The blind to be allowed gun permits?

We don't have to do anything but give them our fingerprints and money and in a few weeks we have a gun permit to carry a concealed weapon.
 

Sid said:
Will you clear something up for me?
What exactly is "cheers" I think it is something good but better make sure.
Since I am from up over instead of down under, am I allowed to use that phrase?
Click to expand...

cheers No worries and cheers are Australia's most frequently used multi-purpose words. Cheers can mean "goodbye," "have a nice day," or "thanks"—or even all three at once.
 
Things may have changed. When I got my concealed carry permit I had to go to the local police station and get fingerprinted,sit in a class covering gun safety and legal aspects of carrying a gun and then go to the range and shoot at targets.When I renewed I had to go to the range again to shoot.

I never intended to carry a gun on me but wanted to be legal to have a loaded gun in my auto. When I moved here I let my permit expire so I don't know if things are different now.
 
rkunsaw said:
Things may have changed. When I got my concealed carry permit I had to go to the local police station and get fingerprinted,sit in a class covering gun safety and legal aspects of carrying a gun and then go to the range and shoot at targets.When I renewed I had to go to the range again to shoot.
Click to expand...

I think that's how it SHOULD be. Unfortunately it seems that different places have different requirements.

NYC, for example - you have to state that you are not nor have ever been mentally ill (that's where MY application fell down!), you have to take a safety course AND a shooting test like you did, AND you have to show good cause for wanting to carry (not hard to come up with - just tell them you own a business and carry large sums of money to the bank).

But here in PA you can waltz into Wally-Mart and voila - license. Well, not literally, but you get the idea.

I never intended to carry a gun on me but wanted to be legal to have a loaded gun in my auto. When I moved here I let my permit expire so I don't know if things are different now.
Click to expand...

Understood. We had two types of licenses back in NY - for concealed carry and for open carry / transport. The former was for carrying a pistol on your person / in your car; the latter for sportsmen, hunters, etc. that would carry their firearms broken-down in the trunk of their car from their home to the range / hunting ground. Of course the requirements for the open carry were far less stringent.

PA is a hunter's paradise so it's pretty easy to get ANY kind of permit - whether that's good or bad I'll leave to you to decide. :cool:
 
Jambi said:
Actually, you cannot guarantee that when I know I'm in a 'lock' I can't get out of, that I won't be thinking of my knife or my gun. You cannot assess what my actions will be based on what your action might be.

Attackers defeated by fireams
Click to expand...

That's very true. I'm just going with statistics and from what I've seen teaching self-defense classes for 35 years.

Let me reiterate - "The majority of people will not be able to draw their weapon when they are being restrained".

;)

ETA: I didn't see any examples of a person actively being restrained AND using their firearm in those stories.
 
GDAD said:
On the lighter side, it's like giving a deaf person a set of headphones to listen to a stereo!
Click to expand...


No, it's more like taking a deaf persons telephone away.


Question: What does it mean to be legally blind?
Answer: A person is considered to be legally blind if he or she has a best corrected vision of 20/200 in their best seeing eye. Many people feel that they are legally blind because when they remove their glasses or contact lenses, they cannot see a foot in front of their face. However, when they put on their vision correction, they can see 20/20. As long as you can be corrected to 20/20 with some visual aid, you are not considered legally blind.
The true definition of "legal blindness" is based upon the best level of vision that you can achieve or the best vision you can be corrected to. Most government agencies and health care institutions agree that legal blindness is defined as one of the following:
Click to expand...

http://vision.about.com/od/faqs/f/What-Does-It-Mean-To-Be-Legally-Blind.htm



Print
By Scott Thorn
on September 12, 2009 at 6:26 PM, updated September 12, 2009 at 6:29 PM




0​
Pinterest


Email






A legally blind woman has bagged a bear in the Upper Peninsula.
Jaime Villa says she's tried for several years to obtain the required tag needed to hunt bears in Michigan. The state holds a lottery for the tags.
This year she got her tag and a 110 pound black bear.
Villa tells WLUC-TV her "limited sight" only allows her to "see the difference between light and dark" and "silhouettes of people."
Click to expand...

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/legally_blind_michigan_hunter.html



[h=1]Piper Rolfe, Legally Blind Vermont Girl, Saves Friend From Vicious Raccoon Attack (VIDEO)[/h]
 
Jambi I understand Phil has experience in that juju hya yaki stuff. From some of my military training, reading and knowing people who have studied martial arts I understand there are some moves and attack points that will almost guarantee certain actions and reactions that the attacker desires to achieve on his victim. Phil's seems to be pointing out that other effective options are avaiable. At least that is the way I read it.
 
SifuPhil said:
That's very true. I'm just going with statistics and from what I've seen teaching self-defense classes for 35 years.

Let me reiterate - "The majority of people will not be able to draw their weapon when they are being restrained".

;)

ETA: I didn't see any examples of a person actively being restrained AND using their firearm in those stories.
Click to expand...

I've been reading them for thirty years, and while there may be no such example in what you read, my memory tells me around 30% start with an altercation in which after a struggle, the victim gains control of their gun and uses it.

As someone with training in all aspects of defense and offense, I find it quite strange that after 35 years of teaching defense, the victim doesn't react to their assailant.
 
Sid said:
Jambi I understand Phil has experience in that juju hya yaki stuff. From some of my military training, reading and knowing people who have studied martial arts I understand there are some moves and attack points that will almost guarantee certain actions and reactions that the attacker desires to achieve on his victim. Phil's seems to be pointing out that other effective options are avaiable. At least that is the way I read it.
Click to expand...


In my personal experience, MOST people don't know what they are, and moreover, if there was one single 'cure-all', we wouldn't ever see any reversals in the ring, would we?
 
Diwundrin said:
It's the exercise of power over other people's options that bugs me about this most.
The hypocrisy of it is breathtaking!


To put it bluntly, to ban Nembutal but not guns, or trains, simply doesn't make sense to me.

All the law does is make people bent on it do it in more messy and crueller fashion.

Sure it gets complicated if we want to pursue every 'what if'.
But why does discussion by those in power always pursue those endless hypotheticals?

To avoid making a simple decision to trust that 'they' are not the only ones with a brain capable of making it's own decisions and living or dying with that decision?
Do they think everyone else is a moron?
That they are the only ones who have a 'right' to decide on who lives and who dies? .... and HOW? Really?

Do they, and by extension we, as we elected them, really have the audacity to believe that what we consider right for ourselves must necessarily be right for everybody else? That our view of life's value must apply to others who don't see theirs as anything but a burden?

There will always be collateral damage accompanying any legislation for just about anything. Someone may burn to death or drown in a car because they couldn't get out of the seat belt. Do we then ban seat belts??

If it falls into the wrong hands, so be it. If it's used by someone not eligible then that's on them, not on the law or the pharmacist.
We don't prosecute train drivers for hitting suicides either.

If it's used on a person by someone other than who was intended to use it on themselves than that's murder. Pure and simple. We already have laws against that.

It shouldn't be for us to judge the ethics of it, the 'family' have to live with that guilt, if there is any, not us.
We need to get over the illusion that we personally are the World's Nanny.

Sh*t happens, no law will ever be perfect, no 'right' will ever be perfect, no human will either.

Think about this, the favourite reply to gun arguments is "it's not guns that kill people, people kill people."

How is Nembutal any different to a gun? It doesn't choose who it kills, people choose to use it.

Shouldn't that right be one worth fighting for too? Or is only old ones on Constitutional, or Biblical scraps of paper that count?
Click to expand...


Bravo Sir! BRAVO!!!!!!!
 
Jambi said:
I've been reading them for thirty years, and while there may be no such example in what you read, my memory tells me around 30% start with an altercation in which after a struggle, the victim gains control of their gun and uses it.
Click to expand...

Again, we're looking at timelines of actions here. Yes, I'm sure there are many cases where there is a struggle, THEN a disengagement and THEN the use of the firearm.

I'm saying that WHILE you are being choked/etc. is NOT likely to be the time your brain and body will be together enough to draw that firearm.

As someone with training in all aspects of defense and offense, I find it quite strange that after 35 years of teaching defense, the victim doesn't react to their assailant.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't understand this ...

Jambi said:
In my personal experience, MOST people don't know what they are, and moreover, if there was one single 'cure-all', we wouldn't ever see any reversals in the ring, would we?
Click to expand...

Again, my apologies but I don't follow. And please, PLEASE don't bring up the subject of ring vs. real world - I get enough of THAT debate on the martial arts forums! :D
 
SifuPhil said:
Again, we're looking at timelines of actions here. Yes, I'm sure there are many cases where there is a struggle, THEN a disengagement and THEN the use of the firearm.

I'm saying that WHILE you are being choked/etc. is NOT likely to be the time your brain and body will be together enough to draw that firearm.



I'm afraid I don't understand this ...



Again, my apologies but I don't follow. And please, PLEASE don't bring up the subject of ring vs. real world - I get enough of THAT debate on the martial arts forums! :D
Click to expand...


Maybe I can clear up my thoughts.

Travon Martin. Clearly Zimmerman was being assaulted when he drew. Very conclusive from the powder burns on Travon's sweatshirt. So, as I was trying to say, when someone is being choked, they are likely going to do something, not just stand by. If someone is trying to drain my life, believe me, it won't be without a struggle.

Insofar as the MA comment, the Dojo isn't the ring nor is it real life. Way too, too many personal examples for me to ever believe that. :)

As for the video, yes I've done that before, with a Makarov.
 
Jambi said:
Maybe I can clear up my thoughts.

Travon Martin. Clearly Zimmerman was being assaulted when he drew. Very conclusive from the powder burns on Travon's sweatshirt. So, as I was trying to say, when someone is being choked, they are likely going to do something, not just stand by. If someone is trying to drain my life, believe me, it won't be without a struggle.
Click to expand...

Oh, okay - I agree that that appears to have been an exception to the rule. The natural, instinctive tendency when a person is being choked is to try to remove the hands that are choking them. It takes a certain discipline to abandon that action and instead re-route to the firearm. The response can be trained but I still maintain that it isn't a natural response.

Insofar as the MA comment, the Dojo isn't the ring nor is it real life. Way too, too many personal examples for me to ever believe that. :)
Click to expand...

Totally agree. But it's a training ground of sorts, and with the fairly recent innovations in "adrenaline-dump training" it's progressing a bit further. The problem with both the dojo and the ring of course is that there are rules and it's difficult to reproduce that fear-response when you know in your mind that it's only practice / sport.

That's why it's so important to take one's training seriously - "You will fight as you train".

As for the video, yes I've done that before, with a Makarov.
Click to expand...

Nice! :encouragement:
 
SifuPhil said:
Oh, okay - I agree that that appears to have been an exception to the rule. The natural, instinctive tendency when a person is being choked is to try to remove the hands that are choking them. It takes a certain discipline to abandon that action and instead re-route to the firearm. The response can be trained but I still maintain that it isn't a natural response.



Totally agree. But it's a training ground of sorts, and with the fairly recent innovations in "adrenaline-dump training" it's progressing a bit further. The problem with both the dojo and the ring of course is that there are rules and it's difficult to reproduce that fear-response when you know in your mind that it's only practice / sport.

That's why it's so important to take one's training seriously - "You will fight as you train".



Nice! :encouragement:
Click to expand...

My response is to remove the individual, but I can understand that a group of students with no training or fight experience may not understand that goal. Many, many instances of downed individuals drawing from the ground/floor.

Training, thinking, visualization, practice, all very important.

Yep, action beats reaction, every time. :encouragement:
 
Speaking of permits, it would seem that the latest shooter in Washington had a legal shotgun in spite of having a couple of instances of shooting a firearm in a public place and despite the fact that he was hearing voices. Whether his hand gun and assault rifle were legal may be a different story. If they weren't, how did he acquire them, I wonder. I'm a little bit flabbergasted that this incident has passed by without comment on this forum.

Given that he was running amok in a naval facility, why wasn't he taken out immediately before he was able to kill 12 people ? IMO it makes a mockery of the idea of civilians taking out armed killers as the rationale for widespread gun ownership and concealed carry.
 
The changes are to be introduced to Parliament this week and mean police would not need a warrant to search people who have been banned from owning weapons.
Their cars, homes and outlaw motorcycle gang club houses will also be able to be searched without a warrant. Mr O'Farrell also plans to increase the prison term for anyone convicted of possessing or supplying guns to try to crack down on crime in Sydney.

The jail term will increase from 10 to 14 years.

The Government says there are about 60 people who have been issued with firearm bans and he predicts the number will rise as police place a greater focus on gun crime.

"Police will be able to stop and search them in their cars, in their homes, in their workplace, frankly there'll be no place for them to hide," he said. "Clearly these laws are about dealing with gun crime across Sydney, police are concerned about the activities of outlaw motor cycle gangs and others and these laws will ensure that disorderly houses or crime dens can also be searched."
Click to expand...

Probably a necessary step, given the circumstances. As long as it's all open and above board I have no objection.
Heck, they can search my house any time it they want to. My only stipulation is that they give a guarantee to do a thorough spring clean as they go.
 
Warrigal said:
Speaking of permits, it would seem that the latest shooter in Washington had a legal shotgun in spite of having a couple of instances of shooting a firearm in a public place and despite the fact that he was hearing voices. Whether his hand gun and assault rifle were legal may be a different story. If they weren't, how did he acquire them, I wonder. I'm a little bit flabbergasted that this incident has passed by without comment on this forum.

Given that he was running amok in a naval facility, why wasn't he taken out immediately before he was able to kill 12 people ? IMO it makes a mockery of the idea of civilians taking out armed killers as the rationale for widespread gun ownership and concealed carry.
Click to expand...

The latest is that he was indeed able to buy the shotgun legally since he passed the background check. Point #1: do they need to tighten the vetting process?

He used the shotgun initially until he killed a police officer or security guard, then took their weapon (pistol?). I imagine if he did indeed have an assault rifle he acquired it the same way. Point #2: stuff happens in a scenario. The guns he acquired were legally held and used by their owners.

Point 3: it is claimed that it took 7 minutes for a police response. Pretty slow but to be expected. Also, Naval security has been allegedly cut back due to funding cuts. Blame the government.

He was a civilian, but he was a trained civilian, having spent four years in the Navy Reserves. That makes all the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top