Concealed Carry Ladies Pants ??
Options
Replies
-
heiliskrimsli wrote: »
I applaud you then. So how many people in general public have the same extensive training as a police officer who own a firearm when it comes to actual confrontation?heiliskrimsli wrote: »
My only advice was that it might not be effective when you're not ready to use it. There's a difference in practice and in real life scenarios. Adrenaline makes a lot of people "forget" their training and panic can set in. How do you draw, AIM, and fire at someone with their arm around your neck, behind you and possibly choking you out?heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Don't own a Glock so I have no idea. I was speaking in basic terms since I assume every gun has a "safety" of some type correct?heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Lol, of course the first thought when confronted is to run/get away if possible.
Lol, why because you disagree?bigmuneymfp wrote: »
THIS. Personally I think a knife would be easier to use and is usually enough of a deterrent against an assailant.StarvingDiva wrote: »Listen, I would never belittle the efforts of any woman who wanted to take measures to protect herself.
I just think that, unless you are fairly experienced with being in a threatening situation, you want the thing that is easiest to use.
Pretty hard to aim a pistol when you are shaking, let alone unsnap it from your holster that is in the back of your sports bra.
**I don't know too many people who feel comfortable carrying concealed without training.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Just stop posting
So an assailant holding a knife is enough to deter people to listen, but not enough for an assailant to think twice?
Predators don't want a fight. ANY resistance or awareness that they are there, is many times enough to dissuade an attack.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
So some cubicle worker is somehow going to take a knife out of his or her pocket, unfold it, hold it in a meaninful way and tell a bad guy to "back off!" ?
Okay, you might scare off the tweaker that's 20 feet away.
You might feel confident, or invincible because you have that little piece of steel, when you should be running the (kitten) away.
Or, you'll just get cut with your own knife that you clumsily fumbled and dropped while deploying - or stabbed yourself, because the other guy was already ready to do harm. The bad guy is used to getting hit/kicked/punched/stabbed. He's probably lead a life with some violence in it.
Or get dead, because you've now escalated the situation by brandishing but not being willing to use the knife.
Any method you use, you have to drill frequently. Experts I've done training with, retired law enforcement officers, train daily. If you can't deploy and use your method within seconds, well.
My first response to the OP was "run in safer areas, run with someone else, or be somewhere where there's lots of public around".
However, as I mentioned a predator sneaks up on people who aren't aware. ANY WEAPON may be useless if a person is caught off guard.
Fighting is your last resort. IMO it's easier to pull a knife out of a sheath ( if you're trained to use it) and defend yourself, than to unholster a gun, turn off the safety and try to shoot if someone snuck up and put a choke on you.
People won't agree. That's fine, but I don't believe it's any more bad advice than a holstered gun when someone gets attacked without any warning.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Quick question for you.
Where on a Glock is the safety that must be "turned off" prior to firing?
The safety on a Glock is a smaller trigger that exists on the trigger. Glocks are straight up made to go "BANG" when you pull the trigger. Draw. Aim. Fire.
Thing about guns is, they can be trained with just like any other self defense tool. You do it until it's muscle memory. But here you are, once again giving advice about firearms when you don't know the first thing about them. You have your assumptions, which are wrong, and clearly indicate that nobody should be paying any heed to what you have to say on this topic.
Maybe you ought to leave the concealed carry discussion to people who know what they're doing.
Even people who are trained and carry them daily and are in instances danger day to day (police officers) make mistakes due to fear for life.
I gave an example and if you're saying it could never happen, then you have better faith in people who conceal/carry than I do.
Like martial arts, many scenarios are given to defend against. Works great in a dojo. Different story when it's on the street.
The vast majority of cops don't train anywhere near as much as I do.
You can be a better driver than a police officer or amateur racer, but can the general public say the same?
Training does make the difference and I'm sure you'll agree, but the training SHOULD emulate actual scenarios and not just choreographed ones. Kinda why I like boxing and jui jitsu. More real time training rather than choreograph.
Most cops have far less firearms training than you seem to assume they do. I've seen cops brag about firing fewer than ten rounds a year.
People who are just into firearms will generally shoot a few hundred rounds a week. Lots of us take courses where you're going out into an exercise area and targets are presented to you such that you do not know where they're going to show up or when. We do outdoors, indoors, around cars, in the dark, and practice for all kind of conditions.
We're the people you see getting called nutjobs by the same people who say that untrained people shouldn't carry firearms. Though if I'm at the range and some cops show up, I will generally leave unless I know those cops, because the most unsafe firearms handling I have ever seen were cops at the firing range. You should be wishing that cops were as invested in training as my "gun nut" friends and me.
I find that extremely hard to believe. I work in law-enforcement and at every agency I have worked out, or known about, officers are required to go to range in the daytime and at night once a month to qualify all of the firearms they use. They even have to shoot a specific score. That is definitely way more than 10 rounds a year. May also do continued trainings throughout the year and intense training while they are at the Academy.
I would go as far as to say that police officer's practice with their firearms far more than they are given credit for.
1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »
I applaud you then. So how many people in general public have the same extensive training as a police officer who own a firearm when it comes to actual confrontation?heiliskrimsli wrote: »
My only advice was that it might not be effective when you're not ready to use it. There's a difference in practice and in real life scenarios. Adrenaline makes a lot of people "forget" their training and panic can set in. How do you draw, AIM, and fire at someone with their arm around your neck, behind you and possibly choking you out?heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Don't own a Glock so I have no idea. I was speaking in basic terms since I assume every gun has a "safety" of some type correct?heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Lol, of course the first thought when confronted is to run/get away if possible.
Lol, why because you disagree?bigmuneymfp wrote: »
THIS. Personally I think a knife would be easier to use and is usually enough of a deterrent against an assailant.StarvingDiva wrote: »Listen, I would never belittle the efforts of any woman who wanted to take measures to protect herself.
I just think that, unless you are fairly experienced with being in a threatening situation, you want the thing that is easiest to use.
Pretty hard to aim a pistol when you are shaking, let alone unsnap it from your holster that is in the back of your sports bra.
**I don't know too many people who feel comfortable carrying concealed without training.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Just stop posting
So an assailant holding a knife is enough to deter people to listen, but not enough for an assailant to think twice?
Predators don't want a fight. ANY resistance or awareness that they are there, is many times enough to dissuade an attack.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
So some cubicle worker is somehow going to take a knife out of his or her pocket, unfold it, hold it in a meaninful way and tell a bad guy to "back off!" ?
Okay, you might scare off the tweaker that's 20 feet away.
You might feel confident, or invincible because you have that little piece of steel, when you should be running the (kitten) away.
Or, you'll just get cut with your own knife that you clumsily fumbled and dropped while deploying - or stabbed yourself, because the other guy was already ready to do harm. The bad guy is used to getting hit/kicked/punched/stabbed. He's probably lead a life with some violence in it.
Or get dead, because you've now escalated the situation by brandishing but not being willing to use the knife.
Any method you use, you have to drill frequently. Experts I've done training with, retired law enforcement officers, train daily. If you can't deploy and use your method within seconds, well.
My first response to the OP was "run in safer areas, run with someone else, or be somewhere where there's lots of public around".
However, as I mentioned a predator sneaks up on people who aren't aware. ANY WEAPON may be useless if a person is caught off guard.
Fighting is your last resort. IMO it's easier to pull a knife out of a sheath ( if you're trained to use it) and defend yourself, than to unholster a gun, turn off the safety and try to shoot if someone snuck up and put a choke on you.
People won't agree. That's fine, but I don't believe it's any more bad advice than a holstered gun when someone gets attacked without any warning.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Quick question for you.
Where on a Glock is the safety that must be "turned off" prior to firing?
The safety on a Glock is a smaller trigger that exists on the trigger. Glocks are straight up made to go "BANG" when you pull the trigger. Draw. Aim. Fire.
Thing about guns is, they can be trained with just like any other self defense tool. You do it until it's muscle memory. But here you are, once again giving advice about firearms when you don't know the first thing about them. You have your assumptions, which are wrong, and clearly indicate that nobody should be paying any heed to what you have to say on this topic.
Maybe you ought to leave the concealed carry discussion to people who know what they're doing.
Even people who are trained and carry them daily and are in instances danger day to day (police officers) make mistakes due to fear for life.
I gave an example and if you're saying it could never happen, then you have better faith in people who conceal/carry than I do.
Like martial arts, many scenarios are given to defend against. Works great in a dojo. Different story when it's on the street.
The vast majority of cops don't train anywhere near as much as I do.
You can be a better driver than a police officer or amateur racer, but can the general public say the same?
Training does make the difference and I'm sure you'll agree, but the training SHOULD emulate actual scenarios and not just choreographed ones. Kinda why I like boxing and jui jitsu. More real time training rather than choreograph.
Most cops have far less firearms training than you seem to assume they do. I've seen cops brag about firing fewer than ten rounds a year.
People who are just into firearms will generally shoot a few hundred rounds a week. Lots of us take courses where you're going out into an exercise area and targets are presented to you such that you do not know where they're going to show up or when. We do outdoors, indoors, around cars, in the dark, and practice for all kind of conditions.
We're the people you see getting called nutjobs by the same people who say that untrained people shouldn't carry firearms. Though if I'm at the range and some cops show up, I will generally leave unless I know those cops, because the most unsafe firearms handling I have ever seen were cops at the firing range. You should be wishing that cops were as invested in training as my "gun nut" friends and me.
I find that extremely hard to believe. I work in law-enforcement and at every agency I have worked out, or known about, officers are required to go to range in the daytime and at night once a month to qualify all of the firearms they use. They even have to shoot a specific score. That is definitely way more than 10 rounds a year. May also do continued trainings throughout the year and intense training while they are at the Academy.
I would go as far as to say that police officer's practice with their firearms far more than they are given credit for.
I have yet to see a police department that actually requires monthly range time. As far as the "specific score", in Pennsylvania State Police they have to hit a target with 75% of 50 rounds, with a minimum distance of three feet, and 5 of which must be fired from more than 75 feet (but any 75% is a passing score). This is the annual requirement. It's laughable how easy it is. The entire qualifying score can be obtained at a distance of under ten feet per the requirements. A six year old can be taught that level of marksmanship in a month, and some departments require even less.
Pathetic.
0 -
VioletRojo wrote: »scorpio516 wrote: »
Which is why its illegal to buy in California and Massachusetts and illegal to own in New York. They require an external safety.
Glocks are not illegal to own in California at all. I own two.
Did I say they were illegal to own on California?0 -
scorpio516 wrote: »VioletRojo wrote: »scorpio516 wrote: »
Which is why its illegal to buy in California and Massachusetts and illegal to own in New York. They require an external safety.
Glocks are not illegal to own in California at all. I own two.
Did I say they were illegal to own on California?
You can buy Gen 3 Glocks in CA.
http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/safeguns_resp.asp
Select Glock on the drop down.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »alaskagrown wrote: »lsutton484 wrote: »
Sources are important but remember even on your side of the debate there's a ton of fake news. When anti 2a organizations list the purpotrators of mass murders, bombers, and even suicides as being amoung the victims of gun violence so their numbers appear larger I'd be very skeptical of nearly anything else they ever told me.alaskagrown wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Those statistical claims have been well and thoroughly debunked.
Grin. I know better than to get into a statistics fight with a 2A/gun person. America's known for "fake news" for a reason. But the thing that comes through here is how terrified gun people are of their daily lives... "seconds to be victimized or killed..." "rape, murder, and assault..."
:
I view a gun just as I do the tool kit or first aid kit I keep in my car better to have it and not need it than need it or not have it.
Yeah, I know there are a ton of misleading stats on both sides. That's why I don't like getting into statistic fights! The only completely true stat is that more guns=more gun deaths. Who/why/where/could it have been prevented? is pretty constantly up for debate.
That's actually not true.
The number of privately held firearms in circulation has increased steadily for the past thirty years, and the number of deaths (justifiable, non-justifiable, intentionally self inflicted and negligent) related to firearms has decreased over that same period of time. The data are readily available from the FBI (crime) and CDC (deaths).
That's really more due to an overall decrease in violence and crime. What alaskagrown probably meant was that if there are a lot of guns about, violence is more likely to be perpetrated with guns than with anything else. That's definitely true. Why use a knife for your violent act when a gun is so easy to get? Gun deaths in countries without guns are very low (see Japan, UK, Australia, New Zealand). Sure, the murder rate might be similar in another country, but they won't be using guns to do it. That's alaskagrown's point, I think. Imo it's a lot easier to kill someone - including yourself - with a gun than with anything else. Mass stabbings are rarely as deadly as mass shootings. If my country had guns, I'd likely be dead, because I'd have bought one and shot myself during a suicidal state I had when I was younger. As it was, I tried a different method and survived. All the people mocking those not from the US who are baffled need to understand that it's a completely different culture. You think you're defending yourselves, fine. We just kind of think US gun culture is nuts. I'm not mocking you for having your points of view because I understand that you were raised in that culture. So... don't mock us for disagreeing.
OP, it sounds like you got a lot of good suggestions. I hope you never have to put your training into practise.2 -
[/quote]They have one. The switch for it is on the trigger.
The NYPD currently issues the Glock G17 to all rookies. They limit the magazine to 15 rounds instead of the factory 17, and mandate a 12-pound trigger pull, to match their previous Glock of choice: the G19.[/quote]
They offer the choice between the Glock 19, Glock 17 with a 15 round magazine, or the Sig Sauer P229. All 9mm
1 -
scorpio516 wrote: »VioletRojo wrote: »scorpio516 wrote: »
Which is why its illegal to buy in California and Massachusetts and illegal to own in New York. They require an external safety.
Glocks are not illegal to own in California at all. I own two.
Did I say they were illegal to own on California?
A difference without much of a distinction. I had to buy the Glocks to own them.0 -
MarziPanda95 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »alaskagrown wrote: »lsutton484 wrote: »
Sources are important but remember even on your side of the debate there's a ton of fake news. When anti 2a organizations list the purpotrators of mass murders, bombers, and even suicides as being amoung the victims of gun violence so their numbers appear larger I'd be very skeptical of nearly anything else they ever told me.alaskagrown wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Those statistical claims have been well and thoroughly debunked.
Grin. I know better than to get into a statistics fight with a 2A/gun person. America's known for "fake news" for a reason. But the thing that comes through here is how terrified gun people are of their daily lives... "seconds to be victimized or killed..." "rape, murder, and assault..."
:
I view a gun just as I do the tool kit or first aid kit I keep in my car better to have it and not need it than need it or not have it.
Yeah, I know there are a ton of misleading stats on both sides. That's why I don't like getting into statistic fights! The only completely true stat is that more guns=more gun deaths. Who/why/where/could it have been prevented? is pretty constantly up for debate.
That's actually not true.
The number of privately held firearms in circulation has increased steadily for the past thirty years, and the number of deaths (justifiable, non-justifiable, intentionally self inflicted and negligent) related to firearms has decreased over that same period of time. The data are readily available from the FBI (crime) and CDC (deaths).
That's really more due to an overall decrease in violence and crime. What alaskagrown probably meant was that if there are a lot of guns about, violence is more likely to be perpetrated with guns than with anything else. That's definitely true. Why use a knife for your violent act when a gun is so easy to get? Gun deaths in countries without guns are very low (see Japan, UK, Australia, New Zealand). Sure, the murder rate might be similar in another country, but they won't be using guns to do it. That's alaskagrown's point, I think. Imo it's a lot easier to kill someone - including yourself - with a gun than with anything else. Mass stabbings are rarely as deadly as mass shootings. If my country had guns, I'd likely be dead, because I'd have bought one and shot myself during a suicidal state I had when I was younger. As it was, I tried a different method and survived. All the people mocking those not from the US who are baffled need to understand that it's a completely different culture. You think you're defending yourselves, fine. We just kind of think US gun culture is nuts. I'm not mocking you for having your points of view because I understand that you were raised in that culture. So... don't mock us for disagreeing.
OP, it sounds like you got a lot of good suggestions. I hope you never have to put your training into practise.
And yet, the most recent mass attack in the US occurred in Texas and was a mass stabbing.1 -
They offer the choice between the Glock 19, Glock 17 with a 15 round magazine, or the Sig Sauer P229. All 9mm
Used to. As of last fall, all rookies are issued a Glock 17 with a 15 round magazine. Existing officers are allowed to keep what they have, or trade in for a 17.
And they mandate a 12 pound trigger pull on all of them. Because the NYPD is nothing if not stupid about firearms.VioletRojo wrote: »scorpio516 wrote: »VioletRojo wrote: »scorpio516 wrote: »
Which is why its illegal to buy in California and Massachusetts and illegal to own in New York. They require an external safety.
Glocks are not illegal to own in California at all. I own two.
Did I say they were illegal to own on California?
A difference without much of a distinction. I had to buy the Glocks to own them.
And also easily proven false if you visit the CA DOJ site that lists what handguns are legal to purchase in California.MarziPanda95 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »alaskagrown wrote: »lsutton484 wrote: »
Sources are important but remember even on your side of the debate there's a ton of fake news. When anti 2a organizations list the purpotrators of mass murders, bombers, and even suicides as being amoung the victims of gun violence so their numbers appear larger I'd be very skeptical of nearly anything else they ever told me.alaskagrown wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Those statistical claims have been well and thoroughly debunked.
Grin. I know better than to get into a statistics fight with a 2A/gun person. America's known for "fake news" for a reason. But the thing that comes through here is how terrified gun people are of their daily lives... "seconds to be victimized or killed..." "rape, murder, and assault..."
:
I view a gun just as I do the tool kit or first aid kit I keep in my car better to have it and not need it than need it or not have it.
Yeah, I know there are a ton of misleading stats on both sides. That's why I don't like getting into statistic fights! The only completely true stat is that more guns=more gun deaths. Who/why/where/could it have been prevented? is pretty constantly up for debate.
That's actually not true.
The number of privately held firearms in circulation has increased steadily for the past thirty years, and the number of deaths (justifiable, non-justifiable, intentionally self inflicted and negligent) related to firearms has decreased over that same period of time. The data are readily available from the FBI (crime) and CDC (deaths).
That's really more due to an overall decrease in violence and crime. What alaskagrown probably meant was that if there are a lot of guns about, violence is more likely to be perpetrated with guns than with anything else. That's definitely true. Why use a knife for your violent act when a gun is so easy to get? Gun deaths in countries without guns are very low (see Japan, UK, Australia, New Zealand). Sure, the murder rate might be similar in another country, but they won't be using guns to do it. That's alaskagrown's point, I think. Imo it's a lot easier to kill someone - including yourself - with a gun than with anything else. Mass stabbings are rarely as deadly as mass shootings. If my country had guns, I'd likely be dead, because I'd have bought one and shot myself during a suicidal state I had when I was younger. As it was, I tried a different method and survived. All the people mocking those not from the US who are baffled need to understand that it's a completely different culture. You think you're defending yourselves, fine. We just kind of think US gun culture is nuts. I'm not mocking you for having your points of view because I understand that you were raised in that culture. So... don't mock us for disagreeing.
OP, it sounds like you got a lot of good suggestions. I hope you never have to put your training into practise.
The absolute fact is that there are more privately held firearms in the US than there have ever been, and deaths from firearms injuries of all types are decreasing. That is a fact. It is not "mocking" you to state the facts.
It is, however, directly insulting to call my culture "nuts" and then derisively pat me on the head with the patronizing "you were raised in that culture". You have been deliberately insulting. I have presented facts.7 -
@southrnchic479 are you getting tired of getting notifications for this thread yet?
Yeah, this thread really got away from the OP.3 -
scorpio516 wrote: »VioletRojo wrote: »scorpio516 wrote: »
Which is why its illegal to buy in California and Massachusetts and illegal to own in New York. They require an external safety.
Glocks are not illegal to own in California at all. I own two.
Did I say they were illegal to own on California?
You said they were illegal to buy. Total rubbish.
What I suspect happened, is you heard about the (totally idiotic, but sadly law) 'handgun safety roster' and completely misunderstood it
There are currently, as of today, 53 models/submodels of Glocks available to buy new in California right now.stanmann571 wrote: »
And yet, the most recent mass attack in the US occurred in Texas and was a mass stabbing.
And according to some witnesses, stopped by a concealed carry citizen!
4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »
And yet, the most recent mass attack in the US occurred in Texas and was a mass stabbing.
And according to some witnesses, stopped by a concealed carry citizen!
Weird... especially since that campus was one of the ones protesting against the new Texas college carry provisions.0 -
scorpio516 wrote: »VioletRojo wrote: »scorpio516 wrote: »
Which is why its illegal to buy in California and Massachusetts and illegal to own in New York. They require an external safety.
Glocks are not illegal to own in California at all. I own two.
Did I say they were illegal to own on California?
You said they were illegal to buy. Total rubbish.
What I suspect happened, is you heard about the (totally idiotic, but sadly law) 'handgun safety roster' and completely misunderstood it
There are currently, as of today, 53 models/submodels of Glocks available to buy new in California right now.stanmann571 wrote: »
And yet, the most recent mass attack in the US occurred in Texas and was a mass stabbing.
And according to some witnesses, stopped by a concealed carry citizen!
All Glock models are available to purchase if you wear a badge or work for Uncle Sam in a law enforcement capacity inside the state of California. Oddly enough these "unsafe" handguns can then be sold to any private citizen who can pass the strict background checks required under both state and federal law. Recently some of the officers have come under pretty severe scrutiny for buying and selling firearms for profit without a federal firearms license.0 -
lsutton484 wrote: »scorpio516 wrote: »VioletRojo wrote: »scorpio516 wrote: »
Which is why its illegal to buy in California and Massachusetts and illegal to own in New York. They require an external safety.
Glocks are not illegal to own in California at all. I own two.
Did I say they were illegal to own on California?
You said they were illegal to buy. Total rubbish.
What I suspect happened, is you heard about the (totally idiotic, but sadly law) 'handgun safety roster' and completely misunderstood it
There are currently, as of today, 53 models/submodels of Glocks available to buy new in California right now.stanmann571 wrote: »
And yet, the most recent mass attack in the US occurred in Texas and was a mass stabbing.
And according to some witnesses, stopped by a concealed carry citizen!
All Glock models are available to purchase if you wear a badge or work for Uncle Sam in a law enforcement capacity inside the state of California. Oddly enough these "unsafe" handguns can then be sold to any private citizen who can pass the strict background checks required under both state and federal law. Recently some of the officers have come under pretty severe scrutiny for buying and selling firearms for profit without a federal firearms license.
Yup. If the handgun roster is for 'safety' isn't it kind of funny that they allow law enforcement officers to endanger themselves and the public by giving them access to 'unsafe' off roster guns?0 -
lsutton484 wrote: »scorpio516 wrote: »VioletRojo wrote: »scorpio516 wrote: »
Which is why its illegal to buy in California and Massachusetts and illegal to own in New York. They require an external safety.
Glocks are not illegal to own in California at all. I own two.
Did I say they were illegal to own on California?
You said they were illegal to buy. Total rubbish.
What I suspect happened, is you heard about the (totally idiotic, but sadly law) 'handgun safety roster' and completely misunderstood it
There are currently, as of today, 53 models/submodels of Glocks available to buy new in California right now.stanmann571 wrote: »
And yet, the most recent mass attack in the US occurred in Texas and was a mass stabbing.
And according to some witnesses, stopped by a concealed carry citizen!
All Glock models are available to purchase if you wear a badge or work for Uncle Sam in a law enforcement capacity inside the state of California. Oddly enough these "unsafe" handguns can then be sold to any private citizen who can pass the strict background checks required under both state and federal law. Recently some of the officers have come under pretty severe scrutiny for buying and selling firearms for profit without a federal firearms license.
There are 53 models of Glock pistols that anyone who can pass the background check can purchase from an FFL dealer in California right now. They are not by any means illegal for regular people to buy.
The ones that aren't (Gen 4, which are mostly just updates of existing models), it's entirely because Glock hasn't paid to get them listed yet. None of it has to do with safety. It's about money.3 -
Anyone who compares Japan, NZ or AUS to the US in this or any other debate is an idiot.4
-
MarziPanda95 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »alaskagrown wrote: »lsutton484 wrote: »
Sources are important but remember even on your side of the debate there's a ton of fake news. When anti 2a organizations list the purpotrators of mass murders, bombers, and even suicides as being amoung the victims of gun violence so their numbers appear larger I'd be very skeptical of nearly anything else they ever told me.alaskagrown wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Those statistical claims have been well and thoroughly debunked.
Grin. I know better than to get into a statistics fight with a 2A/gun person. America's known for "fake news" for a reason. But the thing that comes through here is how terrified gun people are of their daily lives... "seconds to be victimized or killed..." "rape, murder, and assault..."
:
I view a gun just as I do the tool kit or first aid kit I keep in my car better to have it and not need it than need it or not have it.
Yeah, I know there are a ton of misleading stats on both sides. That's why I don't like getting into statistic fights! The only completely true stat is that more guns=more gun deaths. Who/why/where/could it have been prevented? is pretty constantly up for debate.
That's actually not true.
The number of privately held firearms in circulation has increased steadily for the past thirty years, and the number of deaths (justifiable, non-justifiable, intentionally self inflicted and negligent) related to firearms has decreased over that same period of time. The data are readily available from the FBI (crime) and CDC (deaths).
That's really more due to an overall decrease in violence and crime. What alaskagrown probably meant was that if there are a lot of guns about, violence is more likely to be perpetrated with guns than with anything else. That's definitely true. Why use a knife for your violent act when a gun is so easy to get? Gun deaths in countries without guns are very low (see Japan, UK, Australia, New Zealand). Sure, the murder rate might be similar in another country, but they won't be using guns to do it. That's alaskagrown's point, I think. Imo it's a lot easier to kill someone - including yourself - with a gun than with anything else. Mass stabbings are rarely as deadly as mass shootings. If my country had guns, I'd likely be dead, because I'd have bought one and shot myself during a suicidal state I had when I was younger. As it was, I tried a different method and survived. All the people mocking those not from the US who are baffled need to understand that it's a completely different culture. You think you're defending yourselves, fine. We just kind of think US gun culture is nuts. I'm not mocking you for having your points of view because I understand that you were raised in that culture. So... don't mock us for disagreeing.
OP, it sounds like you got a lot of good suggestions. I hope you never have to put your training into practise.
IMO, and coming from the perspective of someone who has shot her fair share of rifles and shotguns and has a smattering of knowledge about the training one needs to be effective with a given firearm, one of the most efficient weapons for killing yourself or someone else, both intentionally or unintentionally, is a vehicle. It happens all day, every day, in countries around the world, and we get the highlights on the news of the murderers who drive into a festival to create terror and mayhem, killing/injuring scores with no training whatsoever, just the ability to rent a U-Haul box truck. The Bataclan is NOTHING compared to what some evil person could do by himself on, say, Lake Shore Drive in Chicago on a day the Bears are playing (it is a lovely sea of orange on both sides as the fans turn out for DA BEARS), or with an odorless accelerant and molotov cocktails in a dark, crowded nightclub or theater, and that is FAR more terrifying to me than any single person with a gun.
9 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »lsutton484 wrote: »scorpio516 wrote: »VioletRojo wrote: »scorpio516 wrote: »
Which is why its illegal to buy in California and Massachusetts and illegal to own in New York. They require an external safety.
Glocks are not illegal to own in California at all. I own two.
Did I say they were illegal to own on California?
You said they were illegal to buy. Total rubbish.
What I suspect happened, is you heard about the (totally idiotic, but sadly law) 'handgun safety roster' and completely misunderstood it
There are currently, as of today, 53 models/submodels of Glocks available to buy new in California right now.stanmann571 wrote: »
And yet, the most recent mass attack in the US occurred in Texas and was a mass stabbing.
And according to some witnesses, stopped by a concealed carry citizen!
All Glock models are available to purchase if you wear a badge or work for Uncle Sam in a law enforcement capacity inside the state of California. Oddly enough these "unsafe" handguns can then be sold to any private citizen who can pass the strict background checks required under both state and federal law. Recently some of the officers have come under pretty severe scrutiny for buying and selling firearms for profit without a federal firearms license.
There are 53 models of Glock pistols that anyone who can pass the background check can purchase from an FFL dealer in California right now. They are not by any means illegal for regular people to buy.
The ones that aren't (Gen 4, which are mostly just updates of existing models), it's entirely because Glock hasn't paid to get them listed yet. None of it has to do with safety. It's about money.
Now even if companies wanted to pay to play in Kaliforniastan there is the microstamping regulations in effect which effectively bars ALL handguns that aren't currently on Roster. I'n not fully sure on this but I believe that guns fall off roster after a few years and none of them will meet the new microstamping requirements to be granted "not unsafe" status. I have a friend who has been looking hard for a gen 4 Glock 19 and he has clued me into all the BS that he's had to deal with.0 -
lsutton484 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lsutton484 wrote: »scorpio516 wrote: »VioletRojo wrote: »scorpio516 wrote: »
Which is why its illegal to buy in California and Massachusetts and illegal to own in New York. They require an external safety.
Glocks are not illegal to own in California at all. I own two.
Did I say they were illegal to own on California?
You said they were illegal to buy. Total rubbish.
What I suspect happened, is you heard about the (totally idiotic, but sadly law) 'handgun safety roster' and completely misunderstood it
There are currently, as of today, 53 models/submodels of Glocks available to buy new in California right now.stanmann571 wrote: »
And yet, the most recent mass attack in the US occurred in Texas and was a mass stabbing.
And according to some witnesses, stopped by a concealed carry citizen!
All Glock models are available to purchase if you wear a badge or work for Uncle Sam in a law enforcement capacity inside the state of California. Oddly enough these "unsafe" handguns can then be sold to any private citizen who can pass the strict background checks required under both state and federal law. Recently some of the officers have come under pretty severe scrutiny for buying and selling firearms for profit without a federal firearms license.
There are 53 models of Glock pistols that anyone who can pass the background check can purchase from an FFL dealer in California right now. They are not by any means illegal for regular people to buy.
The ones that aren't (Gen 4, which are mostly just updates of existing models), it's entirely because Glock hasn't paid to get them listed yet. None of it has to do with safety. It's about money.
Now even if companies wanted to pay to play in Kaliforniastan there is the microstamping regulations in effect which effectively bars ALL handguns that aren't currently on Roster. I'n not fully sure on this but I believe that guns fall off roster after a few years and none of them will meet the new microstamping requirements to be granted "not unsafe" status. I have a friend who has been looking hard for a gen 4 Glock 19 and he has clued me into all the BS that he's had to deal with.
They can stay on as long as they pay the extortion fee to California.0 -
French_Peasant wrote: »MarziPanda95 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »alaskagrown wrote: »lsutton484 wrote: »
Sources are important but remember even on your side of the debate there's a ton of fake news. When anti 2a organizations list the purpotrators of mass murders, bombers, and even suicides as being amoung the victims of gun violence so their numbers appear larger I'd be very skeptical of nearly anything else they ever told me.alaskagrown wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Those statistical claims have been well and thoroughly debunked.
Grin. I know better than to get into a statistics fight with a 2A/gun person. America's known for "fake news" for a reason. But the thing that comes through here is how terrified gun people are of their daily lives... "seconds to be victimized or killed..." "rape, murder, and assault..."
:
I view a gun just as I do the tool kit or first aid kit I keep in my car better to have it and not need it than need it or not have it.
Yeah, I know there are a ton of misleading stats on both sides. That's why I don't like getting into statistic fights! The only completely true stat is that more guns=more gun deaths. Who/why/where/could it have been prevented? is pretty constantly up for debate.
That's actually not true.
The number of privately held firearms in circulation has increased steadily for the past thirty years, and the number of deaths (justifiable, non-justifiable, intentionally self inflicted and negligent) related to firearms has decreased over that same period of time. The data are readily available from the FBI (crime) and CDC (deaths).
That's really more due to an overall decrease in violence and crime. What alaskagrown probably meant was that if there are a lot of guns about, violence is more likely to be perpetrated with guns than with anything else. That's definitely true. Why use a knife for your violent act when a gun is so easy to get? Gun deaths in countries without guns are very low (see Japan, UK, Australia, New Zealand). Sure, the murder rate might be similar in another country, but they won't be using guns to do it. That's alaskagrown's point, I think. Imo it's a lot easier to kill someone - including yourself - with a gun than with anything else. Mass stabbings are rarely as deadly as mass shootings. If my country had guns, I'd likely be dead, because I'd have bought one and shot myself during a suicidal state I had when I was younger. As it was, I tried a different method and survived. All the people mocking those not from the US who are baffled need to understand that it's a completely different culture. You think you're defending yourselves, fine. We just kind of think US gun culture is nuts. I'm not mocking you for having your points of view because I understand that you were raised in that culture. So... don't mock us for disagreeing.
OP, it sounds like you got a lot of good suggestions. I hope you never have to put your training into practise.
IMO, and coming from the perspective of someone who has shot her fair share of rifles and shotguns and has a smattering of knowledge about the training one needs to be effective with a given firearm, one of the most efficient weapons for killing yourself or someone else, both intentionally or unintentionally, is a vehicle. It happens all day, every day, in countries around the world, and we get the highlights on the news of the murderers who drive into a festival to create terror and mayhem, killing/injuring scores with no training whatsoever, just the ability to rent a U-Haul box truck. The Bataclan is NOTHING compared to what some evil person could do by himself on, say, Lake Shore Drive in Chicago on a day the Bears are playing (it is a lovely sea of orange on both sides as the fans turn out for DA BEARS), or with an odorless accelerant and molotov cocktails in a dark, crowded nightclub or theater, and that is FAR more terrifying to me than any single person with a gun.
A fair number of single vehicle accidents (car vs. telephone pole on a rural road) are actually suicides. They get written up as if the driver fell asleep, but frequently like "he was cleaning his gun and it went off", it was very intentional.
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions