That's pretty scary, right there. Holy Cow, who shots at sounds in the woods?This is the norm in other developed countries, although it certainly didn't prevent the Norwegian massacre. As someone who grew up with guns, I finally quit, but it wasn't because I fell out of love with guns. One day, after a deer hunt, I stopped in at Wiley's Sporting Goods, when it used to be out on Governors Drive in Huntsville. JC, the employee, asked the guy by me me if he'd had any luck. He replied "Naw, but I had a couple of 'sound shots'." I turned and asked him what he meant by "sound shots" - did he even see what he'd shot at? He said "no," but that it had sounded like a deer. That's when I realized just how far gun education in this country had dropped and that I didn't want to be in the woods with these guys...
And while we're just throwing guesses out there I'm guessing that what you really want is to get rid of all guns so that you don't have to fear getting shot while killing farm animals in your side gig as the chupacabra.A loophole allowing unrestricted private sales makes any gun law meaningless. I'm guessing that's what you really want.
It would never occur to me that wounding would be more humane.The AR15 wasn't the culprit in this horrid act. It was the person holding it who his mother was trying to have committed for evaluation. Blame the Conn laws for taking so long to get something done. If you should get an AR15 get one in the 308 version as it is more intended to Kill. The 223 Nato round is meant to wound only thus more humane. That requires a second person to help the wounded person out.
In most states you do. Some even require insurance.I thought you had to take a class, register, and be licensed to be able to carry a concealed weapon?
That's what I'm getting at. If I own a firearm for family protection and only take straight to a privately owned range and back to my private residence, why should the authorities get involved as long as I don't carry it to a public facility?In most states you do. Some even require insurance.
Considering most people do NOT carry guns in public, unlike driving, the comparison is moot. Why should someone be licensed, insured, etc just to own a firearm? Obey the four basic rules and no one will ever get hurt. If they wish to carry in public, sure, regulate, but otherwise it's silly.
Yah, I was using your post as a launch in response to the graphic above.That's what I'm getting at. If I own a firearm for family protection and only take straight to a privately owned range and back to my private residence, why should the authorities get involved as long as I don't carry it to a public facility?