Are universal background checks inevitable?

TurtleDude said:

and if you are forced to use it-chances are the alternative of not having it is far worse than pissing off anti gun store managers.

Click to expand...

See that's the choice we make that a lot of people, even pro-gun people, think we're arrogant about. It's not that we're cavalier and flaunting it in the business owner's face, it's that we have made the decision to risk criminal trespassing charges instead of facing death. I'll live through the trial. Hell, criminal trespassing doesn't even revoke your carry permit.

If the posted business is something like a gas station, sure, I'll just use a different gas station. But it's not like a gas station. The posted business is literally the only laundromat in 60 miles, the only bank I can pay my rent to, and the best mechanic (in both integrity and skill) I have found in the whole state. I can't just take my business elsewhere, and I'm not disarming over a policy likely required by their insurance anyway.

Wayne Jr said:

See that's the choice we make that a lot of people, even pro-gun people, think we're arrogant about. It's not that we're cavalier and flaunting it in the business owner's face, it's that we have made the decision to risk criminal trespassing charges instead of facing death. I'll live through the trial. Hell, criminal trespassing doesn't even revoke your carry permit.

Click to expand...

its only criminal trespassing if you refuse to leave after being told to

GDViking said:

In light of recent events and national polls is there any chance we will be able to avoid the knee jerk reaction of politicians to attack gun is owners rights, on both sides???

Click to expand...

Explain how universal background checks would have prevented either the Dayton or El Paso shooting? How is this anything but completely diverting the topic from what happened to something of no relevancy whatsoever?

TurtleDude said:

its only criminal trespassing if you refuse to leave after being told to

Click to expand...

In Texas, initially is it a Class C misdemeanor (you get a ticket the level of a traffic ticket and it's on your record.) If the person refuses when told to leave, it becomes a felony. That's what the statute says.

Superfly said:

Yeah because all those people with guns in the Walmart yesterday really helped. Is that the argument? Arm everybody and then nobody will do anything wrong because they will be afraid to? Well that worked out like gang busters, didn’t it? It’s Texas. EVERYBODY is armed in Texas, yet no one stepped up.

Shocker, that.

Click to expand...

It's not their obligation to risk their lives....like you point out...almost all could have been armed. Great, let them defend themselves. I'm escaping if I can, and only shooting as a last resort. Handguns are not very effective against the greater range and firepower of rifles.

joko104 said:

In Texas, initially is it a Class C misdemeanor (you get a ticket the level of a traffic ticket and it's on your record.) If the person refuses when told to leave, it becomes a felony. That's what the statute says.

Click to expand...

in ohio you have to refuse to leave. It is tough to prove someone saw the sign but once they are told they cannot deny lack of knowledge.

GDViking said:

I'm relatively sure that Walmarts nationwide have a no weapons policy.

Wisconsin is both and open carry and CC state and all our Walmarts have no weapons signs on the doors...

Click to expand...

Nope...Walmarts in most states are very gun-friendly. So much so that when cc'ers get their permit, they are encouraged to do a "Wally walk" as it's a good place to get comfortable with carrying in public.

I did, but that's because there was one right across the street from the shop where I had my 9mm delivered and I needed cheap ammo.

joko104 said:

Explain how universal background checks would have prevented either the Dayton or El Paso shooting? How is this anything but completely diverting the topic from what happened to something of no relevancy whatsoever?

Click to expand...

Don't you remember all the bannerrhoids in 2012 and 2013 who claimed that Sandy Hook proved why background checks and waiting periods and registration was needed.

Phys251 said:

Two mass shootings in two days. Both in gun-friendly states.

Where were all the good guys with guns?

Click to expand...

It's not their obligation to risk their lives....like you point out...almost all could have been armed. Great, let them defend themselves. I'm escaping if I can, and only shooting as a last resort. Handguns are not very effective against the greater range and firepower of rifles.

Not to mention that if you shoot an innocent bystander by accident, there still may be legal consequences...law-abiding people have to be responsible, take aim, take time...attackers dont care and have an advantage.

chuckiechan said:

What part of “concealed weapon” is confusing to people? If the sign says “no firearms” you ignore it because they cant see your pistol because it’s concealed. Its not the courthouse. If they spot it, all they can do is ask you to leave. You say, “oh, sorry. I didn’t notice the sign”. P

Click to expand...

That's in some states, like mine.

In others it is a crime. I think they have to have a specific sign with the RC code on it, and placed in specific places.

Lursa said:

It's not their obligation to risk their lives....like you point out...almost all could have been armed. Great, let them defend themselves. I'm escaping if I can, and only shooting as a last resort. Handguns are not very effective against the greater range and firepower of rifles.

Not to mention that if you shoot an innocent bystander by accident, there still may be legal consequences...law-abiding people have to be responsible, take aim, take time...attackers dont care and have an advantage.

Click to expand...

If I only have my snubbi with me then I'm not taking on someone with a rifle. I'm getting the f* outa there.

Lursa said:

It's not their obligation to risk their lives....like you point out...almost all could have been armed. Great, let them defend themselves. I'm escaping if I can, and only shooting as a last resort. Handguns are not very effective against the greater range and firepower of rifles.

Click to expand...

Nor does the law favor doing so. Unfortunately, running can get a person shot in the back. Generally it is wiser to shelter and hit the floor - then attempting to flee or shooting.

Whether I would shoot or not is circumstantial. If my children or other loved ones are with me, my #1 duty is to them - not others. I also have a duty to try to stay alive for them.

However, circumstantially I would shoot - even certain I have lesser fire power. There is a very good chance I have the element of surprise - and hiding or fleeing may not be an option. I don't need equal firepower - only sufficient firepower. He could have a 50 caliber - but if I can put rounds into his chest and head it doesn't matter. I wouldn't be standing in the open as an easy target.

People RUN to gunfire - when they really should "hit the dirt." There is an old saying that American infantry didn't walk, run or march to Germany in WW2. They crawled to Germany. :lol:

That would have a lot to do with the range and whether the shooter appears to have body armor as my CCW would not penetrate it and does not have enough impact against body armor to have effect. Then again once someone appears to be shooting at him just by gun shots, the shooter will shift from the killing mode to a surviving mode nearly always.

joko104 said:

Nor does the law favor doing so. Unfortunately, running can get a person shot in the back. Generally it is wiser to shelter and hit the floor - then attempting to flee or shooting.

Whether I would shoot or not is circumstantial. If my children or other loved ones are with me, my #1 duty is to them - not others. I also have a duty to try to stay alive for them.

However, circumstantially I would shoot - even certain I have lesser fire power. There is a very good chance I have the element of surprise - and hiding or fleeing may not be an option. I don't need equal firepower - only sufficient firepower. He could have a 50 caliber - but if I can put rounds into his chest and head it doesn't matter. I wouldn't be standing in the open as an easy target.

People RUN to gunfire - when they really should "hit the dirt." There is an old saying that American infantry didn't walk, run or march to Germany in WW2. They crawled to Germany. :lol:

That would have a lot to do with the range and whether the shooter appears to have body armor as my CCW would not penetrate it and does not have enough impact against body armor to have effect. Then again once someone appears to be shooting at him just by gun shots, the shooter will shift from the killing mode to a surviving mode nearly always.

Click to expand...

I may or may not have a 'friend' who smuggled a few hundred S.L.A.P. rounds in 5.56 back from Afghanistan....

I am very familiar with how people can react in a panic or terror situation - suddenly on surprise - and knowing it's coming. No one knows how they really will react until it happens. Will it be frozen with fear? Lost in confusion? Desperate to flee? Desperate to hide? An attack instinct?

In addition, each situation is so unique there is no universal correct response. The person who is the predator may have the initial element of surprise - and that is a huge one. At first, everyone is "prey." But such predators tend to see themselves ONLY in a predator role - not also as prey. After the initial surprise in a mass shooting (unless at great distance and it unknown where as in the Vegas shooting), the predator is highly vulnerable. He can not see 360 degrees around himself. He does not know where an attack - particularly by a counter gunman - may come from. Nor is it entirely a vertical situation (why you hit the ground). Shooting a lot of people standing and running is easy. A lot of people on the ground scrambling for cover isn't. Simple geometry.

It isn't just hit the ground OR hide OR flee OR attack and fight. The situation and tactics can shift between those across the time line. What is clear is to try not to be the victim the prey/shooter wants and needs everyone to be.

Once someone(s) is counter attacking physically and particularly by gunfire, the predator now has also become "prey" - and unless highly trained also does not know how he will react to being shot at or attacked. Will he stay on the offense to shift to defense? Will he fight? Flee? Often the predator does not see himself also as potentially the prey - another vulnerability.

IF a person truly is trapped and it inevitable the predator will get you unless you act, then you MUST shift into a predator role yourself as it is your only chance. Nor is it ONLY about weapons. Plus usually a person is surrounded by potential weapons.

Remember, firearms trace all the way back to what? Throwing rocks. Those were the first projectile weapons. A gun is - fundamentally - a rock thrower. It isn't only knives that cut. How many things are also a club? It isn't only spears that do what a spear does. Fire is potentially a weapon, a diversion, a defense and a hiding place (smoke). Ordinary chemicals can be a weapon (for example, blinding). There is a lot of psychology potential to use tactically in some instances. But I don't want to make this message too long or too personal-experiences.

However, in nearly all situations, if you hear gunfire you should drop flat to the ground - and few people make that initial response. First it is to try to figure out what is going on - and then to desperately try to flee it - and hiding if they can't flee.

MovingPictures said:

Nah ah, doll. Not like I have.

I've been to some places I can't un-remember and I have seen some ****.

You go to some of the white trash areas, you'll see stuff that's insane. Like one time I was cutting through an area of Dallas county called Seagoville on a job. Long story short: my buddy and I saw a dude with no shirt being chased by his girlfriend, who was wearing nothing but her panties and a towel on her head, and was wielding a ... vacuum cleaner. She didn't weigh but maybe 90-100 pounds, but she was fierce.

He was pleading with her to calm down, but she was just beating the hell out of his car, with her tits just flopping away, as he was trying to hide behind the car.

That was much better than 'Once Upon A Time In Hollywood'.

Yes, that story is true.

Click to expand...

:lol:

Thanks, I needed a laugh!

Wayne Jr said:

I may or may not have a 'friend' who smuggled a few hundred S.L.A.P. rounds in 5.56 back from Afghanistan....

Click to expand...

Most shooters with body armor only have upper chest/back body armor. "Center chest" isn't always the correct target, particularly if your weapon is a handgun. 5.56 will cut thru 99+% of body armor civilians buy. Hit someone in the pelvis with a 5.56 and that person won't be doing any more shooting. I doubt ANY mass shooter ever had a helmet that would stop a 5.56. It question is a small CCW handgun against an AR15 style rifle. Not AR versus AR.

Once again, here is another example of why I HIGHLY recommend having a Crimson Trace instant-on grip. In a surprise panic active situation with a moving shooter and the person moving too, I doubt 1% of people could hit the shooter in a significant way with iron sights on their CCW 9mm except for luck. IF you know the drop, accuracy per range and lethal range of your CCW, that stat dramatically goes up. For example, my pocket .380s and .38 special stub nose revolvers are definitely good to 50 feet. Beyond that it starts getting iffy fast with distance. And with those 2 type CCWs you better be putting in well placed hits - not just hitting the shooter somewhere on his body.

I will say that in a situation such as a WalMart or school where the shooter is hunting hiding people, the shooter would not be thinking anyone might be trying to get in closer to him.

joko104 said:

Most shooters with body armor only have upper chest/back body armor. "Center chest" isn't always the correct target, particularly if your weapon is a handgun. 5.56 will cut thru 99+% of body armor civilians buy. Hit someone in the pelvis with a 5.56 and that person won't be doing any more shooting. I doubt ANY mass shooter ever had a helmet that would stop a 5.56. It question is a small CCW handgun against an AR15 style rifle. Not AR versus AR.

Once again, here is another example of why I HIGHLY recommend having a Crimson Trace instant-on grip. In a surprise panic active situation with a moving shooter and the person moving too, I doubt 1% of people could hit the shooter in a significant way with iron sights on their CCW 9mm except for luck. IF you know the drop, accuracy per range and lethal range of your CCW, that stat dramatically goes up. For example, my pocket .380s and .38 special stub nose revolvers are definitely good to 50 feet. Beyond that it starts getting iffy fast with distance. And with those 2 type CCWs you better be putting in well placed hits - not just hitting the shooter somewhere on his body.

I will say that in a situation such as a WalMart or school where the shooter is hunting hiding people, the shooter would not be thinking anyone might be trying to get in closer to him.

Click to expand...

The Army turned me on to the green laser. Sights are great for shooting at paper targets that don't move or shoot back, but in the real world you're going to focus on the target and forget what sights even are. Put the dot on the threat and pull the trigger until the threat stops. Easy.

MovingPictures said:

Nah ah, doll. Not like I have.

I've been to some places I can't un-remember and I have seen some ****.

You go to some of the white trash areas, you'll see stuff that's insane. Like one time I was cutting through an area of Dallas county called Seagoville on a job. Long story short: my buddy and I saw a dude with no shirt being chased by his girlfriend, who was wearing nothing but her panties and a towel on her head, and was wielding a ... vacuum cleaner. She didn't weigh but maybe 90-100 pounds, but she was fierce.

He was pleading with her to calm down, but she was just beating the hell out of his car, with her tits just flopping away, as he was trying to hide behind the car.

That was much better than 'Once Upon A Time In Hollywood'.

Yes, that story is true.

Click to expand...

"White trash" adds what other than white-guilt racism?

Would it be fine if I told stories about crazy things blacks did I saw in what some call "n*ggertown" - ot even just in a "Chicago black ghetto," for which apparently that they were black was the necessary premise to make the point and for it to be humorous. I could tell a lot of such stories that are true.

One of the annoying things about being around a collection of cops is they will incessantly tell stories like that - in a contest of who can tell the best story about ignorant stupid people. Hearing it gets old, fast.

Here's mine, without the racist element, that I was told by a patrol officer...

Domestic disturbance call. Officer shows up to a 2 story apartment complex - a square that surrounded a courtyard. A man in the courtyard was loudly but calmly calling out a woman's name up to a second story walkway and an apartment upstairs, saying she needs to to come home.
Another man was at the railing above, screamingly raging that she wasn't coming down, that she wants him. But the man in the courtyard ignored him - and just kept loudly but calmly calling out the woman's name, saying it was time for her to come home.
A woman came out the door, only wrapped in a sheet. The man upstairs boomed at her to go back inside - the officer now standing there trying to figure out the situation - with both men ignoring him.
The man on the balcony next was screaming "I f+cked your wife every way a woman can be f*ucked! Best damn f*uck I ever had too!"
The man downstairs did respond to that simply with "Now you know why I want her back."
The woman came down and the 2 calmly left together, the man upstairs furiously screaming at her to come back.

As the saying goes, it takes all kinds. The officer never said what their race was. Doesn't seem to matter.

Many Democrats on the forum are FIXED on race thru racist glasses in their messages. Your's is one of those. No, it isn't only Democrats who do that. But it seems many Democrats think it is fine to be racist against whites - but will scream racism if race is identified for a non-white.

Superfly said:

Yeah because all those people with guns in the Walmart yesterday really helped. Is that the argument? Arm everybody and then nobody will do anything wrong because they will be afraid to? Well that worked out like gang busters, didn’t it? It’s Texas. EVERYBODY is armed in Texas, yet no one stepped up.

Shocker, that.

Click to expand...

It’s Texas. EVERYBODY is armed in Texas,

Click to expand...

Except for the Lib controlled regions of Texas like El Paso(wink)

Wayne Jr said:

The Army turned me on to the green laser. Sights are great for shooting at paper targets that don't move or shoot back, but in the real world you're going to focus on the target and forget what sights even are. Put the dot on the threat and pull the trigger until the threat stops. Easy.

Click to expand...

Green is for daytime, red for night IF visibility is what most matters - but if you don't want your laser as visible, then stick with green. Green is more easily seen in the daytime, red at night. But in combat, the enemy sees your red laser easier too. My holographic sights give me the choice of green or red since they are not visible except in the scope.

A Marine squad leader who was in Afghanistan said they did most their hunting the enemy at night because they had night vision and the enemy didn't. He also said they could use the night vision - that sends out a green light - as a way to signal each other if splitting up for cross fire or to get behind them - as they could see the green light with their night vision and the enemy couldn't - like small signal lamps and a simplistic form of Morris code by how they could flash the light by blocking it with their hands.

Hitting a target if you have a laser is easy and instinctive. Iron sights are neither easy or instinctive.

The value of a holographic sight over a red dot is you can keep both eyes open with a holographic scope - seeing both your scope and the target at the same time - but this is vastly inferior to a laser UNTIL the lighting or distance is wrong - or you don't want to give yourself away with a laser. In addition, you can't use iron sights in the dark such at home at night with the lights off.

ALL CCW handguns should have an instant-in grip activated laser - not one you have to turn on. The power of the gun you have is irrelevant if you can't hit the target.

Superfly said:

Yeah because all those people with guns in the Walmart yesterday really helped. Is that the argument? Arm everybody and then nobody will do anything wrong because they will be afraid to? Well that worked out like gang busters, didn’t it? It’s Texas. EVERYBODY is armed in Texas, yet no one stepped up.

Shocker, that.

Click to expand...

There are too many things wrong with that message to name them all.

While self defense laws are strong, the law is very prejudice against protecting anyone but yourself. I doubt many in a Walmart had a gun, and for the size of a WalMart most probably didn't have a clue what was happening as people don't run TOWARDS gunfire.

Here is the REAL question, since you claim so many had guns. How many were shot? 45 or something like that? Of those who were shot, how many had a gun? I'm trying to remember any mass shooting when it close like that where any of the victims were reported as having a gun - or shooting at the shooter but getting killed themselves instead. Shooters have been stopped by someone with a gun. Has anyone trying to do so ever been instead killed by the shooter?

Of all the victims of mass shootings where the shooter was of known location and with CCW range, I know of NONE where the victim was armed or had been killed while trying to shoot the shooter.

You don't carry, do you? Since you take no effort to be able to protect yourself or others, why should anyone come to your defense even if they could? Many CCWers have that view. If the other person won't carry a gun for protection - meaning not willing to shoot to protect anyone else, then why should anyone else shoot to protect that person? Why should any person do anything involve guns to protect you? What are you doing to potentially protect them?

In fact, if someone did shoot to protect you - something you oppose if you don't carry - protecting you would violate your own ethical code. The ethical thing to do in that situation could be to honor your ethics and let you be shot, even if they could stop it.

Wayne Jr said:

Oh my bad. Sorry. Could you link to the police statement then?

Click to expand...

Oh, I see. You tryna be funny.

Don’t quit your day job. My statement was clear. Not on me if you can’t decipher it.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Anyone running around saying there aren't many people carrying guns in El Paso is an idiot.
And, they haven't ever been to El Paso, and you can take that to the bank, because El Paso folks have tonz o'gunz just like everywhere else in Texas.

Even in Austin, the so called liberal capital of Texas, gun owners who carry are plentiful.
You can't turn around without bumping into someone who is armed.

Click to expand...

Agreed. These people are just trying to get away from the fact that this has happened yet again, this time their president was complicit. But hey - I’m sure the shooters were “very good people.”

Wayne Jr said:

Same here. I'm not concerned about business policies, I'm therefore whatever I'm there for. The only reason I conceal is to ignore business postings.

The only laundromat within 60 miles of me is a posted business. The bank I have to enter (no drive-through) in order to pay my rent is a posted business. The mechanic I use, best in the area imo, is a posted business. I carry in them all.

Click to expand...

Wooooo. Big man. Make you feel important?

Lursa said:

It's not their obligation to risk their lives....like you point out...almost all could have been armed. Great, let them defend themselves. I'm escaping if I can, and only shooting as a last resort. Handguns are not very effective against the greater range and firepower of rifles.

Click to expand...

That’s not the point. Social media is ablaze with pro 2A people saying, “If we just armed everybody, this wouldn’t be happening.” Clearly it would. If a shooter can do this in a TEXAS WALMART, of all places, then nobody is going to step up and risk their lives to take him out. It’s a stupid fallacy, and just another excuse to avoid the gun legislation discussion.