I know you have to have a permit to buy a handgun in New York. Living on Long Island with this MS-13 threat where two kids from my son's high school were killed by them, I think I need to take precautions to protect my family. A rifle may be the way to go. I don't know if a handgun is better or if a rifle will do the trick. Any suggestions?
Quote:
In all honestly, please don't listen to these nuds comments, chances are the majority of them voted democratic throughout their lives and are Barrack and Hillary type supporters.
That type of mentality throughout the years is what made it so difficult for hard working people like you to get a gun and protect yourself and your family. The only thing they're good for is a Bing search.
Yeah, it's really become SO hard to get a gun. Give me a fucking break.
Spoken like a true Democrat. Moronic
Quote:
In comment 13438663 I love liverwurst said:
Quote:
In all honestly, please don't listen to these nuds comments, chances are the majority of them voted democratic throughout their lives and are Barrack and Hillary type supporters.
That type of mentality throughout the years is what made it so difficult for hard working people like you to get a gun and protect yourself and your family. The only thing they're good for is a Bing search.
Yeah, it's really become SO hard to get a gun. Give me a fucking break.
Spoken like a true Democrat. Moronic
You don't seem long for this site. Hope you've got your next handle registered.
Quote:
In comment 13438972 Giantology said:
Quote:
In comment 13438663 I love liverwurst said:
Quote:
In all honestly, please don't listen to these nuds comments, chances are the majority of them voted democratic throughout their lives and are Barrack and Hillary type supporters.
That type of mentality throughout the years is what made it so difficult for hard working people like you to get a gun and protect yourself and your family. The only thing they're good for is a Bing search.
Yeah, it's really become SO hard to get a gun. Give me a fucking break.
Spoken like a true Democrat. Moronic
You don't seem long for this site. Hope you've got your next handle registered.
Exactly. Seems like a recurring troll.
There are pros and cons for both and even the battle hardened tacticians don't have a consensus.
My recommendation is it will be based on whatever you are most comfortable with and that will come with experience and use. In the end I chose a hand gun (a Sig Sauer p226) because I felt comfortable with operating it, maintaining it, reloading it all quickly and in my tests under pressure conditions.
I do own several rifles too, and I am comfortable using them for home defense if it came to it and in some cases they'd make a better choice.
For the most part hand guns just don't have high levels of accuracy (I am sure you've seen many youtube videos (or you can) of police or other incidents where the shooter just misses at seemingly close distances.) and it's harder (clunky) to get a scope fitted or a light on them.
You will possibly be emboldened by your results at the range, I know I am, but shooting at a target and shooting at a person for self-defense are two very different things.
a rifle (not a hunting rifle, but more of an AR-15/tactical type rifle) is far better in terms of accuracy and power than most hand guns, plus most are far easier to apply lights and scopes to. But again, it comes down to comfort.
and in closing:
I do not own a firearm for self defense, though I feel like I would use it if I had to, who really knows until put in that situation, my fire arms are for sport/hobby.
Lastly, it's unlikely you will ever fire it in self defense so I wouldn't stress so much about this decision (which fire arm), so much as having a plan.
and really lastly, the fallacy about rifles shooting through walls is not really true. shot gun maybe depending on the gauge, but rifle ammo (if you use some basic FMJ) the bullets tumble and fall apart, but hand guns of similar capacity do not.
The FBI has done some studies on this, here is one quote:
Quote:
If it's legal in your state or an ar15 rifle or Glock 9
What the fuck are you babbling about?
You're quickly becoming one of the worst posters around.
Sawed off shotgun?
Agreed. Leave Doug Flutie out of this.
This seems to be the info the OP was looking for, right on point.
The need to protect yourself and your family is very real. Too bad federal and local LE can't work together to, you know, enforce *all* the laws.
And for the privledge of being afraid for the lives of your family you get some of the highest taxes in the country.
NYT covers LI Teens murdered by gang menbers - ( New Window )
The need to protect yourself and your family is very real. Too bad federal and local LE can't work together to, you know, enforce *all* the laws.
And for the privledge of being afraid for the lives of your family you get some of the highest taxes in the country.
This is the problem electing these liberal politicians into office. The politicians want to bring in the unsavory types for votes, yet want to take away your guns or make it extremely difficult for you to get one so you can't protect yourself? The Democratic way. Isn't ironic how MS 13 is never short of illegal weapons though?
NYT covers LI Teens murdered by gang menbers - ( New Window )
Shotgun over hand gun. Pistols are inaccurate when the shooter is under stress even for well trained law enforcement individuals. Forget rifle - rounds can through your walls and into a neighbors house with lethal force.
Shotguns offer a variety of rounds - bird shot up to buck shot and then slugs. Buck shot is 9 .38 caliber projectiles (same as 9mm, btw). You can load the shotgun sequentially with bird shot (likely non lethal), then buck shot (definitely lethal) and then slug.
The 9mm with hollow point is fine. The .40 S&W is very good, but has a sharp recoil because of very high muzzle velocity - somewhat hard to keep on target. The .45 is still one of the best - subsonic round with twice the weight of the 9mm and nearly twice of the .40 in standard form. Remember the .45 ACP was invented because in the Spanish American war the Philippines natives, drugged up, would survive the .38 cal. that was standard issue.
Think you are truly best off with a dog (#1) and a shotgun even your wife could handle - 20 gauge.
Shotgun over hand gun. Pistols are inaccurate when the shooter is under stress even for well trained law enforcement individuals. Forget rifle - rounds can through your walls and into a neighbors house with lethal force.
Shotguns offer a variety of rounds - bird shot up to buck shot and then slugs. Buck shot is 9 .38 caliber projectiles (same as 9mm, btw). You can load the shotgun sequentially with bird shot (likely non lethal), then buck shot (definitely lethal) and then slug.
The 9mm with hollow point is fine. The .40 S&W is very good, but has a sharp recoil because of very high muzzle velocity - somewhat hard to keep on target. The .45 is still one of the best - subsonic round with twice the weight of the 9mm and nearly twice of the .40 in standard form. Remember the .45 ACP was invented because in the Spanish American war the Philippines natives, drugged up, would survive the .38 cal. that was standard issue.
Think you are truly best off with a dog (#1) and a shotgun even your wife could handle - 20 gauge.
As I mentioned, this is simply not true.
Tests have proven the opposite, hand gun ammo stands a better chance, especially as you get to the larger caliber handgun ammo.
I had a link or quote above and a simple google search should help illustrate this fallacy.
Shotguns are fine, but bird shot would never be considered proper ammo for self defense against a human, and they can be unwieldy, though they do have some pros as I also mentioned above.
you mean like this? - ( New Window )
Quote:
you can get. Criminals hate loud barking dogs.
Shotgun over hand gun. Pistols are inaccurate when the shooter is under stress even for well trained law enforcement individuals. Forget rifle - rounds can through your walls and into a neighbors house with lethal force.
Shotguns offer a variety of rounds - bird shot up to buck shot and then slugs. Buck shot is 9 .38 caliber projectiles (same as 9mm, btw). You can load the shotgun sequentially with bird shot (likely non lethal), then buck shot (definitely lethal) and then slug.
The 9mm with hollow point is fine. The .40 S&W is very good, but has a sharp recoil because of very high muzzle velocity - somewhat hard to keep on target. The .45 is still one of the best - subsonic round with twice the weight of the 9mm and nearly twice of the .40 in standard form. Remember the .45 ACP was invented because in the Spanish American war the Philippines natives, drugged up, would survive the .38 cal. that was standard issue.
Think you are truly best off with a dog (#1) and a shotgun even your wife could handle - 20 gauge.
As I mentioned, this is simply not true.
Quote:
Forget rifle - rounds can through your walls and into a neighbors house with lethal force.
Tests have proven the opposite, hand gun ammo stands a better chance, especially as you get to the larger caliber handgun ammo.
I had a link or quote above and a simple google search should help illustrate this fallacy.
Shotguns are fine, but bird shot would never be considered proper ammo for self defense against a human, and they can be unwieldy, though they do have some pros as I also mentioned above.
Really, a pistol round will go through walls better that a rifle round? An AK round will go through 10mm steel plate (3/8 inch) (and an 8 inch tree) and pistol round will not - source the SEALS that rode on my ship. Also, FWIW, Myth Busters did the James Bond blow up the propane tank test, and pistol ammo only dented the bottle, and .30-06 went right through. Yes, maybe a .22LR will be stopped by a wall.
The bird shot is a warning round - but yeah if you want to straight away kill someone, buck shot or slug.
but here is another quote from an article on guns.com.
Oh, and liverwurst is a complete moron.
but here is another quote from an article on guns.com.
Quote:
Despite the popularity of the round, too few realize that 9mm ball ammo can easily punch through not just one but several interior walls. By contrast, .223 rifle ammunition tends to tumble, turn and slow down when penetrating barriers, even more than a 9mm fired from some pistols. Many shooters like to debate this point, and admittedly on the surface it doesn’t seem logical, but studies done by SWAT teams over a decade ago revealed this phenomenon to be fact and it was one of the main reasons a lot of tactical teams transitioned to M-4s/AR-15s and gave up the H&K MP-5 SMG in the 80s and 90s.
Yes, .223 (5.56 mm) will be "easily" deflected - it is no more than a .22 with high velocity (you can shoot .22LR with a AR-15 using a conversion kit). But at 3200 ft/sec it has a good chance to pass through a couple of wood walls. And I agree a 9mm will penetrate dry wall and maybe even the exterior wall (wood or shingle - not CBS). Doubtful it can do two exterior walls.
link - ( New Window )
Now, clarify "home protection": I'm gonna assume that you aren't in a rival gang, a drug dealer, or otherwise involved in illicit activity out of your house. This is important as it means that anyone breaking into your house isn't there intending to kill you or your family (outside of a serial killer or someone you know)-in fact, more than likely they aren't breaking in if someone is home. They're there to take your stuff, and chances are once they realize someone is home they're gonna run.
Just shouting is gonna trigger flight or fight in them. If they also know you are armed, they're far more likely to go with flight rather than fight. This is why I've always been taught that a shotgun is the best weapon for home defense: once they hear you rack it, they're running.
The point is to protect your house- ideally you don't even want to have to discharge a weapon, just get the bad guys away from your family and out of the house.
Shotguns are also much more difficult for small kids to discharge should they get their hands on one.
2. Install key locks on all windows, so even if someone breaks the glass they can't get in.
3. Make the house secure in every way and think about getting dogs. Two young dogs will make you a lot more secure than a gun because their superior hearing and night vision will allow them to detect a break in way before you do. If I'm going to fight intruders inside my house, I would much rather have two pitbulls backing me than a rifle. Just make sure the dogs are highly trained
4. Make sure everyone in the house has a cell phone. If somebody is breaking in, you want to call the police, not take them on with a rifle.
5. Getting a rifle is OK short term but like the poster above said, you can't be shooting a rifle or shotgun in your house. That's how you wind up shooting a family member on the other side of a wall. Start the process of getting a handgun permit.
6. Get military grade tactical flashlights that shine at above 1000 lumens. If your house is dark and you shine that in an intruders eyes they will be temporarily blinded.
7. Buy a couple of steel wrecking bars at home depot and place them at strategic locations around the house. Much more effective weapon than a rifle in close quarters.
8. Install solid wood bedroom doors with sturdy locks. So family members can retreat to a secure room and get off a call to the police.
Any home can be made very secure. Going about will also allay the worries you have about keeping your family safe. It will also get the whole family to take responsibility for security. That is a much better model than you taking on the role of protector.
Most home invasions occur because people leave doors unlocked or windows unsecured. Leaving a house open for even 30 seconds is enough time for people who are watching the house to get in. Getting the whole family to develop security habits is FAR MORE EFFECTIVE than any weapon.
I know you are probably already do a lot of these things but reading up on home security and following expert advice is the way to go. Ultimately, the brain is more powerful than the trigger finger.
The best advice I have read so far. The time to decide if you can kill another living thing is not at 3 AM being scared shitless while also making sure it's not a family member.
It is a fallacy that a shotgun does not need to be aimed. Shot maintains a very tight spread at the distances normally encountered inside a residence.
Lightweight, high speed rounds such as .556/.223 will tumble and disintegrate upon contact. If you miss everything though they will travel a good distance at a velocity that will be hazardous.
Handgun rounds don't have the velocity to travel as far as rifle rounds if unimpeded. They are more solid however and will maintain integrity and penetrate light surfaces (drywall, sheet metal) better than above described rifle rounds.
Know this, there are no absolutes with ballistics. Think of real estate for perspective. There are three factors which determine the value of real estate and they all relate to the impact of ballistic rounds. The factors are location, location and location. Hit your target in vital locations and the caliber or round won't really matter so much.
You are responsible for every round you fire, know your target, what lies between you and the target and beyond.
Oh, and liverwurst is a complete moron.
Who probably has a lot of guns, despite complaining about how hard it's become to get them.
Oh, and liverwurst is a complete moron.
I'm not advocating anyone get a firearm. That's a decision each person should research and make for themselves.
And you may be right about deaths in a home invasion vs accidental gun deaths, but accidental gun deaths, despite the recent boom in gun sales, was at the lowest level in 2016 since 1903.
And while you are probably right about the death stats, what you may not be right about are burglaries, assaults, rapes, invasion of privacy/feeling of being violated etc. that happen during a home invasion. Having a firearm can also protect against those even if the odds of that happening are low.
Quote:
or some other southern state like that. Hit a few yard sales on the weekend and buy whatever guns you want. Drive them back to NY
That's about the worst advice you could give someone. No wonder this country is filled with so many wack jobs.
my point behind mentioning this is the fact that the gun laws are inconsistent and that yes you can just drive to Alabama and buy what you want and bring it back to NY. If you seriously thought I was suggesting that Tom break the law and traffic an illegal weapon to NY... well then I am not surprised coming from you.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 500 Americans a year die in accidental shootings.
Father of draft prospect Travis Rudolph killed in accidental shooting - ( New Window )
Quote:
Darryl Rudolph, a repairman, was working in a nightclub on Friday morning making repairs. He was shot and killed because, police say, an employee of the club in an adjacent room was moving a loaded gun off a shelf and it went off accidentally. Police say they are still investigating but there is no reason to believe the shooting was intentional.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 500 Americans a year die in accidental shootings.
Father of draft prospect Travis Rudolph killed in accidental shooting - ( New Window )
I wonder what the ratio is of reckless gun owning fools who either have accidents or luck their way through life without one, to responsible gun owners who actively prevent accidents?
Some recent study determined that around 70,000 legally owned guns were stolen or lost over a half decade in California alone! Thanks dipahits.
Let's put some things in perspective, even though it's an imperfect analogy and I won't belabor this since the thread will probably be deleted.
In 2017 based on most estimates there are around 325 million guns owned in the United States. There were 489 accidental/unintentional gun deaths the most recent numbers available (2016)
In 2017 there are approximately 253 million vehicles on the road, yet there were 1.3M deaths related to automobile accidents in the most recent year.
Do people say, more people die each year due to accidental vehicle deaths, so don't get a vehicle for your desired reason, you might accidentally die? Get a dog (or in this case a bicycle or take public transportation - which probably has death statistics similar to accidental firearm deaths).
the odds of accidentally being killed due to firearms is so minuscule it should not factor in to a person's decision (IMO) to own one, however, safety should be a primary concern and should be addressed if they do decide to own one since all accidental deaths are preventable.
Let's put some things in perspective, even though it's an imperfect analogy and I won't belabor this since the thread will probably be deleted.
In 2017 based on most estimates there are around 325 million guns owned in the United States. There were 489 accidental/unintentional gun deaths the most recent numbers available (2016)
In 2017 there are approximately 253 million vehicles on the road, yet there were 1.3M deaths related to automobile accidents in the most recent year.
Do people say, more people die each year due to accidental vehicle deaths, so don't get a vehicle for your desired reason, you might accidentally die? Get a dog (or in this case a bicycle or take public transportation - which probably has death statistics similar to accidental firearm deaths).
the odds of accidentally being killed due to firearms is so minuscule it should not factor in to a person's decision (IMO) to own one, however, safety should be a primary concern and should be addressed if they do decide to own one since all accidental deaths are preventable.
Sorry those motor vehicle deaths were global, US is "only" 35,000 deaths per year (2015).
Quote:
being mentioned.
Let's put some things in perspective, even though it's an imperfect analogy and I won't belabor this since the thread will probably be deleted.
In 2017 based on most estimates there are around 325 million guns owned in the United States. There were 489 accidental/unintentional gun deaths the most recent numbers available (2016)
In 2017 there are approximately 253 million vehicles on the road, yet there were 1.3M deaths related to automobile accidents in the most recent year.
Do people say, more people die each year due to accidental vehicle deaths, so don't get a vehicle for your desired reason, you might accidentally die? Get a dog (or in this case a bicycle or take public transportation - which probably has death statistics similar to accidental firearm deaths).
the odds of accidentally being killed due to firearms is so minuscule it should not factor in to a person's decision (IMO) to own one, however, safety should be a primary concern and should be addressed if they do decide to own one since all accidental deaths are preventable.
Sorry those motor vehicle deaths were global, US is "only" 35,000 deaths per year (2015).
Stats don't mean jack shit to me in regards to guns, honestly. I never really gave a crap about guns one way or the other. Own them or don't, didn't give a rat's ass. I have friends who have them and friends that don't. I never was into them, I don't hunt and beyond I never felt paranoid enough to own one for self defense purposes (but to be fair I always think that I can kick everyone's ass... lol). But... after the Newtown shooting, where I have multiple friends losing their children, my kids in lockdown for hours (while my wife and I are shitting bricks for about 45 minutes before we knew in exactly which school the shooting was or what was exactly going on) I would not give a shit if we as a country got rid of all of them. Really don't care. And I'm definitely good with tougher regulations. Slanted view? Sure, understandably I'd say. Just being honest. I'm sure I'll get some trolling for that viewpoint but whatever.
How do you know? In use for your purposes could simply mean concealed on a person. with 325M+ guns, and many of them concealed, you have no way of knowing if you come across a firearm "in use".
Point still remains with 325 million firearms owned in the US and under 500 accidental deaths per year the odds of dying accidentally due to a firearm are a microscopic.
You have basically a similar chance of being struck by lightning as you do of dying due to accidental gun discharge.
Again though, I am not advocating for anyone to go out and get a firearm for self defense. I am suggesting if you decide not to, don't make that decision because there could be an accident and someone might die.
Quote:
In comment 13439989 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
being mentioned.
Let's put some things in perspective, even though it's an imperfect analogy and I won't belabor this since the thread will probably be deleted.
In 2017 based on most estimates there are around 325 million guns owned in the United States. There were 489 accidental/unintentional gun deaths the most recent numbers available (2016)
In 2017 there are approximately 253 million vehicles on the road, yet there were 1.3M deaths related to automobile accidents in the most recent year.
Do people say, more people die each year due to accidental vehicle deaths, so don't get a vehicle for your desired reason, you might accidentally die? Get a dog (or in this case a bicycle or take public transportation - which probably has death statistics similar to accidental firearm deaths).
the odds of accidentally being killed due to firearms is so minuscule it should not factor in to a person's decision (IMO) to own one, however, safety should be a primary concern and should be addressed if they do decide to own one since all accidental deaths are preventable.
Sorry those motor vehicle deaths were global, US is "only" 35,000 deaths per year (2015).
Stats don't mean jack shit to me in regards to guns, honestly. I never really gave a crap about guns one way or the other. Own them or don't, didn't give a rat's ass. I have friends who have them and friends that don't. I never was into them, I don't hunt and beyond I never felt paranoid enough to own one for self defense purposes (but to be fair I always think that I can kick everyone's ass... lol). But... after the Newtown shooting, where I have multiple friends losing their children, my kids in lockdown for hours (while my wife and I are shitting bricks for about 45 minutes before we knew in exactly which school the shooting was or what was exactly going on) I would not give a shit if we as a country got rid of all of them. Really don't care. And I'm definitely good with tougher regulations. Slanted view? Sure, understandably I'd say. Just being honest. I'm sure I'll get some trolling for that viewpoint but whatever.
I also support stronger regulation.
Quote:
In comment 13439989 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
being mentioned.
Let's put some things in perspective, even though it's an imperfect analogy and I won't belabor this since the thread will probably be deleted.
In 2017 based on most estimates there are around 325 million guns owned in the United States. There were 489 accidental/unintentional gun deaths the most recent numbers available (2016)
In 2017 there are approximately 253 million vehicles on the road, yet there were 1.3M deaths related to automobile accidents in the most recent year.
Do people say, more people die each year due to accidental vehicle deaths, so don't get a vehicle for your desired reason, you might accidentally die? Get a dog (or in this case a bicycle or take public transportation - which probably has death statistics similar to accidental firearm deaths).
the odds of accidentally being killed due to firearms is so minuscule it should not factor in to a person's decision (IMO) to own one, however, safety should be a primary concern and should be addressed if they do decide to own one since all accidental deaths are preventable.
Sorry those motor vehicle deaths were global, US is "only" 35,000 deaths per year (2015).
Stats don't mean jack shit to me in regards to guns, honestly. I never really gave a crap about guns one way or the other. Own them or don't, didn't give a rat's ass. I have friends who have them and friends that don't. I never was into them, I don't hunt and beyond I never felt paranoid enough to own one for self defense purposes (but to be fair I always think that I can kick everyone's ass... lol). But... after the Newtown shooting, where I have multiple friends losing their children, my kids in lockdown for hours (while my wife and I are shitting bricks for about 45 minutes before we knew in exactly which school the shooting was or what was exactly going on) I would not give a shit if we as a country got rid of all of them. Really don't care. And I'm definitely good with tougher regulations. Slanted view? Sure, understandably I'd say. Just being honest. I'm sure I'll get some trolling for that viewpoint but whatever.
Here in Oakland, a bill is being considered that would legally require safe storage/locking of guns to some degree. Should be a no brainer considering how many guns are stolen and then used to shoot people -- he'll, the freaking mayor of Stockton's stolen gun was used in a homicide. But the NRA strongly opposed it, presumably concerned about gun owners' painful erections lasting a minute longer without being relieved by brandishing their firearm.
Quote:
Never considers the sheer daily difference in usage between the two. I'm on a bus right now. I've been out of my house for ten minutes and have easily seen 1200 cars in use, yet no guns in use.
How do you know? In use for your purposes could simply mean concealed on a person.
C'mon now.
#GUNFAIL - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13440025 santacruzom said:
Quote:
Never considers the sheer daily difference in usage between the two. I'm on a bus right now. I've been out of my house for ten minutes and have easily seen 1200 cars in use, yet no guns in use.
How do you know? In use for your purposes could simply mean concealed on a person.
C'mon now.
You are talking about accidental gun deaths as a reason for not owning a firearm. There are reasons why firearm ownership is not right for some people, good reasons, that's not one IMO.
Ownership totals are skewed widely by people who have multiple weapons. A batter statistic would be the number of people who own guns vs. vehicles.
Ownership totals are skewed widely by people who have multiple weapons. A batter statistic would be the number of people who own guns vs. vehicles.
I don't know if they have that stat - but I agree guns are like tattoos in that regard, many people don't stop with one, but my point wasn't to make a perfect analogy, simply to illustrate the microscopic odds of the chances of an accidental gun death, since many people suggested that as a reason for not getting a firearm.
Quote:
In comment 13440043 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 13440025 santacruzom said:
Quote:
Never considers the sheer daily difference in usage between the two. I'm on a bus right now. I've been out of my house for ten minutes and have easily seen 1200 cars in use, yet no guns in use.
How do you know? In use for your purposes could simply mean concealed on a person.
C'mon now.
You are talking about accidental gun deaths as a reason for not owning a firearm. There are reasons why firearm ownership is not right for some people, good reasons, that's not one IMO.
I never personally mentioned any such thing. My positions is less about accidental deaths being a reason to not own a firearm, and more about the likelihood of armed assailants busting into your house not being a reason to buy a firearm.
Ownership totals are skewed widely by people who have multiple weapons. A batter statistic would be the number of people who own guns vs. vehicles.
And still a better statistic would be how cumulative hours are cars used and encountered by people per day, vs how many cumulative hours guns are.
related, the most important part of gun choice/ownership is responsible safety. the most important thing is knowing safety, not which round has the most penetrating power.
Maybe to others any chance of a home invasion is reason enough to arm themselves. You live in NoCal, you are familiar with the Golden State Killer aka the Original Night Stalker aka the East Area Rapist (just saw it on dateline or something -Patton Oswalt's wife dedicated her life to solving this crime - but it has not been solved).
Maybe one of those 50 women raped or 12 people murdered could have apprehended the perpetrator if they had been armed. Maybe they could have saved themselves or their loved one. Possible being armed wouldn't have mattered, but it's not up to you to decide what makes other people comfortable.
I've said before I do not own a firearm for self defense, but I don't begrudge others that right.
Quote:
My positions is less about accidental deaths being a reason to not own a firearm, and more about the likelihood of armed assailants busting into your house not being a reason to buy a firearm.
Maybe to others any chance of a home invasion is reason enough to arm themselves. You live in NoCal, you are familiar with the Golden State Killer aka the Original Night Stalker aka the East Area Rapist (just saw it on dateline or something -Patton Oswalt's wife dedicated her life to solving this crime - but it has not been solved).
Sure, but I also heard about the mayor of Stockton owning a firearm -- likely with the stated intent of preventing break ins -- that was stolen during a break in and then used to kill a 13 year-old.
I can understand the impulsive decision to buy a gun after hearing about so-and-so being robbed, raped, murdered, etc. But if your decision to buy a gun is fueled by this impulse, you'd better apply as much diligence as possible and a) determine if it really is the most effective way to provide the security and safety you seek and b) learn how to use, handle and store it safely. But what's the fun in that?
Quote:
this means that you don't need to own a firearm, but in no way does it make it relevant for someone else's decision.
Quote:
My positions is less about accidental deaths being a reason to not own a firearm, and more about the likelihood of armed assailants busting into your house not being a reason to buy a firearm.
Maybe to others any chance of a home invasion is reason enough to arm themselves. You live in NoCal, you are familiar with the Golden State Killer aka the Original Night Stalker aka the East Area Rapist (just saw it on dateline or something -Patton Oswalt's wife dedicated her life to solving this crime - but it has not been solved).
Sure, but I also heard about the mayor of Stockton owning a firearm -- likely with the stated intent of preventing break ins -- that was stolen during a break in and then used to kill a 13 year-old.
I can understand the impulsive decision to buy a gun after hearing about so-and-so being robbed, raped, murdered, etc. But if your decision to buy a gun is fueled by this impulse, you'd better apply as much diligence as possible and a) determine if it really is the most effective way to provide the security and safety you seek and b) learn how to use, handle and store it safely. But what's the fun in that?
Of course this is true and it's been stated multiple times in this thread and this is true whether the decision is impulsive or not.
I walked out pretty dejected as I wasn’t planning on spending $500 for the permit and another $500 for the shotgun. Looking online at the permit process, it’s pretty onerous. Have to apply in person, pay $140 permit application fee, then another $87 to get fingerprinted. Have to get multiple forms notarized, attach 4 recent photographs, and get 2 letters of character reference.
Quote:
Just looking for a shotgun. Any hoops to go through as far as permits/references/interviews, etc.?
Same as NY, no problem with shotguns or rifles, but a permit is required for hand guns
Wrong, you need a firearms license for all weapons in NJ, and a purchase permit for a handgun.
You need to go to your local PD, get and fill out the forms, and then get fingerprinted when you return the forms to the PD for processing.