I'm a DC resident, applied for my CCW, and I'm now carrying concealed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Expanded mandatory universal background checks which includes any documented history of mental illness, domestic violence, anger management issues
A persistent database tracking every gun transaction
Stop sale of military-patterned weapons like AR-15s
Stop sale of extended capacity magazines
Red flag laws
And there are many many more very reasonable and common-sense gun control proposals

None of those infringe on 2A or propose "taking away all guns from responsible gun owners"

Exactly.

The only people who should concerned about common sense gun control are the people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place.

Yes this is correct. Same applies to stop and frisk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of you mentioned the amount of training and how fast someone could pull a gun.

I was surprised that the person who shot the YouTuber at Dulles Town Center pulled his gun out AND shot it so fast. It’s almost as though he did that in one fluid motion, which seems to indicate a high level of skill.

Maybe that guy learned to shoot as a kid? Or would the training to use a gun be better than some of us assume.

I don’t carry a gun btw.

It was a decently fast draw but it’s nothing crazy for concealed carry folks who have a bit of practice. A lot of modern guns like Glocks don’t have a manual safety which means you only need to pull the trigger to fire once it’s removed from the holster which speeds things up. Manual safeties can get you killed if you forget to flip it off in the stress of a self defense situation. Glocks have several internal safeties which make them safe to carry with a chambered round as long as the trigger is protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t like proposed common sense gun control then I fully support changing over to the Swiss model of gun control. I’ll take that over our “draconian” laws.

So you’re comfortable with me living nextdoor to you with a fully automatic SIG 551 machine gun? Because the government would insist I be issued one immediately, as I meet/exceed all the applicable criteria: no criminal or psychiatric record and of military service age, in addition to: former military, combat Veteran, business owner, holder of a postgraduate degree, author, volunteer firefighter.

There’s lots of similarly qualified people in this country, many millions just like me who’ve been to war on your behalf. Under the Swiss system, there’d be a machine gun in every one of our homes.

So you’re cool with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Expanded mandatory universal background checks which includes any documented history of mental illness, domestic violence, anger management issues
A persistent database tracking every gun transaction
Stop sale of military-patterned weapons like AR-15s
Stop sale of extended capacity magazines
Red flag laws
And there are many many more very reasonable and common-sense gun control proposals

None of those infringe on 2A or propose "taking away all guns from responsible gun owners"

Exactly.

The only people who should concerned about common sense gun control are the people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place.

The only people who should be concerned about a future Trump administration reading their private emails are people with something to hide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you mentioned the amount of training and how fast someone could pull a gun.

I was surprised that the person who shot the YouTuber at Dulles Town Center pulled his gun out AND shot it so fast. It’s almost as though he did that in one fluid motion, which seems to indicate a high level of skill.

Maybe that guy learned to shoot as a kid? Or would the training to use a gun be better than some of us assume.

I don’t carry a gun btw.

It was a decently fast draw but it’s nothing crazy for concealed carry folks who have a bit of practice. A lot of modern guns like Glocks don’t have a manual safety which means you only need to pull the trigger to fire once it’s removed from the holster which speeds things up. Manual safeties can get you killed if you forget to flip it off in the stress of a self defense situation. Glocks have several internal safeties which make them safe to carry with a chambered round as long as the trigger is protected.

Thank you. How would a manual safety get you killed if you forget to flip it off?

PP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

Right, because there is zero difference between a gun and a nuclear bomb.

Seriously, come up with some new schtick, because I can’t even…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

Yes, because you will be tied up at gun point while your house is being robbed. Shoot your kid - what a dbag you are. Great argument argument. I’m getting my CCW after reading your post.

Spite gun purchases. Do you always buy deadly weapons when you get emotional?

Reminds me of when gun owners go on a shopping spree right after a mass shooting. How many guns were sold after Sandy Hook or Vegas?

It is fascinating, this legend in their own mind thinking. They fancy themselves being good guys with a gun. (Spoiler: They are not).

I’m definitely not a legend in my own mind. I’m 5’3” and weigh 118 lbs and I don’t want to be raped, strangled or maybe beaten to death by a man who could be twice my size and 3 or 4 times stronger than me. I don’t “fancy myself” being able to physically resist or stop someone so much larger and stronger than me.

Serious question (assuming you’re also female) - do you think you could stop a man from attacking you? I can’t. If you think you can, what makes you believe that? Why are you so much more capable than I am?

Here’s the difference between you and I:

I don’t live in this weird state of fear and paranoia that I am going to be attacked by strange, large men. Because that just isn’t something that is likely to happen.

Are you a woman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Expanded mandatory universal background checks which includes any documented history of mental illness, domestic violence, anger management issues
A persistent database tracking every gun transaction
Stop sale of military-patterned weapons like AR-15s
Stop sale of extended capacity magazines
Red flag laws
And there are many many more very reasonable and common-sense gun control proposals

None of those infringe on 2A or propose "taking away all guns from responsible gun owners"

Exactly.

The only people who should concerned about common sense gun control are the people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place.

The only people who should be concerned about a future Trump administration reading their private emails are people with something to hide.

LOL #bothsides...

Except only Trump is the one with countless current felony indictments and lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions. Sure we should trust him. Sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC authorities did little to protect property during the last round of looting and riots. it's not just criminals, it's the potential for mob rule every few decades.

Yes J6 was bad. Do you really think the general public should have grabbed their guns and opened up on that mob?

Shooting masses of unarmed protesters isn’t a good look…but it IS exactly the sort of thing most DCUM’s could get behind - IF - it were the right sort of unarmed people getting shot. And the J6 crowd would definitely qualify.

I’m fine letting LEO defend the VP and legislators with deadly force.

What about the thousands of BLM protesters that surrounded the White House for 3 days in June of 2020, set fire to several buildings nearby, seriously injured dozens of police officers and caused the secret service to evacuate the first family to the bunker out of fear that the White House was about to be overrun ?

Do you support force deadly force being used there, too?

Whataboutism!!!

I wish the internet weren’t full of people who just learned about logical fallacies. You do not automatically win by pointing one out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My first thought is it might be a good idea because when the civil war starts as of now most of the conservatives will be armed and most of the liberals will not. That doesn't sound like a fair fight.

My second thought is that I would never live in a place that felt as unsafe as DC apparently does. I am nearing 70 and I have never lived anywhere that unsafe and I currently live in Florida. In my community I feel perfectly safe and no I don't have a bunch of money and don't live in a gated community. I also felt safe in every neighborhood I lived in in NoVa which was most of my life.

I have no gun, don't want a gun, and I guess if I come face to face with a gun I'm just going to die, but in the meantime I'm making decisions about my life that pretty much eliminate the need for a gun.

We can’t all move to Florida, ma’am.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t like proposed common sense gun control then I fully support changing over to the Swiss model of gun control. I’ll take that over our “draconian” laws.

So you’re comfortable with me living nextdoor to you with a fully automatic SIG 551 machine gun? Because the government would insist I be issued one immediately, as I meet/exceed all the applicable criteria: no criminal or psychiatric record and of military service age, in addition to: former military, combat Veteran, business owner, holder of a postgraduate degree, author, volunteer firefighter.

There’s lots of similarly qualified people in this country, many millions just like me who’ve been to war on your behalf. Under the Swiss system, there’d be a machine gun in every one of our homes.

So you’re cool with that?

Maybe.

Why are you so confident that “the government would insist” that you are issued a fully automatic SIG 551 “immediately”?

You would sign up for active duty?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Expanded mandatory universal background checks which includes any documented history of mental illness, domestic violence, anger management issues
A persistent database tracking every gun transaction
Stop sale of military-patterned weapons like AR-15s
Stop sale of extended capacity magazines
Red flag laws
And there are many many more very reasonable and common-sense gun control proposals

None of those infringe on 2A or propose "taking away all guns from responsible gun owners"

The AR15-type rifle (and similar/copies of it) accounts for 80% of all rifles in the US. There are more AR15-type rifles in US than there are SUV’s - of ALL makes, that are on the road. There is roughly 1 AR15-type rifle for every 6.2 people in the US. The AR15-type rifle is likely of the 100 most common objects that has ever been manufactured. That’s how many AR15’s there are.


When your “common sense” gun laws ban the most ubiquitous gun in the history of the country, there’s absolutely nothing common sense about them.

Are you okay with banning some types of guns, though?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you mentioned the amount of training and how fast someone could pull a gun.

I was surprised that the person who shot the YouTuber at Dulles Town Center pulled his gun out AND shot it so fast. It’s almost as though he did that in one fluid motion, which seems to indicate a high level of skill.

Maybe that guy learned to shoot as a kid? Or would the training to use a gun be better than some of us assume.

I don’t carry a gun btw.

It was a decently fast draw but it’s nothing crazy for concealed carry folks who have a bit of practice. A lot of modern guns like Glocks don’t have a manual safety which means you only need to pull the trigger to fire once it’s removed from the holster which speeds things up. Manual safeties can get you killed if you forget to flip it off in the stress of a self defense situation. Glocks have several internal safeties which make them safe to carry with a chambered round as long as the trigger is protected.

Thank you. How would a manual safety get you killed if you forget to flip it off?

PP

The manual safety poster has been reading too many gun magazines. The thesis is that since the gun won’t fire with the safety engaged, if the user needs the gun in an emergency but fails to disengage (not “flip off”) the safety, they will not be able to discharge a round and might be overcome by their attacker before they sort out the issue.

Firearm safeties vary in design, and some are easier to miss than others, but if a person has done any practice with their weapon they should be disengaging the safety as part of the draw stroke and should not need to think about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Expanded mandatory universal background checks which includes any documented history of mental illness, domestic violence, anger management issues
A persistent database tracking every gun transaction
Stop sale of military-patterned weapons like AR-15s
Stop sale of extended capacity magazines
Red flag laws
And there are many many more very reasonable and common-sense gun control proposals

None of those infringe on 2A or propose "taking away all guns from responsible gun owners"

The AR15-type rifle (and similar/copies of it) accounts for 80% of all rifles in the US. There are more AR15-type rifles in US than there are SUV’s - of ALL makes, that are on the road. There is roughly 1 AR15-type rifle for every 6.2 people in the US. The AR15-type rifle is likely of the 100 most common objects that has ever been manufactured. That’s how many AR15’s there are.


When your “common sense” gun laws ban the most ubiquitous gun in the history of the country, there’s absolutely nothing common sense about them.

Are you okay with banning some types of guns, though?

Behind all the “assault weapon” lists is an unreasoning fear of inanimate objects, particularly firearms that operate the same way as others but look “more scarier.” The AR15 is the primary example. Nothing about its mechanical design distinguishes it from other rifles with similar operation. It is not an “assault rifle” and is not used by any military. It has no fully automatic capacity, which is a fundamental military rifle requirement. It is not a “weapon of war.”

Trying to prevent crime by picking subjectively scary looking guns out of a catalogue is preposterous. The way to fight crime is to enforce the enormous number of existing laws and lock up the people who violate them. Anything else is magical thinking and “wishcraft.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t like proposed common sense gun control then I fully support changing over to the Swiss model of gun control. I’ll take that over our “draconian” laws.

So you’re comfortable with me living nextdoor to you with a fully automatic SIG 551 machine gun? Because the government would insist I be issued one immediately, as I meet/exceed all the applicable criteria: no criminal or psychiatric record and of military service age, in addition to: former military, combat Veteran, business owner, holder of a postgraduate degree, author, volunteer firefighter.

There’s lots of similarly qualified people in this country, many millions just like me who’ve been to war on your behalf. Under the Swiss system, there’d be a machine gun in every one of our homes.

So you’re cool with that?

Maybe.

Why are you so confident that “the government would insist” that you are issued a fully automatic SIG 551 “immediately”?

You would sign up for active duty?

Switzerland issues fully automatic (machine gun) assault rifles (real ones, not just scary looking sporting rifles) and ammunition to its personnel including reservists, to be kept at home. Reservists constitute the bulk of the Swiss military.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Expanded mandatory universal background checks which includes any documented history of mental illness, domestic violence, anger management issues
A persistent database tracking every gun transaction
Stop sale of military-patterned weapons like AR-15s
Stop sale of extended capacity magazines
Red flag laws
And there are many many more very reasonable and common-sense gun control proposals

None of those infringe on 2A or propose "taking away all guns from responsible gun owners"

The AR15-type rifle (and similar/copies of it) accounts for 80% of all rifles in the US. There are more AR15-type rifles in US than there are SUV’s - of ALL makes, that are on the road. There is roughly 1 AR15-type rifle for every 6.2 people in the US. The AR15-type rifle is likely of the 100 most common objects that has ever been manufactured. That’s how many AR15’s there are.


When your “common sense” gun laws ban the most ubiquitous gun in the history of the country, there’s absolutely nothing common sense about them.

Are you okay with banning some types of guns, though?

Behind all the “assault weapon” lists is an unreasoning fear of inanimate objects, particularly firearms that operate the same way as others but look “more scarier.” The AR15 is the primary example. Nothing about its mechanical design distinguishes it from other rifles with similar operation. It is not an “assault rifle” and is not used by any military. It has no fully automatic capacity, which is a fundamental military rifle requirement. It is not a “weapon of war.”

Trying to prevent crime by picking subjectively scary looking guns out of a catalogue is preposterous. The way to fight crime is to enforce the enormous number of existing laws and lock up the people who violate them. Anything else is magical thinking and “wishcraft.”

EXACTLY. Thank you!