Hooknswoop

I can see the argument, but they are not constitutionally protected rights. There is a difference. I'm still considering your suggestion, carry an unloaded pistol and use the barrel to deflect incoming rounds. I would probably need training to make that work. Going to be a steep learning curve, I hope. Derek V

If someone is shooting at you, waiting for the police to show up with their guns to save you has been demonstrated to be a very poor plan. Derek V

Do expect to need your cypress? I expect not. But you still have it, just in case. You hope you never need it, but if you do need it, it could save your life. You have made the choice that it is a reasonable precaution against unforeseen events. The same argument could be made for a concealed firearm. Your plan is to call the police, the people with guns. If someone shoots at you in your vehicle, that is your only option. A firearm may not do you any good in your situation, but I would rather have a firearm than. 911 on the phone if I am ever in that situation. I also have a fire extinguisher in my truck. I hope I never need it and it may not be enough to stop my vehicle, or someone else's, from burning to the ground. But if my truck was on fire, I would prefer to have a chance vs. standing there watching it burn waiting with 911 for the fire truck to get there. I don't drive around scared that my truck might burst into flames at any second any more than I go through my day scared someone will shoot at me. I consider either of those to be very unlikely to ever happen. About as likely as needing my Cypress. A firearm, a Cypress, a fire extinguisher, all reasonable precautions I think. I never drove an M1-A1. I did get to drive a Bradely once. While you are correct, very secure against small arms fire, they go beyond reasonable precaution for sure. Derek V

Right. You call people with guns to handle the situation. I would do the same thing. Only difference is if I was the one being shot at, I would have a fighting chance to defend myself and not just hope people with guns got there in time. Derek V

Very reasonable, smart, and I would imagine, popular response. Why would you call 911? Derek V

If you witnessed someone shooting from their car at another car, what would you do? Derek V

I agree. This is where we can get the most return on investment. Not just in a reduction in mass shootings, but a healthier population. There is no downside, unless cost is considered a downside. We are the point of diminishing returns for gun laws. There is a bit of room for improvement, but it will have limited impact. For example, ensuring states update the NCIS system in a timely manner with names of people that should not pass the background check. I learned early on; http://www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/headless.asp Gregory was in my unit (P-Troop, 4/11th ACR) and the phone booth was 30-feet from my barracks room. If someone does not care about consequences anymore, laws are irrelevant. All the laws do is assign a penalty, if you are caught, to an action. If someone no longer cares about the penalty for their actions, they are very dangerous. I'm OK with higher (and universal) standards for Concealed Carry Licenses, such as demonstration of skills, as long as the cost is kept down. Cost should not be a barrier to entry for Concealed Carry. This won't have much, if any, affect on mass shootings. Derek V

I have seen the plastic inserts slide through the hole in the channel on the rear riser for them and through the white 3-ring locking loop. That would have prevented a cutaway. UPT caps their inserts so that if they are allowed to slide out of the housings for any reason, the cutaway cable prevent them from sliding down through the white locking loop. Derek V

"wo Colorado lawmakers, Senate President John Morse and Senator Angela Giron, were recalled based on their support of the high capacity magazine ban. And the ban became a source of friction between Hickenlooper and most Colorado sheriffs who vehemently opposed the law saying it was unenforceable. And after all that, high capacity magazines were still relatively easy for an undercover CBS4 producer to purchase. At a Douglas County gun store, a salesman said many stores sell 30 round magazines with minor modifications so they comply with the 15 round legal limit." http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/10/30/many-circumventing-colorado-high-capacity-magazine-ban/ Another example. A law based on emotion. Derek V

What is the goal of the law (universal background checks in Colorado)? How do measure of the law is achieving that goal? Is the law achieving the set goal? Are people that are selling guns without a background check being caught and prosecuted? Or was this law an emotional response and is actually doing nothing? Derek V

Ok. The police have a name. From a criminal. Now what? They have to prove that the name given to them, by a criminal, sold the firearm without a background check. Good luck with that. The law is un-enforceable. Derek V

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/04/03/as-lead-sponsor-in-house-on-gun-legislation-rep-diana-degette-appears-to-not-understand-how-they-work/93506/ Derek V

How would it be enforced? How can the police prove the gun was sold without a background check? Remember, it they would have to prove it was sold without a background check and that it was sold after the law went into effect. "It was stolen" "I sold it before the law went into effect" "I have never owned that gun". Gun stores (in CO, I don't know about the rest of the country) are only required to keep records for 5 years. Any gun you have owned for more than 5 years no longer has any record in the gun store where you bought it identifying the owner. This brings up another point. Laws being passed by politicians that don't understand them. A great example of this is the magazine limit. One politician, since recalled (first recall in CO's history), thought that magazines were only able to be used once. She thought that they 30-round magazines would be used up quickly and then no more 30-round magazines. Derek V

How so what? Derek V

We have that law here in Colorado now. It doesn't work. It is in-enforceable. Derek V

I can respect that position and cannot argue the logic. Derek V

You answered, thank you, and I said I would as well. My plan; 1. Find cover- I need to survive in order to be able to do anything. The Army was big on this one. 2. Asses the situation- How many shooters? Where are they. Cover between them and me? Where can I move? Where are other people? 3. If I can get a clean shot, take it. 4. Call 911- That brings more people with more guns. #4 is the biggest point I am trying to make with this question. I ask people that are anti-gun what they would do. They usually reply, "Call the police." I ask, "Why?". They always respond, "They have guns." Then I get quiet and watch as their facial expression changes as they slowly realize what they just said. Thank you for your honest answer. Derek V

I have a question for you. And in the interest of fairness, I'll answer it, honestly and truthfully as I can, if you will. How would you react if you were witness to a shooting like in Oregon, Aurora, etc? I understand we can't get into the minutia like "Is there a planter box or wall to hide behind?" Just, what would you do? I'll clarify what I mean a bit more. What would I do in a survival situation? Not enough detail in the question to get into details, so my basic plan would be; Deal with immediate dangers to myself and others. If possible, contact emergency personnel. Shelter, water, fire. Etc. Again, in the interest of an actual conversation, my follow-up question is going to be "why?". I'm not trying to trick anyone or play any games. I am trying to move the conversation forward. Derek V

OK, deal. Derek V

Agreed. This is a very important point a lot of people do not understand. Derek V

"Re: [tkhayes] Another mass shooting... " I thought we were talking about mass killings. I am not trying to twist anything, change the subject, or pretend nothing can be done about it. I keep asking what can be done about it. So far no one has presented a solution that will make a real difference without removing the freedom to own firearms. How can you stop someone that owns a firearm, legally purchased, would pass any of the ideas you have presented, goes crazy and starts shooting? There is now law, no background check, no training that can prevent someone form losing it. There is a problem. In the grand scheme of things, mass killings are a very small problem without any easy answers for further reducing it. Colorado passed the universal background check law and magazine limit laws. What impact have they had? Derek V

A society should not create laws based on emotion. Laws should be based on facts. An example is anyone passing you on the freeway is a reckless jerk and anyone slower than you is driving too slow, creating a traffic hazard for others. This is emotion based, not fact based. Are you saying emotional responses to situations are OK? Emotions justify the response? If someone cuts me off in traffic, I can run them off the road or shoot them because I am pissed off? Of course not. Emotions do not justify the response. Look at mass killings objectively. How big is the issue? What measures could be put in place to reduce them? How much would those measures reduce mass killings vs. how much of a burden on society would be? We could reduce traffic fatalities to almost zero overnight by reducing the speed limit to 20 mph nationwide. This would be too much of a burden to society so we don't do it. It is a trade off. Derek V

What are their solutions? Agreed. How many of these would actually make a difference? If someone has an idea that would make a difference without limiting freedoms or being burdensome, I'm all for it. I'm not in the "We can do nothing" camp, I don't think it is really a huge problem. I don't think there are any easy answers to reduce mass killings. Derek V

Do you have a non-emotional solution you would like to pitch? Derek V

Agreed. What would the money be spent on? What laws would be passed? The recent laws passed here in Colorado are worthless, even thought politicians said they would make a difference. They were wrong (or lied). I keep asking what laws would be passed that would actually make a difference without taking away freedom? I keep getting silence for the answer. I have also seen speed limits go up. I remember when it was 55 mph maximum, nation wide. I recently drove on a road in Texas with an 85 mph speed limit. The traffic lights and walkways are not taking away freedoms. Tough drunk driving laws are not taking away freedoms. They make sense. That is why there isn't an opposition to them. I am still waiting for reasonable gun law that does't take away freedom and makes sense. Anyone????? Want to make a difference in US traffic fatalities?- The German driving license can be obtained after finishing driving school and passing a two-stage test, the theory test and road test. Before being allowed to take these tests an eye-exam must have been performed and a first-aid course (usually lasts 8 hours) completed. Driver's education usually takes place in legally authorized and mostly privately owned for profit driving schools. The driving school handles all the necessary paperwork for the students, such as applying for a license, registering for tests etc. The theoretical part of the education comprises lessons at the driving school, held by legally authorized driving instructors, typically in the evening. The content and number of the lessons is set by law and depending on the type of license the student wishes to acquire a different number of lessons has to be attended. Remarkably enough, a student does not have to attend different lessons, they could theoretically attend the same lesson several times to meet the criteria. Lessons are divided into general knowledge about road rules that anyone studying for any license might attend and specialized lessons for certain types of vehicles. To prepare for the written theory test students usually obtain a study package from the driving school which can consist of software programs, textbooks and sample exam papers. Schools usually take responsibility for their students' success and thus keep track of class attendance and hand out sample exams for practicing. The theory test is a multiple-choice test consisting of randomized questions from a published catalog. Thus the questions and correct answers can be studied in advance. Practical training also takes place with driving school instructors. Specially labeled and fitted vehicles are provided by the driving school. Cars usually feature extra mirrors and pedals for the instructor so that they can take control over the vehicle in dangerous situations since driving and parking maneuvers are taught on public roads. For motorcycles the student operates the motorcycle on their own with a driving instructor trailing in another vehicle and giving orders and remarks via radio. A certain number of practical and technical lessons has to be completed again depending on the type of vehicle. Obligatory lessons include a minimum number of lessons each driving on the Autobahn, outside urban areas, and in the dark. The actual number of lessons a student completes varies with individual skill. Since the most difficult part of the driving test is usually inner city driving, most lessons actually take place there, even though there is no mandated minimum for that. If a student wishes to be trained in a car with an automatic transmission and takes the road test on such a car, a remark will be added on the license and the holder may not drive cars with a manual transmission. A test taken on a manual transmission car automatically qualifies for driving automatic transmission cars though. Theoretical and practical training may be commenced at the same time or shifted. Some driving schools may insist a student attend a certain number of lessons before giving out appointments for driving training. Both exams are held by an authorized inspector who visits the driving school for this purpose. Students must pass the theory test before taking the road test, with no more than 12 months lying between the two. During the road test, the driving instructor is present in the car with the assisting features of the driving school car deactivated or connected to audio signals and a warning light (if the instructor has to step in, the test is then an automatic fail.) After each exam, results are immediately given to the students. In case of the road test, if the student meets all the required criteria, the license is handed over by the inspector. Should the student for any reason not be allowed to hold the license at the time of a successful test (for example because he has not yet reached the minimum age), the license will be sent to the Kraftfahrzeug-Zulassungsbehörde (compare DMV) of the student's place of residence where it can be picked up as soon as the person becomes eligible. There are limits on how often and in which intervals failed tests can be repeated. The failure rate for driving tests in 2011 was 28%. Automobile associations have given the opinion that this is due to the low quality of the education at driving schools which benefits their income as students take additional lessons after failing.[2] For cars, people aged 17 do not get a regular driver's license after passing all required tests but rather a permission slip which only allows them to drive a car under the supervision of persons that meet certain criteria and that are stated on the permission. The actual driver's license is then handed out once the person turns 18. The cost of obtaining a license for driving a car is on average 1,400€ (US$1,800 in September 2014) but varies widely according to an individual's skill, city and region.[3] Individual driving schools set their own prices. The total contains fees for authorities and exams, learning materials, driving lessons and tuition. Derek V