Recent Shooting and Discussion

[Lojo]

Absolutely, because I’m sure half the people in Walmart have the time and money to put a few hundred rounds downrange every week. They probably also all routinely take active shooter courses and are fully prepared to engage someone with a rifle. You are an idiot. Horsepower and “vacay” homes will never change that fact.

Most law enforcement agencies don’t put a couple hundred rounds down range every week. Maybe if your lapd swat, And most tactical units have extended response times because they are not always working. Most require qualifying and that may be as little as twice a year 27 rounds depending on the state. So putting high amounts of faith in the police is questionable at best when most incidents are over in seconds. And granny with a Glock throwing rounds back could change everything. We never will know.
You are responsible for your own protection, and for your own training. Repetitive training and experience to be fully prepared.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app

 

[WJCO]

Psychiatric background check requirement? You're not going to be able to catch these individuals without one.

Of course in theory, that's a GREAT suggestion. But then what bias of individual or Federal Department gets to oversee and act upon that testing? It's not unreasonable to think that tyranny could easily be implemented through that so that the results of the test make any political enemy of the state not allowed to purchase a gun. Orwellian shit. I mean fuck, you can't even carry toothpaste on a plane anymore when you go to visit your relatives.

 

[TrailHunter]

I think whoever wrote Trumps speech did a good job. I need to listen again... but what I heard while driving this morning seemed like sensible steps to take and it focused on the real issue.

 

[JAGS]

I think whoever wrote Trumps speech did a good job. I need to listen again... but what I heard while driving this morning seemed like sensible steps to take and it focused on the real issue.

I’ll wait for trumps real official statement on twitter in the coming days and weeks.

You are right though. The words he read were decent even if he needed to squint to read the teleprompter and never once went off script.

Not picking on you and honestly, I need to take a break from this thread for a while. These discussion are so much bigger and more important than a Jeep forum.

 

[TrailHunter]

I’ll wait for trumps real official statement on twitter in the coming days and weeks.

You are right though. The words he read were decent even if he needed to squint to read the teleprompter and never once went off script.

Not picking on you and honestly, I need to take a break from this thread for a while. These discussion are so much bigger and more important than a Jeep forum.

Lol... right.. twitter from the shitter. If that Dude could lay down a speech with some grace, I don’t think he would be hated as much as he is. He is painful to listen to.

I understand your frustration with this thread.... But I think its cool that we are talking about it. More people should.

 

[Sharkey]

Most law enforcement agencies don’t put a couple hundred rounds down range every week. Maybe if your lapd swat, And most tactical units have extended response times because they are not always working. Most require qualifying and that may be as little as twice a year 27 rounds depending on the state. So putting high amounts of faith in the police is questionable at best when most incidents are over in seconds. And granny with a Glock throwing rounds back could change everything. We never will know.
You are responsible for your own protection, and for your own training. Repetitive training and experience to be fully prepared.

Most law enforcement agencies have cadet programs that involve pretty substantial training over the course of many months. That training is not limited to just being proficient with a firearm.

When I obtained my CCW, the older woman next to me had never previously fired a weapon of any kind. She took her test with a semi-automatic .22, which in turn qualified her to carry pistols and revolvers in any caliber and/or configuration. She didn't know how to load it, to unload it, to deal with a round failure, work the safety...nothing. She was able to keep most of the rounds she fired in an 8" x 11" box from 7 yards away. She walked away with a completed CCW permit that day (all was left was the formality of the background check and the issuance of the actual permit) after a three hour class and passing a multiple choice test to which the answers were provided prior to taking the test. At one point during the class, when discussing the appropriate times to pull a firearm and engage a target, the teacher said to the entire class: "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6". Yep, I for sure feel safer knowing that older woman is out there walking the aisles of WalMart with a firearm.

 

[USMC Wrangler]

Psychiatric background check requirement? You're not going to be able to catch these individuals without one.

In Pa it's scary easy to get a carry permit: Go to the County Sheriffs office and apply. Fill out a questionnaire, wait for the background check, sit in front of the camera, smile and violia, half hour or less and you're licensed to carry in PA.
Zero training whatsoever. Not even a classroom course, let alone any gun handling training sessions. Comforting, eh?

Indiana was identical when I got my first CPL in 1992. Since I haven’t lived there in a long time I don’t know if’s still like that.

Of course in theory, that's a GREAT suggestion. But then what bias of individual or Federal Department gets to oversee and act upon that testing? It's not unreasonable to think that tyranny could easily be implemented through that so that the results of the test make any political enemy of the state not allowed to purchase a gun. Orwellian shit. I mean fuck, you can't even carry toothpaste on a plane anymore when you go to visit your relatives.

I am with you there. I guess what I’m saying is if there was real treatment in the mental health field beyond medicating the shit out of them, maybe, just maybe there would be an improvement. The two family members I spoke of earlier both said many of their patients began showing symptoms in childhood.

I also have a USMC buddy that is a sergeant on Dayton PD. I did speak with him yesterday. On several occasions over the years he has bitched about how hard it is to get a mental health eval on someone and then once they get approved, the troubled individual is regularly contacted again by LE, sometimes within hours, for similar problems. The flip side, he said, was they get medicated, do ok for awhile, go off the meds and lose their shit again.

Even though I’ve worked for the government for over 20 years, that doesn’t mean I trust it/them.

 

[jesse3638]

Most law enforcement agencies have cadet programs that involve pretty substantial training over the course of many months. That training is not limited to just being proficient with a firearm.

When I obtained my CCW, the older woman next to me had never previously fired a weapon of any kind. She took her test with a semi-automatic .22, which in turn qualified her to carry pistols and revolvers in any caliber and/or configuration. She didn't know how to load it, to unload it, to deal with a round failure, work the safety...nothing. She was able to keep most of the rounds she fired in an 8" x 11" box from 7 yards away. She walked away with a completed CCW permit that day (all was left was the formality of the background check and the issuance of the actual permit) after a three hour class and passing a multiple choice test to which the answers were provided prior to taking the test. At one point during the class, when discussing the appropriate times to pull a firearm and engage a target, the teacher said to the entire class: "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6". Yep, I for sure feel safer knowing that older woman is out there walking the aisles of WalMart with a firearm.

I immediately thought of this. All kidding aside that is pretty scary. I know CA's is pretty in depth and expensive.



Sent from my 2PYB2 using WAYALIFE mobile app

 

[wjtstudios]

Most law enforcement agencies have cadet programs that involve pretty substantial training over the course of many months. That training is not limited to just being proficient with a firearm.

When I obtained my CCW, the older woman next to me had never previously fired a weapon of any kind. She took her test with a semi-automatic .22, which in turn qualified her to carry pistols and revolvers in any caliber and/or configuration. She didn't know how to load it, to unload it, to deal with a round failure, work the safety...nothing. She was able to keep most of the rounds she fired in an 8" x 11" box from 7 yards away. She walked away with a completed CCW permit that day (all was left was the formality of the background check and the issuance of the actual permit) after a three hour class and passing a multiple choice test to which the answers were provided prior to taking the test. At one point during the class, when discussing the appropriate times to pull a firearm and engage a target, the teacher said to the entire class: "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6". Yep, I for sure feel safer knowing that older woman is out there walking the aisles of WalMart with a firearm.

Obtaining a CPL is a joke in Michigan as well. Same thing, short class where they tell you what to write on in the test and then take you to the range where you much get 6 shots on a 8X11 piece of paper at ten feet. Then you are good for 5 years, where you are supposed to take a refresher course prior to renewing, which I am sure no one does and have never asked for proof of the class.

I firmly believe, and I try to work with anyone that chooses to carry a gun everyday, that you need to be actively trained by a professional once a year and have a number of range days. Your are a danger to yourself and anyone around you if you don't. BUT I do believe a well trained carrying population is the only short term solution the this problem. The media only reports and glorifies the shootings, and minimally or never reports the hero's that stop similar situations. Long term, I am definitely in of more stringent background checks for ownership as the President has laid out. As much as psych evals would stop a lot of these, I don't see our country ever permitting those. As soon as you are deemed unfit to own a gun, that will open up a number of restrictions against individual which may include driving a vehicle, etc. Not that that may be a bad thing..

As far as our trained police force, they are horribly trained and they are the first ones that admit that. Their budgets have been cut severely and are lucky to have a solid training class every year. Most of the guys that I train with are police or SWAT spending their own hard earned money to better their skills to protect us. It's crazy and mind-blowing, but at least here in Michigan, it's mostly the case.

just my :twocents:

 

[WJCO]

I am definitely in of more stringent background checks for ownership as the President has laid out.

What did he lay out? I saw the statement he made, and I've looked at several articles but haven't seen a single one that lays out the details of these 'more stringent' background checks. That's what I was trying to get across earlier. What about background checks can be stricter yet more preventative? In other words, HOW will they be stricter..in what ways?

 

[nbunga]

View attachment 331891 I guess you can’t comprehend simple English Clutch.


Sent from my iPad using WAYALIFE mobile app

Obama era ATF approving them is a lot different than trying to say Obama himself made them legal

 

[wjtstudios]

What did he lay out? I saw the statement he made, and I've looked at several articles but haven't seen a single one that lays out the details of these 'more stringent' background checks. That's what I was trying to get across earlier. What about background checks can be stricter yet more preventative? In other words, HOW will they be stricter..in what ways?

I'm interested too on what that means. I was looking for more information this morning on it after getting caught back up from being out of touch all weekend. From my understanding, it is requiring all or most sales to go thru an FFL verses private or private sale. More or less the gun show loop hole which required no background check. And beyond that, actually creating a database that actually works that you can run the purchaser past to see if there are any red flags. But that's just based off what the media is reporting so who knows...

 

[jesse3638]

Not having owned or purchased a gun (not sure I should openly admit this on the internet..haha) I was curious as to the process in CA and San Bernardino County so I looked it up. I'll attach the link to where I found this information but listed the gist of what I'd have to go through if I wanted a gun. As to what Sharkey mentioned I also talked to my co-worker about his and looked up the San Bernardino County Process and included this as well. I also included the FAQ section regarding "Assault Weapons" and .50 BMG's. That gets really confusing.


CA Gun Purchase Process

1. Be 21 years old unless falling into the exempted category.
2. Ensure gun ownership eligibility (This will be verified through a background check)
3. Show proof of CA residency (Provide a handgun safety certificate for purchase of a handgun)
4. Wait 10 days to pick up any gun, but no more than 30 days (I can purchase 1 handgun every 30 days, no limit on rifles/shotguns).
5. As of July 1, 2019 an "Eligibility" check must be conducted in order to purchase ammo. There are no caliber or quantity restrictions.
a. If I do not possess a CA issued REAL ID (license states "Federal limits apply") I must provide additional proof of residency.


San Bernardino CCW

1. Reside in CA-San Bernardino County and fill out online application.
a. If I resided in a county of 200,000 or less I could be issued a permit to open carry a loaded gun withing that county only.
2. Call and set up an interview.
3. Fill out all required forms and bring them and required documents to the interview. (See attached in CCW Instructions for the list)
a. The CCW allows for up to 3 different guns which may be carried. They are limited to .25 to .45 caliber weapons and no rifles, shot guns, or .22 caliber hand guns. Guns can only be added or removed
at my renewal time.
4. If all is approved I'll be contacted to schedule my mandatory 8-hour (4-hour for renewal) firearms safety course.
a. I must qualify with all guns I'd like listed on my CCW
5. Once issued it must be renewed every 2 years.
6. Total cost for initial CCW $387 and may take a couple months.

CA Gun FAQ's https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#5
CA Ammo FAQ's https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/apfaqs#4
San Bernardino County CCW FAQ's http://wp.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/ccw-faq/
CCW Initial Instructions http://wp.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/ccw-initial-instructions.pdf
CA-San Bernardino County CCW Application https://sbcsdccw.azurewebsites.us/pre_application.asp
Assault Weapon/.50 BMG FAQ's https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs#14


Not being a gun enthusiast or owner and because it's what I'm used to I do not feel it's that terrible. I can also see how others would disagree as well. That'w why it's so difficult to come to a one size fits all compromise. If any one with more experience can chime in on this please do as I did find this on the internet so it's all true....:crazyeyes:

One common thing with everything listed above though is that if I'm planning on inflicting mass casualties I don't have to pay attention to anything I've listed above. I will acquire guns and weapons by any means possible illegal or not and not give 2 shits about the law.

 

[jesse3638]

I'm interested too on what that means. I was looking for more information this morning on it after getting caught back up from being out of touch all weekend. From my understanding, it is requiring all or most sales to go thru an FFL verses private or private sale. More or less the gun show loop hole which required no background check. And beyond that, actually creating a database that actually works that you can run the purchaser past to see if there are any red flags. But that's just based off what the media is reporting so who knows...

Through my recent research CA has required this process for private party sales. They must be conducted through a FFL gun dealer.

 

[wjtstudios]

Through my recent research CA has required this process for private party sales. They must be conducted through a FFL gun dealer.

That varies state to state. California is more strict than most


2015 JKUR AEV JK350
1985 CJ8 Scrambler

 

[jesse3638]

That varies state to state. California is more strict than most


2015 JKUR AEV JK350
1985 CJ8 Scrambler

Yeah that's what I realized in the several hours of research I went through. Sounds like basically everything CA already does is what people are calling for to become federal requirements. There was even a part I read that stated if you had been on a hold for mental illness or health you are not allowed to lawfully possess a fire arm in CA. I'm not sure if that is looked for in the "Background" check or it's up to the applicant to disclose though. I'd be here all day trying to decipher CA law. So any new gun laws would probably have very little affect on those legally possessing a fire arm currently. The main conclusion I came to was that if I wanted to CCW a .40 it would cost me about $1000 (including the cost of the gun) right now...haha. Thats's 2/3's of the cost of the 5 37's I just bought with DT certs. I'll get far more enjoyment out of those than I will carrying something jabbing me in the hip that I most likely will never need to pull. They can also carry me and my family away from a scenario I don't want to be in pretty quickly and provide me with more options for get away. In a pinch they could render an adversary immobile as well. I saw what my 35's did to the deer at 55mph...:crazyeyes:

 

[TLife]

Of course in theory, that's a GREAT suggestion. But then what bias of individual or Federal Department gets to oversee and act upon that testing? It's not unreasonable to think that tyranny could easily be implemented through that so that the results of the test make any political enemy of the state not allowed to purchase a gun. Orwellian shit. I mean fuck, you can't even carry toothpaste on a plane anymore when you go to visit your relatives.

What is this fear based on? Government conspiracy (for lack of a better term) is genuinely not something I live my life worrying about. I figure if I keep living inside the law the government will keep taking my money and leave me alone. I’m honestly trying to figure out if I’m naive or if other people have an unfounded distrust of the government. I suppose like most things, the truth must be somewhere in the middle.

Side note: I’m also not concerned that someone is listening through my Amazon Alexa, because honestly nobody cares what my wife and I are cooking for dinner.

Hypothetically if mental health screening were to become a prerequisite to gun ownership the logistics would be interesting. Would it just take an “all clear” note from a doctor of your choosing? If that’s the case I imagine in most instances it would become a formality including a 5 minute sit down where the doctor asks if you’re suicidal or homicidal. Maybe even something as simple as that occasionally prevents someone who shouldn’t own a gun from having one?

Edited for clarity.

 

[WJCO]

What is this fear based on? Government conspiracy (for lack of a better term) is genuinely not something I live my life worrying about. I figure if I keep living inside the law the government will keep taking my money and leave me alone.

You're right. I may be over-thinking it.

 

[notnalc68]

I'm interested too on what that means. I was looking for more information this morning on it after getting caught back up from being out of touch all weekend. From my understanding, it is requiring all or most sales to go thru an FFL verses private or private sale. More or less the gun show loop hole which required no background check. And beyond that, actually creating a database that actually works that you can run the purchaser past to see if there are any red flags. But that's just based off what the media is reporting so who knows...

I bought a gun at a gun show, and had a Federal background check conducted. At the ones I’ve been to, every booth must conduct that. I’ve seen a man refused a sale because of it.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app

 

[TLife]

tyranny could easily be implemented through that so that the results of the test make any political enemy of the state not allowed to purchase a gun.

Additionally, don’t you think the mechanism for this already exists with background checks? In this scenario couldn’t an “enemy of the state” be denied a the purchase of a gun by being flagged on a federal background check? I’m admittedly ignorant to the background check process, but I’ve never heard of anything like that happening.