The mass shooting today.
RealityForAll said:
What made me so insistent on gun rights was a home invasion that happened in our fair community.
Before accusing others of sensationalism, one might bear in mind the role of insistent beliefs in confirmation bias.
The fact that no charges are filed against a shooter in a stand your ground state is mostly an indication of how hard it is to prove criminality. It isn't a de facto indication of responsible behavior on the part of the shooter, not rightness from a moral perspective.
From the news report:
The reports said police couldn't determine if a crime was committed by anyone involved, and said each party appeared "justified in their actions based on the circumstances they perceived."
Circumstances they perceived
Not necessarily the circumstances as they really were.
RealityForAll said:
Straw-man argument on your part here. Your first sentence is a complete fabrication (false) of my POV. We have not discussed the door-bell-ringing>>> shooting. I would suggest that we save the door-bell-ringing>>> shooting.for another time (more issues in that one). The present incident (namely, the insta-cart-no-injury shooting) is a better example of media sensatalionism.
Florida has different laws which bring forth different behaviors and expectations. If FLA voters and legislators are horrified regarding this incident then they should change the FLA laws and regulations immediately.
Florida legislators, and many Americans, aren't horrified by this, and that's the problem.
The man who shot at the Instacart driver behaved recklessly and irresponsibly. Florida law probably means he'll face no legal liability, and my entire argument is that this is wrong -- that American gun culture has increasingly glorified deadly and irresponsible usage of deadly weapons, and that American gun laws (especially in the states, but thanks to SCOTUS also increasingly nationally) is following this culture into an indefensible and irresponsible position.
You responded with a personal story, and I asked if you saw that as different or equivalent to the story in Florida (or by, allusion, to the one in KC or upstate NY). If you were to say yes, then that'd mean we found some area of agreement here -- we could agree that running out your front door with a loaded gun is irresponsible. If you don't see a difference, then I'm afraid you're part of the problem.
PVW said:
RealityForAll said:
Straw-man argument on your part here. Your first sentence is a complete fabrication (false) of my POV. We have not discussed the door-bell-ringing>>> shooting. I would suggest that we save the door-bell-ringing>>> shooting.for another time (more issues in that one). The present incident (namely, the insta-cart-no-injury shooting) is a better example of media sensatalionism.
Florida has different laws which bring forth different behaviors and expectations. If FLA voters and legislators are horrified regarding this incident then they should change the FLA laws and regulations immediately.Florida legislators, and many Americans, aren't horrified by this, and that's the problem.
The man who shot at the Instacart driver behaved recklessly and irresponsibly. Florida law probably means he'll face no legal liability, and my entire argument is that this is wrong -- that American gun culture has increasingly glorified deadly and irresponsible usage of deadly weapons, and that American gun laws (especially in the states, but thanks to SCOTUS also increasingly nationally) is following this culture into an indefensible and irresponsible position.
You responded with a personal story, and I asked if you saw that as different or equivalent to the story in Florida (or by, allusion, to the one in KC or upstate NY). If you were to say yes, then that'd mean we found some area of agreement here -- we could agree that running out your front door with a loaded gun is irresponsible. If you don't see a difference, then I'm afraid you're part of the problem.
the police reported that the instacart driver was shot at as he drove away. Before stand your ground laws, that shooting would have been clearly illegal, and the shooter would have been charged with a crime.
but in FL, a retreating person can be shot at legally.
it's a crazy law. No matter what one thinks about the use of deadly force in a confrontation, I don't see what can be argued from a moral standpoint in favor of shooting someone who's trying to get away.
ml1 said:
PVW said:
RealityForAll said:
Straw-man argument on your part here. Your first sentence is a complete fabrication (false) of my POV. We have not discussed the door-bell-ringing>>> shooting. I would suggest that we save the door-bell-ringing>>> shooting.for another time (more issues in that one). The present incident (namely, the insta-cart-no-injury shooting) is a better example of media sensatalionism.
Florida has different laws which bring forth different behaviors and expectations. If FLA voters and legislators are horrified regarding this incident then they should change the FLA laws and regulations immediately.Florida legislators, and many Americans, aren't horrified by this, and that's the problem.
The man who shot at the Instacart driver behaved recklessly and irresponsibly. Florida law probably means he'll face no legal liability, and my entire argument is that this is wrong -- that American gun culture has increasingly glorified deadly and irresponsible usage of deadly weapons, and that American gun laws (especially in the states, but thanks to SCOTUS also increasingly nationally) is following this culture into an indefensible and irresponsible position.
You responded with a personal story, and I asked if you saw that as different or equivalent to the story in Florida (or by, allusion, to the one in KC or upstate NY). If you were to say yes, then that'd mean we found some area of agreement here -- we could agree that running out your front door with a loaded gun is irresponsible. If you don't see a difference, then I'm afraid you're part of the problem.
the police reported that the instacart driver was shot at as he drove away. Before stand your ground laws, that shooting would have been clearly illegal, and the shooter would have been charged with a crime.
but in FL, a retreating person can be shot at legally.
it's a crazy law. No matter what one thinks about the use of deadly force in a confrontation, I don't see what can be argued from a moral standpoint in favor of shooting someone who's trying to get away.
Please note, I previously stated that I had a problem with shooter shooting at the car tires as driver was departing.
RealityForAll said:
Please note, I previously stated that I had a problem with shooter shooting at the car tires as driver was departing.
Then I don't know what we're arguing about, as we apparently agree that people who act like the shooter ought to face criminal liability?
RealityForAll said:
ml1 said:
PVW said:
RealityForAll said:
Straw-man argument on your part here. Your first sentence is a complete fabrication (false) of my POV. We have not discussed the door-bell-ringing>>> shooting. I would suggest that we save the door-bell-ringing>>> shooting.for another time (more issues in that one). The present incident (namely, the insta-cart-no-injury shooting) is a better example of media sensatalionism.
Florida has different laws which bring forth different behaviors and expectations. If FLA voters and legislators are horrified regarding this incident then they should change the FLA laws and regulations immediately.Florida legislators, and many Americans, aren't horrified by this, and that's the problem.
The man who shot at the Instacart driver behaved recklessly and irresponsibly. Florida law probably means he'll face no legal liability, and my entire argument is that this is wrong -- that American gun culture has increasingly glorified deadly and irresponsible usage of deadly weapons, and that American gun laws (especially in the states, but thanks to SCOTUS also increasingly nationally) is following this culture into an indefensible and irresponsible position.
You responded with a personal story, and I asked if you saw that as different or equivalent to the story in Florida (or by, allusion, to the one in KC or upstate NY). If you were to say yes, then that'd mean we found some area of agreement here -- we could agree that running out your front door with a loaded gun is irresponsible. If you don't see a difference, then I'm afraid you're part of the problem.
the police reported that the instacart driver was shot at as he drove away. Before stand your ground laws, that shooting would have been clearly illegal, and the shooter would have been charged with a crime.
but in FL, a retreating person can be shot at legally.
it's a crazy law. No matter what one thinks about the use of deadly force in a confrontation, I don't see what can be argued from a moral standpoint in favor of shooting someone who's trying to get away.
Please note, I previously stated that I had a problem with shooter shooting at the car tires as driver was departing.
then my reaction is the same as PVW's above.
but if your initial point was just to tell the rest of us that the behavior even you find problematic is legal in FL, well I'm pretty sure most of us knew that already, or figured it out from the coverage of the incident.
RealityForAll said:
All great points. Similarly, I received firearms training in Scouts. What made me so insistent on gun rights was a home invasion that happened in our fair community. I brandished my Remington 870 shotgun from the front closet. And, then in a split second, I racked a shell into the chamber. Upon, seeing the shotgun, and hearing the distinctive sound of a 12 gauge shell being racked, the invader fled. Police were called and invader arrested.
All safe, no one hurt and problem resolved.
I doubt the Scouts taught you to keep a loaded firearm in the closet.
Gun rights are all well and good. But it is many, many times more likely than a gun in the home will be used against another member of the household, either accidentally, in a suicide, possibly with intent, or even turned against a homeowner by an intruder.
Statistically speaking, paradoxically a gun in the home makes residents less safe, not more safe.
That's why I don't own a firearm. The MPD are close enough for my comfort if something were to happen in our home.
ml1 said:
Gun rights are all well and good. But it is many, many times more likely than a gun in the home will be used against another member of the household, either accidentally, in a suicide, possibly with intent, or even turned against a homeowner by an intruder.
Statistically speaking, paradoxically a gun in the home makes residents less safe, not more safe.
That's why I don't own a firearm. The MPD are close enough for my comfort if something were to happen in our home.
When a firearm is used to prevent a crime, rarely does that fact get reported. Hence, there is a reporting bias whereby the burdens/injuries/deaths arising from firearms are reported in detail. While crimes prevented/mitigated due to the introduction of firearms are rarely reported. IOW, analysis of firearm benefit versus burden is impossible to accurately assess under the existing laws, and regulations.
PS How would you call the MPD while a home invasion is going on? And, the invader(s) are in your face making immediate demands and threats.
nohero said:
RealityForAll said:
All great points. Similarly, I received firearms training in Scouts. What made me so insistent on gun rights was a home invasion that happened in our fair community. I brandished my Remington 870 shotgun from the front closet. And, then in a split second, I racked a shell into the chamber. Upon, seeing the shotgun, and hearing the distinctive sound of a 12 gauge shell being racked, the invader fled. Police were called and invader arrested.
All safe, no one hurt and problem resolved.
I doubt the Scouts taught you to keep a loaded firearm in the closet.
I also keep the tank full in my car. My car would be safer if kept it with any empty gas tank when not in use. By virtue of less chance of fire, leaks into environment and damage to the climate from evaporating fuel.
By the way, shotgun was stored with shells in magazine. But, no shell in the chamber. IOW, shotgun, as stored, was incapable of being fired without additional steps (namely, racking shell from magazine to chamber).
PS Are you happy for me and my family that the home invasion was defeated without any bloodshed or violence?
If not, why not?
RealityForAll said:
ml1 said:
Gun rights are all well and good. But it is many, many times more likely than a gun in the home will be used against another member of the household, either accidentally, in a suicide, possibly with intent, or even turned against a homeowner by an intruder.
Statistically speaking, paradoxically a gun in the home makes residents less safe, not more safe.
That's why I don't own a firearm. The MPD are close enough for my comfort if something were to happen in our home.
When a firearm is used to prevent a crime, rarely does that fact get reported. Hence, there is a reporting bias whereby the burdens/injuries/deaths arising from firearms are reported in detail. While crimes prevented/mitigated due to the introduction of firearms are rarely reported. IOW, analysis of firearm benefit versus burden is impossible to accurately assess under the existing laws, and regulations.
PS How would you call the MPD while a home invasion is going on? And, the invader(s) are in your face making immediate demands and threats.
A home invasion where the invader actually wants to confront the occupants and not flee when they realize they're present is rare. So I'll take my chances dialing 911 over having a gun in the home. If I lived in a rural area 20 miles from the police precinct, maybe I'd feel differently. But I live a few minutes from an MPD cruiser at any given moment, so that's not a problem.
Given that states with higher rates of gun ownership typically have more and not fewer firearm deaths than states with less gun ownership, it's not convincing that defensive use of guns outweighs the danger of guns in the home. It's correlational, but it's not trivial.
But if you or anyone else wants to own a gun, it's your right as a law-abiding citizen. I'm just pointing out that all the existing evidence strongly indicates a home is LESS safe if a gun is present, not more. And that's why I don't own one.
ml1 said:
RealityForAll said:
ml1 said:
Gun rights are all well and good. But it is many, many times more likely than a gun in the home will be used against another member of the household, either accidentally, in a suicide, possibly with intent, or even turned against a homeowner by an intruder.
Statistically speaking, paradoxically a gun in the home makes residents less safe, not more safe.
That's why I don't own a firearm. The MPD are close enough for my comfort if something were to happen in our home.
When a firearm is used to prevent a crime, rarely does that fact get reported. Hence, there is a reporting bias whereby the burdens/injuries/deaths arising from firearms are reported in detail. While crimes prevented/mitigated due to the introduction of firearms are rarely reported. IOW, analysis of firearm benefit versus burden is impossible to accurately assess under the existing laws, and regulations.
PS How would you call the MPD while a home invasion is going on? And, the invader(s) are in your face making immediate demands and threats.
A home invasion where the invader actually wants to confront the occupants and not flee when they realize they're present is rare. So I'll take my chances dialing 911 over having a gun in the home. If I lived in a rural area 20 miles from the police precinct, maybe I'd feel differently. But I live a few minutes from an MPD cruiser at any given moment, so that's not a problem.
Given that states with higher rates of gun ownership typically have more and not fewer firearm deaths than states with less gun ownership, it's not convincing that defensive use of guns outweighs the danger of guns in the home. It's correlational, but it's not trivial.
But if you or anyone else wants to own a gun, it's your right as a law-abiding citizen. I'm just pointing out that all the existing evidence strongly indicates a home is LESS safe if a gun is present, not more. And that's why I don't own one.
We will have to agree to disagree on the homes with firearms safety issue.
RealityForAll said:
nohero said:
RealityForAll said:
All great points. Similarly, I received firearms training in Scouts. What made me so insistent on gun rights was a home invasion that happened in our fair community. I brandished my Remington 870 shotgun from the front closet. And, then in a split second, I racked a shell into the chamber. Upon, seeing the shotgun, and hearing the distinctive sound of a 12 gauge shell being racked, the invader fled. Police were called and invader arrested.
All safe, no one hurt and problem resolved.
I doubt the Scouts taught you to keep a loaded firearm in the closet.
I also keep the tank full in my car. My car would be safer if kept it with any empty gas tank when not in use. By virtue of less chance of fire, leaks into environment and damage to the climate from evaporating fuel.
By the way, shotgun was stored with shells in magazine. But, no shell in the chamber. IOW, shotgun, as stored, was incapable of being fired without additional steps (namely, racking shell from magazine to chamber).
PS Are you happy for me and my family that the home invasion was defeated without any bloodshed or violence?
If not, why not?
I won't speak for nohero but your last couple of questions don't follow logically from his comment.
as for me, I'm happy you weren't harmed in the home invasion. I'm also happy for you that you didn't panic and fire at the intruder before he fled. And I'm grateful for you that the gun in your closet wasn't found first by the intruder before you got to it.
RealityForAll said:
ml1 said:
RealityForAll said:
ml1 said:
Gun rights are all well and good. But it is many, many times more likely than a gun in the home will be used against another member of the household, either accidentally, in a suicide, possibly with intent, or even turned against a homeowner by an intruder.
Statistically speaking, paradoxically a gun in the home makes residents less safe, not more safe.
That's why I don't own a firearm. The MPD are close enough for my comfort if something were to happen in our home.
When a firearm is used to prevent a crime, rarely does that fact get reported. Hence, there is a reporting bias whereby the burdens/injuries/deaths arising from firearms are reported in detail. While crimes prevented/mitigated due to the introduction of firearms are rarely reported. IOW, analysis of firearm benefit versus burden is impossible to accurately assess under the existing laws, and regulations.
PS How would you call the MPD while a home invasion is going on? And, the invader(s) are in your face making immediate demands and threats.
A home invasion where the invader actually wants to confront the occupants and not flee when they realize they're present is rare. So I'll take my chances dialing 911 over having a gun in the home. If I lived in a rural area 20 miles from the police precinct, maybe I'd feel differently. But I live a few minutes from an MPD cruiser at any given moment, so that's not a problem.
Given that states with higher rates of gun ownership typically have more and not fewer firearm deaths than states with less gun ownership, it's not convincing that defensive use of guns outweighs the danger of guns in the home. It's correlational, but it's not trivial.
But if you or anyone else wants to own a gun, it's your right as a law-abiding citizen. I'm just pointing out that all the existing evidence strongly indicates a home is LESS safe if a gun is present, not more. And that's why I don't own one.
We will have to agree to disagree.
the evidence is what it is. If you want to disagree with IT, go ahead.
but I think you and I are in agreement. You want to own a gun, fine with me. I assume it's fine with you if I don't.
RealityForAll said:
nohero said:
I doubt the Scouts taught you to keep a loaded firearm in the closet.
I also keep the tank full in my car. My car would be safer if kept it with any empty gas tank when not in use. By virtue of less chance of fire, leaks into environment and damage to the climate from evaporating fuel.
By the way, shotgun was stored with shells in magazine. But, no shell in the chamber. IOW, shotgun, as stored, was incapable of being fired without additional steps (namely, racking shell from magazine to chamber).
As I said.
ml1 said:
I won't speak for nohero but your last couple of questions don't follow logically from his comment.
as for me, I'm happy you weren't harmed in the home invasion. I'm also happy for you that you didn't panic and fire at the intruder before he fled. And I'm grateful for you that the gun in your closet wasn't found first by the intruder before you got to it.
And I think we're all happy that nobody has been injured by the presence of an unattended and unsecured loaded gun in the house.
nohero said:
ml1 said:
I won't speak for nohero but your last couple of questions don't follow logically from his comment.
as for me, I'm happy you weren't harmed in the home invasion. I'm also happy for you that you didn't panic and fire at the intruder before he fled. And I'm grateful for you that the gun in your closet wasn't found first by the intruder before you got to it.
And I think we're all happy that nobody has been injured by the presence of an unattended and unsecured loaded gun in the house.
yes. That's the everyday run-of-the-mill risk.
I don't think keeping a gun, unsecured, with ammo in the magazine is especially safe -- especially if there are any children in the house. But I want to point out that such a situation is already different than one where people respond to someone outside their house by shooting at them, and where doing so is legal.
It's specifically this insistence on pushing the cultural and legal sanction of when its acceptable to use deadly weapons that I'm criticizing here. It shouldn't be remotely controversial to say that what happened in KC, in upstate NY, and in Florida in the last week should be socially unacceptable and outside the sanction of law, and yet somehow it is.
nohero said:
ml1 said:
I won't speak for nohero but your last couple of questions don't follow logically from his comment.
as for me, I'm happy you weren't harmed in the home invasion. I'm also happy for you that you didn't panic and fire at the intruder before he fled. And I'm grateful for you that the gun in your closet wasn't found first by the intruder before you got to it.
And I think we're all happy that nobody has been injured by the presence of an unattended and unsecured loaded gun in the house.
Stored in accord with NJ law. Heightened firearm storage requirements were introduced in NJ bill A2215. As far as I can tell, the bill was introduced in February 2022 and then referred to NJ Judiciary committee. IOW, still in committee for more than one year. See: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2022/A2215
RealityForAll said:
Stored in accord with NJ law. Heightened firearm storage requirements were introduced in NJ bill A2215. As far as I can tell, the bill was introduced in February 2022 and then referred to NJ Judiciary committee. IOW, still in committee for more than one year. See: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2022/A2215
That’s nice. As you know, not everything that’s idiotic is illegal.
And when you asked, “Are you happy for me and my family that the home invasion was defeated without any bloodshed or violence” through use of your loaded and unsecured gun, can we assume “family” didn’t include any minor children at the time?
nohero said:
RealityForAll said:
Stored in accord with NJ law. Heightened firearm storage requirements were introduced in NJ bill A2215. As far as I can tell, the bill was introduced in February 2022 and then referred to NJ Judiciary committee. IOW, still in committee for more than one year. See: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2022/A2215
That’s nice. As you know, not everything that’s idiotic is illegal.
And when you asked, “Are you happy for me and my family that the home invasion was defeated without any bloodshed or violence” through use of your loaded and unsecured gun, can we assume “family” didn’t include any minor children at the time?
No minor children. But, are you happy for me?
RealityForAll said:
nohero said:
ml1 said:
I won't speak for nohero but your last couple of questions don't follow logically from his comment.
as for me, I'm happy you weren't harmed in the home invasion. I'm also happy for you that you didn't panic and fire at the intruder before he fled. And I'm grateful for you that the gun in your closet wasn't found first by the intruder before you got to it.
And I think we're all happy that nobody has been injured by the presence of an unattended and unsecured loaded gun in the house.
Stored in accord with NJ law. Heightened firearm storage requirements were introduced in NJ bill A2215. As far as I can tell, the bill was introduced in February 2022 and then referred to NJ Judiciary committee. IOW, still in committee for more than one year. See: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2022/A2215
I'll admit that I don't know enough about shotguns to know how safe it is or isn't to store it with shells in a magazine.
But I know this for sure. Whether something is legal or not doesn't have any bearing on whether or not something is best practice for safety.
Maybe you can explain how your method of storing your gun is very safe. I'd sincerely like to know because as I already mentioned, I don't really know best practices for firearm storage.
When I awoke to find a strange man in my bed trying to rape me, I screamed loudly, and my neighbours called 000 - the police, who arrived within 10 mins. Within this timeframe, I had used the self-defence strategies I’d learnt to not only maim and mark him, but throw him off the bed, chase him out of the house and partway through the garden (then remembered I was naked). The police caught three suspects within a few hours and identified the right man because of the bite marks.
I’d also grabbed a very sharp, large chef’s knife for protection as I ran through the kitchen to the front door.
I’ve had my right foot crushed by a car driving forward over it. Then the driver panicked and then reversed back over it as I was trying to move it out of the way. I could smell the burning flesh as his tyre climbed the arch of my foot. The pain of crushed metatarsals was so intense I’d never have thought of going for a weapon; it was all I could do to breathe and remember my name.
I also remember learning an honour code that shooting people in the back is dishonourable, the mark of a coward.
RealityForAll said:
When a firearm is used to prevent a crime, rarely does that fact get reported. Hence, there is a reporting bias whereby the burdens/injuries/deaths arising from firearms are reported in detail. While crimes prevented/mitigated due to the introduction of firearms are rarely reported. IOW, analysis of firearm benefit versus burden is impossible to accurately assess under the existing laws, and regulations.
PS How would you call the MPD while a home invasion is going on? And, the invader(s) are in your face making immediate demands and threats.
RealityForAll said:
PVW said:
I've shot guns before. Not especially powerful guns. Mostly when I was younger, in the context of Boy Scouts. Once or twice when I was younger out at a high school friend's farm (I grew up in the midwest). One thing that was always stressed in Scouts when handling firearms was responsibility and safety -- keep the safety on until you're ready to shoot, never point the gun at someone, always treat the gun as if it's loaded even if you think it's not.
I personally have no use for a gun. I don't hunt. I live in suburban NJ. I don't lead a lifestyle where firearms really make sense or are needed or are part of any of my hobbies. But I understand some people do. And we do have a place for firearms explicitly called out in our constitution. But I strongly believe that rights also come with responsibilities, and modern gun culture just seems ever more extreme and irresponsible. It's not just the mass shootings and the suicides, it's the underlying deference to and excusing of irresponsible gun usage and what I think can fairly be called second amendment idolatry. I just can't get into the mindset of someone who sees someone their impulse is to go out gun loaded and safety off. What is wrong with people that this is seen as a normal, defensible thing to do?
All great points. Similarly, I received firearms training in Scouts. What made me so insistent on gun rights was a home invasion that happened in our fair community. I brandished my Remington 870 shotgun from the front closet. And, then in a split second, I racked a shell into the chamber. Upon, seeing the shotgun, and hearing the distinctive sound of a 12 gauge shell being racked, the invader fled. Police were called and invader arrested.
All safe, no one hurt and problem resolved.
Glad that worked out well for you. Did they hear anyone, or know anyone was at home before you brandished the shotgun?
I grew up in the Bronx in the 1970's. Our first floor apartment was burglarized about 8 times in the decade I lived there - and they seemed to try to do the burglaries when no one was home.
Except the burglars didn't get it right once. We weren't home, but the landlady who lived upstairs was, and heard them break our window in the back. She yelled "Hey!" at them. The three would-be-burglars fled just from that.
ml1 said:
RealityForAll said:
nohero said:
ml1 said:
I won't speak for nohero but your last couple of questions don't follow logically from his comment.
as for me, I'm happy you weren't harmed in the home invasion. I'm also happy for you that you didn't panic and fire at the intruder before he fled. And I'm grateful for you that the gun in your closet wasn't found first by the intruder before you got to it.
And I think we're all happy that nobody has been injured by the presence of an unattended and unsecured loaded gun in the house.
Stored in accord with NJ law. Heightened firearm storage requirements were introduced in NJ bill A2215. As far as I can tell, the bill was introduced in February 2022 and then referred to NJ Judiciary committee. IOW, still in committee for more than one year. See: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2022/A2215
I'll admit that I don't know enough about shotguns to know how safe it is or isn't to store it with shells in a magazine.
But I know this for sure. Whether something is legal or not doesn't have any bearing on whether or not something is best practice for safety.
Maybe you can explain how your method of storing your gun is very safe. I'd sincerely like to know because as I already mentioned, I don't really know best practices for firearm storage.
I am attaching a Remington 870 parts explosion in Hope's of explaining the storage of shells in the tubular magazine, See picture.
I will work on the explanation and post shortly.
RealityForAll said:
I am attaching a Remington 870 parts explosion in Hope's of explaining the storage of shells in the tubular magazine, See picture.
I will work on the explanation and post shortly.
Ah, the classic You don't know how guns work but I do therefore I'm right about gun policy argument.
RealityForAll said:
ml1 said:
RealityForAll said:
nohero said:
ml1 said:
I won't speak for nohero but your last couple of questions don't follow logically from his comment.
as for me, I'm happy you weren't harmed in the home invasion. I'm also happy for you that you didn't panic and fire at the intruder before he fled. And I'm grateful for you that the gun in your closet wasn't found first by the intruder before you got to it.
And I think we're all happy that nobody has been injured by the presence of an unattended and unsecured loaded gun in the house.
Stored in accord with NJ law. Heightened firearm storage requirements were introduced in NJ bill A2215. As far as I can tell, the bill was introduced in February 2022 and then referred to NJ Judiciary committee. IOW, still in committee for more than one year. See: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2022/A2215
I'll admit that I don't know enough about shotguns to know how safe it is or isn't to store it with shells in a magazine.
But I know this for sure. Whether something is legal or not doesn't have any bearing on whether or not something is best practice for safety.
Maybe you can explain how your method of storing your gun is very safe. I'd sincerely like to know because as I already mentioned, I don't really know best practices for firearm storage.
I am attaching a Remington 870 parts explosion in Hope's of explaining the storage of shells in the tubular magazine, See picture.
I will work on the explanation and post shortly.
Where's the shotgun plug shown that is required by law to limit your 870 to three shots?
ETA: I see it now. Looks to be part 43.
RealityForAll said:
I am attaching a Remington 870 parts explosion in Hope's of explaining the storage of shells in the tubular magazine, See picture.
I will work on the explanation and post shortly.
If the photo depicts how your gun is stored I'm sure it's quite safe.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Garage Sales
-
Huge Garage Sale Sale Date: May 4, 2024
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Straw-man argument on your part here. Your first sentence is a complete fabrication (false) of my POV. We have not discussed the door-bell-ringing>>> shooting. I would suggest that we save the door-bell-ringing>>> shooting.for another time (more issues in that one). The present incident (namely, the insta-cart-no-injury shooting) is a better example of media sensatalionism.
Florida has different laws which bring forth different behaviors and expectations. If FLA voters and legislators are horrified regarding this incident then they should change the FLA laws and regulations immediately.