The Gun Control Debate Thread

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'm all for someone having their concealed carry license and owning guns in general, but there is no argument to be made that could ever convince me that the general population should be able to access and purchase guns that fire hundreds of rounds per minute.

 

Common sense has to kick in at some point.

In my opinion this is another place where knowledge level may need to be increased.  (please don't think I'm calling you stupid, just that you may not be informed)

 

You say hundreds of rounds a minute.  The average shooter with an AR (or any semi-auto rifle) can't shoot hundreds of rounds a minute even if they 100% ignore accuracy.  Now you will see places that say an AR can shoot 800 rounds a minute but they fail to point out that is in full auto (which is illegal). 

I would estimate that the average shooter can crank out 150 rounds in a minute if they aren't worrying about hitting a target and factoring in reload time.  Now if you are firing at that rate with a lower level AR, chances are good the gun will fail before you even hit 150 rounds due to heat.  I higher end AR probably would be less likely to fail.  Now if the average shooter wants to hit, say, 80% accuracy at 30 yards, I would guess they would have trouble getting over 80 rounds a minute factoring in reload time.  Even that estimate may be high now that I think of it. 

 

So are you fine with a weapon that can fire 80 rounds a minute? 

 

Now same thing with handguns.  Most pistols would be to hot to hold if you tried to fire that much that quickly.  Glock does a pretty good job at dissipating heat so I'll use that.  Using a Glock and wanting 80% accuracy at 10 yards (reasonable for a pistol) I would put at the same 80 rounds a minute.  Numbers wise, this holds true for most any semi-auto pistol.  So if you say 80 rounds a minute is too high, you would take out 95% of the pistols in the country.

 

Disclaimer:  These are numbers based off of experience.  No I didn't do a survey.  But I consider myself pretty experienced so these shouldn't be to far off.  Yes, you can probably find a video somewhere of a guy hitting targets at 100 yards at a 150 round per minute rate.  That person would be a professional and not the subject of the conversation.  Though if you do find that video, let me know because that is damn impressive. 

[tshile]

He was considered legally enough of not a lunatic to carry a gun in FL.

Based on the laws of many states, any conversation about what can and will happen in an active shooter scenario has to include what Georger Zimmerman-like people will do.

Discussions based on what George Zimmerman like people will do is not something being perpetrated by anybody. It is the reality of the situation.

The net result is how I'd feel is irrelevant. What matters is consequences, and there is no real reason to believe that I'm more likely to get into an active shooting situation involving a responsible/competent vet than a George Zimmerman-like person based on the laws in many states.

You're just dancing some more. If your point is that we don't do enough to keep guns out of the wrong hands, you get no argument from me.

But you brought up the vet as a player with no impact, and then harp on this imagined scenario of a wanna-be-rambo when few sane people would bother to disagree with you on the issue that would present. You're trying to have it both ways.

Yes, rambo-wanna-bes are dangerous to us all. They are not the only people in existence.

The military vet that's armed and barricades the room and takes it upon himself to do whatever he can to protect those people is a hero. Whether the shooter made it to the room or not is irrelevant.

And if given the option of being in the room with no good guy with a gun, vs being in a room with one, when some nut starts a shooting spree and you choose the former then... We'll, I don't know what to say. Good luck? Hope you find an exit?

Maybe you can play dead like some of the people in the club Sunday morning and get lucky.

Ideally it wouldn't even be a question. But it is. And you don't have to think the answer is for everyone to carry a gun all the time to see it the way I do.

[tshile]

Now same thing with handguns. Most pistols would be to hot to hold if you tried to fire that much that quickly. Glock does a pretty good job at dissipating heat so I'll use that. Using a Glock and wanting 80% accuracy at 10 yards (reasonable for a pistol) I would put at the same 80 rounds a minute. Numbers wise, this holds true for most any semi-auto pistol. So if you say 80 rounds a minute is too high, you would take out 95% of the pistols in the country.

Just to add to this, for information sake:

I know of at least one law enforcement agency where the qualification process is along the lines of:

3 magazines fully loaded (you're talking 10-15 bullets each. The model I'm aware of being used by one person holds 13th)

One loaded in the gun

Gun holstered

Target at 20 yards

You have a minute to draw and fire through all three magazines.

You are scored based on how all the bullets hit.

If you fail to correctly load your magazine and empty it, you're score reflects this.

Now the person I know can score perfect rounds doing this. That's 42 bullets, plus the 1 in the chamber when you begin. 43 bullets, from a standard semi automatic pistol, at 20 yards, in one minute. A test you have to pass to carry your gun.

I add it just because these conversations get into the functionality of guns and I think people have some incorrect notions of what is and isn't possible.

How deadly a gun is, when talking about number of bullets fired and accuracy within certain time periods, is in at least a big part a function of the person using it.

Edited June 14, 2016 by tshile

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just to add to this, for information sake:

I know of at least one law enforcement agency where the qualification process is along the lines of:

3 magazines fully loaded (you're talking 10-15 bullets each. The model I'm aware of being used by one person holds 13th)

One loaded in the gun

Gun holstered

Target at 20 yards

You have a minute to draw and fire through all three magazines.

You are scored based on how all the bullets hit.

If you fail to correctly load your magazine and empty it, you're score reflects this.

Now the person I know can score perfect rounds doing this. That's 42 bullets, plus the 1 in the chamber when you begin. 43 bullets, from a standard semi automatic pistol, at 20 yards, in one minute. A test you have to pass to carry your gun.

I add it just because these conversations get into the functionality of guns and I think people have some incorrect notions of what is and isn't possible.

How deadly a gun is, when talking about number of bullets fired and accuracy within certain time periods, is in at least a big part a function of the person using it.

All good info.  I'd be interested to see how it is scored.  Competitions score based on how close to the bullseye.  Is this just a go/no go on hitting the target?  What is the target size?  If this person is hitting 43 bulls eyes at 20 yards, that's pretty good.  I don't think I could do that in a minute and I consider myself a pretty good shot.  But I wouldn't consider a test like this (maybe loosen the passing requirements.  That's why I asked about how it is scored) a bad thing to get your CCW license though.

 

And the last sentence can't be emphasized enough.  There are people who couldn't hit the ground with an "assault rifle" and there are people who shoot dimes at 100 yards with black powder.

[CBass1724]

 

So are you fine with a weapon that can fire 80 rounds a minute? 

 

No, I'm not.

 

If you have to break down exactly how many bullets are being fired per minute and are correcting me from saying "hundreds per minute" down to a smaller, yet really high, double digit number, then you are missing the entire point of all of this.  Those weapons were made for the battlefield and not for some random Joe Schmo on the streets.

[PeterMP]

You're just dancing some more. If your point is that we don't do enough to keep guns out of the wrong hands, you get no argument from me.

But you brought up the vet as a player with no impact, and then harp on this imagined scenario of a wanna-be-rambo when few sane people would bother to disagree with you on the issue that would present. You're trying to have it both ways.

Yes, rambo-wanna-bes are dangerous to us all. They are not the only people in existence.

 

I didn't say they were the only people.  I brought up the vet to acknowledge that.

 

But realistically, it is both ways.  The competent gun person is unlikely to have much of an impact (unless you have lots of competent gun carriers) because it is unlikely they are going to be in the right place at the right time.

 

It isn't enough that they be outside of the building where the shooting is happening or even in the same building, but a different part.

 

(Which was the point I was making.)

 

AND given current laws in many states, there is a chance of having Zimmerman like people present.

Edited June 14, 2016 by PeterMP

[tshile]

All good info.  I'd be interested to see how it is scored.  Competitions score based on how close to the bullseye.  Is this just a go/no go on hitting the target?  What is the target size?  If this person is hitting 43 bulls eyes at 20 yards, that's pretty good.  I don't think I could do that in a minute and I consider myself a pretty good shot.  But I wouldn't consider a test like this (maybe loosen the passing requirements.  That's why I asked about how it is scored) a bad thing to get your CCW license though.

 

I'm unaware of target terminology, so bear with me here

 

It's a target with points based on how close to center you are. The traditional rings with point values assigned to them. The target is designed to mimic the torso of the 'average' person. Law enforcement (as far as I'm aware) are taught/trained to shoot for the chest, so their tests reflect this. It's not about bulls eyes, it's about being able to pump bullets with reasonable accuracy.

 

You see these police shootings and inevitably someone always asks - Why did they shoot this guy 30 times?! Well... because that's how they're trained. They're trained that you only shoot to stop an aggressive action, and you shoot until the aggressive action is stopped. When you have 3 cops, all with 10+ bullets in their gun, and they decide to shoot, you wind up with  a lot of bullets being fired. The emphasis is on stopping the action, not killing the person, and you do that by hitting them in the chest (only because it's the biggest target available to you) quickly and with a lot. And a couple of cops can dump dozens of bullets in the few seconds it takes a person with a knife to finally collapse to the ground.

 

So their qualification reflects that. They don't want some idiot dumping his magazine at someone, missing wildly, and killing some innocent person a block away because the officer can't shoot with a spread of less than 5 feet at 15 yards (which becomes a huge spread when the bullet travels a block...) (and - knowing what's behind your target is also a big part of the training, so this shouldn't happen anyways...)

 

As for how stringent the scoring is... i don't know... but I do know that the people I know who do this, and by their own account score the highest they can and have done so throughout their career (talking combined 30+ years experience between two people) - a good half of them have no business carrying a weapon. So... I think it's a pretty loose scoring system...

 

edit: this is also why you don't see officers shoot people in the knees... you're specifically trained not to do that. and if you don't understand why, you should find some time to try to shoot a handgun at a target that represents a 'knee' and then ask if you want officers trying to do that on public streets (especially when the target is moving.) i have no experience, but all the training suggests it's hard enough to hit someone in the chest during the incredibly stressful situation that is pointing a gun at someone and feeling the need to potentially pull the trigger... you take the easiest shot you have, and even then you still hope you hit the target...

Edited June 14, 2016 by tshile

[Jumbo]

Other things coming out of this tragedy that can make us stronger is found in stories already on how investigating this guy a few years ago was handled. So far the general dialogue is way less about "blaming" anyone for dropping any balls or scapegoating and is about leaning how to improve where possible and I find that very encouraging.

 

Along with that, there already some gun purchasing forms/processes being singled out as likely to be specifically modified in rational and relatively minor ways to be more effective. The shop owner where the shooter bought the guns said about 3 out of 10 people are declined. Given the 15 questions on that form, the idea that 30% of guys who actually go in to buy guns don't qualify is kinda scary, too. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

No, I'm not.

 

If you have to break down exactly how many bullets are being fired per minute and are correcting me from saying "hundreds per minute" down to a smaller, yet really high, double digit number, then you are missing the entire point of all of this.  Those weapons were made for the battlefield and not for some random Joe Schmo on the streets.

So you think pretty much all non-revolver pistols shouldn't be allowed in public? 

 

That was one of the main reasons for I pointed out the numbers.  The sad fact is that, given an enclosed area like a club, a person could do roughly the same amount of harm with a pistol or an AR.  That and to show how the "hundreds of rounds a minute"  that gets thrown around (not just you but the media also) isn't really accurate. 

 

I'm also really surprised more of these people don't go in with a shotgun and hand guns honestly.  A shotgun with #1 buck shot will clear a room quickly and effectively.  Then go around with a pistol or two afterwards.  Lets just hope the crazies don't figure that one out.

[Predicto]

Just to add to this, for information sake:

I know of at least one law enforcement agency where the qualification process is along the lines of:

3 magazines fully loaded (you're talking 10-15 bullets each. The model I'm aware of being used by one person holds 13th)

One loaded in the gun

Gun holstered

Target at 20 yards

You have a minute to draw and fire through all three magazines.

You are scored based on how all the bullets hit.

If you fail to correctly load your magazine and empty it, you're score reflects this.

Now the person I know can score perfect rounds doing this. That's 42 bullets, plus the 1 in the chamber when you begin. 43 bullets, from a standard semi automatic pistol, at 20 yards, in one minute. A test you have to pass to carry your gun.

I add it just because these conversations get into the functionality of guns and I think people have some incorrect notions of what is and isn't possible.

How deadly a gun is, when talking about number of bullets fired and accuracy within certain time periods, is in at least a big part a function of the person using it.

 

All of this is true.   Nevertheless, sometimes we draw legal lines that might seem arbitrary in one sense, but serve an important purpose.   For example, if your blood alcohol level is 0.079%, you are legally sober and may drive a vehicle.  If your blood alcohol level is 0.081, you are impaired, and may not drive a vehicle.  

 

I want to protect gun rights, but I don't see the societal need for private access to many types of guns.   In my view, a rifle and shotgun is all you need to protect your home, and hunt, and target shoot, and so forth.   You don't need a machine gun, and you don't need hand grenades, and so forth.  So a line can be drawn - we just need to figure out where that line should be.

 

 I do not accept the idea that the Constitution forbids limitations on particular types of guns, or bars mandatory gun registration and training requirements, or complete background checks, etc.   The Second Amendment is important, but no more important than the First or the Fourth and so on, all of which have substantial limitations on them.

 

The slippery slope argument always gets rolled out, but that same argument is just as valid for blood alcohol laws.  It's a concern, but not enough to bar action in this area, IMO.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'm unaware of target terminology, so bear with me here

 

It's a target with points based on how close to center you are. The traditional rings with point values assigned to them. The target is designed to mimic the torso of the 'average' person. Law enforcement (as far as I'm aware) are taught/trained to shoot for the chest, so their tests reflect this. It's not about bulls eyes, it's about being able to pump bullets with reasonable accuracy.

 

That is a pretty common target for that type of test.  And the bullseye on that type of target is only a couple of square inches.  That's pretty impressive to get a perfect score (43 of 43 bullseyes) @ 20 yards in less than a minute.  Also having the mental capacity to carry and the physical skill to hit a target reliably are two totally different things.  Though their scores that they are telling you about may involve a little "biggest fish ever but got away" scoring too.

Edited June 14, 2016 by TheGreatBuzz

[tshile]

All of this is true.   Nevertheless, sometimes we draw legal lines that might seem arbitrary in one sense, but serve an important purpose.   For example, if your blood alcohol level is 0.079%, you are legally sober and may drive a vehicle.  If your blood alcohol level is 0.081, you are impaired, and may not drive a vehicle.  

I'm in agreement with you. I don't see a need to have anything other than a revolver, pump shotgun, or bolt action rifle. I'm cool with limiting it to that.

 

I just wanted to say that in VA - .02 to .08 is up to the discretion of the officer, and .08 and above is an automatic arrest.

 

You can get a DUI in VA for driving at .02 if the officer determines you're unable to operate the vehicle (presumably by failing the field sobriety test.)

That is a pretty common target for that type of test.  And the bullseye on that type of target is only a couple of square inches.  That's pretty impressive to get a perfect score (43 of 43 bullseyes) @ 20 yards in less than a minute.  Also having the mental capacity to carry and the physical skill to hit a target reliably are two totally different things.  Though there scores that they are telling you about may involve a little "biggest fish ever but got away" scoring too.

 

I've seen them shoot. I have no reason to not believe them.

 

It may have been 10 yards, not 20... 20 sounds a bit far...

 

I also may have been a little loose with 'perfect score'. What I should have said is they qualified in the top category, which is a range. Say it's out of 250 points, and the top category was 240-250 points, that's the one they scored in.

 

One had a magazine fall out one time so he didn't score well that time

[TheGreatBuzz]

yea that sounds a little more reasonable.  10 yards isn't bad.  Hitting dead center at 20 yards isn't hard but it's the time limit that will get you.  Accurate follow up shots are 10x harder than the initial shot so if you don't have time to reset, that's where the real skill comes in.

Edited June 14, 2016 by TheGreatBuzz

[DogofWar1]

That is positive Jumbo.

 

I was wondering if this shooting might actually tip the needle towards some set of reforms, even if they are not huge changes.  This case does expose some of the solutions on both sides as being non-solutions.

 

Background check didn't get him, demerit to gun control side.

 

Multiple trained individuals with firearms (good guys with guns) didn't get him, demerit to NRA side.

 

Certainly, one could keep running towards the edge (go further than background checks, add more good guys with guns, etc.), but I was hopeful that a dispelling of some usual tropes might push people to examine solutions outside of them and possibly find some common ground.

 

I will say that I think the dispelling does more harm to the pro-NRA side, the "good guy with gun" argument extends as a central pillar through a number of possible NRA solutions (end gun free zones, allow civilians to carry, significant numbers of armed guards, etc.), while "universal background checks" is only one tool (usually a first step) in the gun control bucket, follow-ups like psych evals, waiting periods, etc., are less existentially tied to the success of background checks.

 

The form mentioned with 15 questions that 3 in 10 fail seems like a good starting point for compromise.

[@DCGoldPants]

 

 I do not accept the idea that the Constitution forbids limitations on particular types of guns, or bars mandatory gun registration and training requirements, or complete background checks, etc.   The Second Amendment is important, but no more important than the First or the Fourth and so on, all of which have substantial limitations on them.

 

From just last week.

 

David Petraeus, Mark Kelly launch gun control group

 

Retired U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, who has long resisted calls to run for political office, is teaming up with retired NASA astronaut Mark Kelly to create a new group urging greater gun control.

 

The two announced on Friday that they were launching Veterans Coalition for Common Sense to encourage elected leaders to "do more to prevent gun tragedies." The group will feature veterans from every branch of the military who are urging lawmakers to toughen gun laws, the organization said in a news release.

"As service members, each of us swore an oath to protect our Constitution and the homeland. Now we're asking our leaders to do more to protect our rights and save lives," said Kelly, the husband of former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and co-founder of Americans for Responsible Solutions, a group that advocates for tougher gun laws.

"Gabby and I are grateful to all of these incredible veterans and leaders who are using their voice to call for commonsense change that makes our communities safer," he added. Petraeus isn't quoted in the release.

 

 

Maybe the way to beat the NRA is for a better and more responsible Org to take it's place. More from the link.

[tshile]

Another idea:
 

Force the vendors/makers of Tannerite to turn over their records of who purchased their product, put those people on a watch list and investigate.

[Larry]

And if given the option of being in the room with no good guy with a gun, vs being in a room with one, when some nut starts a shooting spree and you choose the former then... We'll, I don't know what to say. Good luck? Hope you find an exit?

.

Unfortunately those aren't the choices.

The choices aren't between "do we want what happened, or do we want more armed people in that club than the two that were already there?"

The choices are "do we want what happened, or do we want more good guys in the club AND a million George zimmermans in bars all over Florida?"

Good guys with a gun in a bar where there isn't a terrorist attack in progress happens a lot more often

[tshile]

Background check didn't get him, demerit to gun control side.

 

Multiple trained individuals with firearms (good guys with guns) didn't get him, demerit to NRA side.

 

I don't agree with either of these.

 

If anything the background checks that failed has introduced questions. And when you start realizing how much work the NRA has done to screw up the ability to track guns, and that our law enforcement agencies don't share information the way everyone else in our country assumes they do (no really, they don't, on anything, it's actually ****ing embarrassing how bad they are at this), and then you start to ask - what qualifies as a legitimate flag to restrict (or outright remove) someone's constitutional right (and more importantly, how do we do it being written off as racial profiling and 'being afraid of brown people').... i don't think it's easy to come away and say - the background check idea has failed, we should look at something else.

 

likewise - the idea of a good guy with a gun isn't that it's this perfect system that will always work. it's a basic idea that the police cannot be everywhere, all the time, and that some of us would like the ability to defend ourselves if we're in the situation instead of only have the options of hiding, running, or playing dead (or hoping you somehow get the ability to confront a nut that's caught you off guard with a gun, with... i don't know, a solo cup?) It's not intended to be (at least not by those of us that are nuts) a fool proof system.

 

None of this is ever going to be a fool proof system unless you ban guns and take them away from everyone. Then we'll have to deal with other weapons.  So if we agree we're not going to ban guns and take them away from everyone, we need to use a shotgun approach to this. Having failures of one system doesn't mean we should discount the system.

 

But we should definitely look at other ideas too. And, to that affect, ridicule the people (on both sides) that seem to be unable to do anything other than repeat the usual political hackery on the issue. I agree with you on that, and maybe that's more of what you were saying... now that i've rethought my wall-o-text...

Unfortunately those aren't the choices.

 

 

They were in the scenario we were talking about.

 

Well, they weren't choices to the people involved, but they were to PeterMP.

[justice98]

One of the things that I read a lot regarding guns is that if more people had guns, there would be less crime. To be honest, I've probably even said it before, so I'm not criticizing anyone for saying that.

However, over the last few days, I have thought more about it and while I am a very responsible person who take guns and gun safety extremely serious, I know people with guns that I just don't trust 100% with gun safety and/or judgement.

I can imagine being in a situation where IF I was carrying, what would it take to make me draw and/or fire. Obviously if I felt that my life was in immediate danger (or my son), clearly that's a no brainer, but judgement is a huge issue. I could see the Orlando situation being worse if more people had guns. Sure, maybe the shooter dies sooner and fewer people die, but that isn't a sure thing. Many more could have died by "friendly fire"

I'm with you on this.

I basically fall in the camp that every Tom, Richard, and Harry walking around packing in a public place would be beyond a terrible idea. I dont trust the marksmanship of the general public and especially not in a frantic panic situation.

[justice98]

From just last week.

Maybe the way to beat the NRA is for a better and more responsible Org to take it's place. More from the link.

I think it's simply to be more involved in the political process, and not just at election time. Stop electing people that will fall prey to the NRA. And dont allow them to do the NRA's bidding. The American people have way more power and influence over elected officials than they exercise. We're just lazy. And I'm as guilty as the next guy, ask me how many letters, emails, and phone calls I've directed toward an elected official. Energy directed in all the wrong places. That's probably 99% of people. We're all guilty. We'd rather complain on the internet than actually get our hands dirty.

[DogofWar1]

But we should definitely look at other ideas too. And, to that affect, ridicule the people (on both sides) that seem to be unable to do anything other than repeat the usual political hackery on the issue. I agree with you on that, and maybe that's more of what you were saying... now that i've rethought my wall-o-text...

 

Haha, more or less this.

 

I wasn't suggesting background checks couldn't potentially be improved and work, but one of the baseline legislative changes sought are usually universal background checks.  If that means universal implementation of the present system, it's still got holes.  I think it can definitely be improved, but unlike in some other cases, we cannot simply point to background checks as a potential solution, it has to be background checks+.

 

Similarly, there have been, and will be in the future, instances where a "good guy" stops a "bad guy."  But it is, as you say, not foolproof.

 

The problem with the latter though, I think, is that we can go too far.  I understand and appreciate people wanting a tool with which to defend themselves.  But once we've opened that right to the general public, well, we've opened it to the general public.  You are responsible, but nobody knows if the next guy is.  And the more people it's open to, the greater the likelihood of irresponsible use.

 

But that's a little separate from my original point, which was, yes, primarily, my hope from this is that it will spark discussion on solutions, with some humbling from both sides in recognizing that neither side is foolproof.  Yes, we play the odds on every action, realized and potential, so technically this individual case means little in the grand scheme of the debate, it's anecdotal no matter how raw, but the balanced nature of it and lack of a "gotcha!  If only [insert X] had happened" thing helps here, since it most certainly WILL shape policy debates to some extent.

[LeesburgSkinFan]

This guy sounds like he would also be terrified of nail guns and staplers:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201

 

"I’ve shot pistols before, but never something like an AR-15. Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection).

The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable."

[GoDeep81]

This guy sounds like he would also be terrified of nail guns and staplers:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201

 

"I’ve shot pistols before, but never something like an AR-15. Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection).

The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable."

 

I read the first pargraph in that thread and laughed.. The pistols he shot must of been bb guns.. An .223 AR barely kicks at all. Any decent hearing protection and the shots are dulled to the equal of hitting a nail with a hammer..

[Kosher Ham]

no responsible gun owner is going to be in a club at 2 AM with their gun. it's something that's not legal in many states

 

Very true. I know that here I can not carry if I am drinking. 

 

And the other places should seem fairly obvious. 

 

http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/19be6294-bfbf-4875-bbef-ac2ebb6f47b2/Concealed-Weapon-Reciprocity.aspx

[twa]

food for though

 

Would An Assault Weapon Ban Have Stopped The Terror Attack In Orlando?

Put bluntly, the Clinton “assault weapon” ban was a paper tiger that protected no one. the same holds true for the “assault weapon” bans so frequently and impotently proposed by President Obama or Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton.

So what can be done to prevent another terrorist attack like we saw in Orlando this morning, or a school massacre like we saw at Sandy Hook of Virginia Tech?

If I had a simple, one-size-fits-all solution I’d gladly share it. Unfortunately, all I can really tell you is that no weapon ban of any kind is going to stop mass killings by those individuals or groups motivated to carry out such barbaric attacks.

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/06/12/assault-weapon-ban-stopped-terror-attack-orlando/