. If you do get one, make sure you put it through its paces on the range. The .45LC rounds are good as long as you can find self defense rounds.

As I said earlier don't think you don't have to aim, or aim isn't as important with shotshells. Most of the .410 personal defsnse rounds now use 3 pellets of 000 buck and a couple plastic discs. at 5 yards (15ft) the spread is only about 6 inches and usually you only get a few of the projectiles on target when you aim at center mass (heart).

My biggest problem with the judge is that its HUGE and very hard to control when fired, it just doesn't fit in your hands well unless you got bear paws.

I would suggest if you want a revolver for self defense check out the rugers or smith and wessons and get something in .357mag.

The Judge and S/W Governor are fun to place with at the range and blow watermelons up with but you defiantly don't want to carry one everyday and there are more proven self defense calibers out there.

[youtube][/youtube]

FPSRussia is asset to Youtube.