Comments for L.O.J. Shooting http://lojshooting.com Northern Virginia Marksmanship and Defensive Firearms Training Wed, 17 Oct 2012 02:05:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 Comment on NRA First Steps Pistol by Binaya http://lojshooting.com/?page_id=28#comment-90 Binaya Wed, 17 Oct 2012 02:05:23 +0000 http://lojshooting.com/?page_id=28#comment-90 First of all, my huband and I both have CCW peritms and own guns. I cannot ever see the 2nd Amendment ever being taken away. There are too many people opposed to it. And with the shape our economy is in and the amount of money we have lost in the past few weeks and the drop in our homes value, I cannot base my vote simply on ONE issue. The Right to Bear Arms is not going anywhere. If things keep up the way they are, we'll have to sell our guns anyhow! Be real here. We cannot afford to vote based on one issue. Look at the big picture and the rest will fall into place. First of all, my huband and I both have CCW peritms and own guns. I cannot ever see the 2nd Amendment ever being taken away. There are too many people opposed to it. And with the shape our economy is in and the amount of money we have lost in the past few weeks and the drop in our homes value, I cannot base my vote simply on ONE issue. The Right to Bear Arms is not going anywhere. If things keep up the way they are, we’ll have to sell our guns anyhow! Be real here. We cannot afford to vote based on one issue. Look at the big picture and the rest will fall into place.

]]> Comment on NRA Basic Pistol by Orie http://lojshooting.com/?page_id=26#comment-88 Orie Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:37:16 +0000 http://lojshooting.com/?page_id=26#comment-88 SurvivalGear, I fear guns for those who irresponsibly use them. I would sseggut that there is no correlation between responsible citizens and a safer, better place. The two may coincide; but not automatically. I am sorry, but I disagree that inherently having people being able to have guns necessarily makes the a place safer. Where I live, our rates of gun crimes are lower than in the US; it's note only due to the lack of people carrying arms, it is also due to a different mentality on whether one has the right to carry and use one. This extends into the entire society and helps to create a social norm by which people live. In countries where legally carrying firearms is no a right, the rate of gun crimes, et al., is lower than in those where it's permitted (as a rule, not exclusively). Is that due to people carrying arms, the anecdotal evidence (that I have read) would sseggut so; I am not attacking the right to bear arms by those legally trained and who use them responsibly, I am just saying that different norms lead to different thoughts on the subject.As to the government having stewardship over weapons, I believe they (as our proxy) should state what is allowed and what is not in this instance. The otherside of the coin would seem to be rule by force and might makes right , which have lead to so many autrocities over the centuries by nations all over the world.Current score: 0 SurvivalGear, I fear guns for those who irresponsibly use them. I would sseggut that there is no correlation between responsible citizens and a safer, better place. The two may coincide; but not automatically. I am sorry, but I disagree that inherently having people being able to have guns necessarily makes the a place safer. Where I live, our rates of gun crimes are lower than in the US; it’s note only due to the lack of people carrying arms, it is also due to a different mentality on whether one has the right to carry and use one. This extends into the entire society and helps to create a social norm by which people live. In countries where legally carrying firearms is no a right, the rate of gun crimes, et al., is lower than in those where it’s permitted (as a rule, not exclusively). Is that due to people carrying arms, the anecdotal evidence (that I have read) would sseggut so; I am not attacking the right to bear arms by those legally trained and who use them responsibly, I am just saying that different norms lead to different thoughts on the subject.As to the government having stewardship over weapons, I believe they (as our proxy) should state what is allowed and what is not in this instance. The otherside of the coin would seem to be rule by force and might makes right , which have lead to so many autrocities over the centuries by nations all over the world.Current score: 0

]]> Comment on November 10th NRA First Steps Class Ready for Registration by lojs0619 http://lojshooting.com/?p=75#comment-81 lojs0619 Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:35:56 +0000 http://lojshooting.com/?p=75#comment-81 Thanks for the post. I do understand where the "other side" is coming from. That said, I don't believe logic or the data support the sort of restrictions on firearms ownership you are advocating. Firearms-related accidents--although often hyped by the media--are actually quite rare. Although there are well over 80 million gun owners in the United States, a child is more likely to drown in a pool than to die as a result of an accidental discharge. Nevertheless, tragedies do occur. There are then two questions we must ask ourselves: Do the practical benefits of liberal gun laws outweigh the negatives? And what does it say about our society if we disarm the citizenry? The first question is utilitarian in nature, whereas the second question is intended to get at the less tangible issues. I don't have time to write the sort of detailed analysis I would like, but I will offer the following tentative responses. By any measure, the practical benefits of gun ownership have been proven time-and-time again in the crime statistics. Florida is a famous example of what can happen when restrictive gun laws are overturned. The aggregate national data also provides some useful insights. For example, the violent crime rate is lower in states with shall issue laws than in states without them. Moreover, the national crime rate continues to drop despite a massive expansion in the number of citizens licensed to carry concealed firearms. Clearly the data does not support the view that more guns equal more crime or even that more guns equal more firearms-related accidents. As for the philosophical and moral implications of restricting access to guns, this is an issue in which reasonable people can perhaps disagree. For my part, I view gun ownership as part of a syllogism: 1) Everyone has a right to live. 2) A right to exist implies a right to defend against attempts to take one's life. 3) If one has a right to live and to self defense, then one must also have a right to bear arms since that is the only means of truly effective self defense in a world in which criminals carry weapons. Moreover, history has shown that an armed population goes hand-in-hand with a free society. If men and women are denied the right to bear arms then what recourse do they have to defend their liberty? You might be thinking "that is what the political process is for." To a certain extent that response is correct, but if you look outside the narrow, brief scope of the American experience you can see how a disarmed population and government tyranny go together like peanut butter and jelly. Free men and women have a right to carry weapons and to use them in the just cause of their own defense. Simple as that. Thanks for the post. I do understand where the “other side” is coming from. That said, I don’t believe logic or the data support the sort of restrictions on firearms ownership you are advocating. Firearms-related accidents–although often hyped by the media–are actually quite rare. Although there are well over 80 million gun owners in the United States, a child is more likely to drown in a pool than to die as a result of an accidental discharge.

Nevertheless, tragedies do occur. There are then two questions we must ask ourselves: Do the practical benefits of liberal gun laws outweigh the negatives? And what does it say about our society if we disarm the citizenry? The first question is utilitarian in nature, whereas the second question is intended to get at the less tangible issues.

I don’t have time to write the sort of detailed analysis I would like, but I will offer the following tentative responses. By any measure, the practical benefits of gun ownership have been proven time-and-time again in the crime statistics. Florida is a famous example of what can happen when restrictive gun laws are overturned. The aggregate national data also provides some useful insights. For example, the violent crime rate is lower in states with shall issue laws than in states without them. Moreover, the national crime rate continues to drop despite a massive expansion in the number of citizens licensed to carry concealed firearms. Clearly the data does not support the view that more guns equal more crime or even that more guns equal more firearms-related accidents.

As for the philosophical and moral implications of restricting access to guns, this is an issue in which reasonable people can perhaps disagree. For my part, I view gun ownership as part of a syllogism: 1) Everyone has a right to live. 2) A right to exist implies a right to defend against attempts to take one’s life. 3) If one has a right to live and to self defense, then one must also have a right to bear arms since that is the only means of truly effective self defense in a world in which criminals carry weapons. Moreover, history has shown that an armed population goes hand-in-hand with a free society. If men and women are denied the right to bear arms then what recourse do they have to defend their liberty? You might be thinking “that is what the political process is for.” To a certain extent that response is correct, but if you look outside the narrow, brief scope of the American experience you can see how a disarmed population and government tyranny go together like peanut butter and jelly. Free men and women have a right to carry weapons and to use them in the just cause of their own defense. Simple as that.

]]> Comment on November 10th NRA First Steps Class Ready for Registration by Adiza http://lojshooting.com/?p=75#comment-79 Adiza Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:00:24 +0000 http://lojshooting.com/?p=75#comment-79 Why in the world would someone with a failmy with children even WANT a gun? In this day and age, one needs to invest in better security for their failmy and insurance for their valuables or precious failmy items. But a gun that fires bullets, unless it happens to be for people who do war reenactments or the weapon is a failmy heirloom, does not need to be in a home with children. What if something happened to one's children, especially if they have access to a gun? Remember Columbine?It wouldn't bother me to see gun bans be put on in cities with a lot of gang violence. Or on an area like where I live, surrounded by rednecks and hicks who give their toddlers BB guns or pellet guns and let them have at it while wearing thick clothes.My father owns a small handgun and a rifle; both only fire copper-covered metal BBs. He obviously does not have these for self-defense or failmy defense, he keeps them to fire at rodents that come into his yard and try to nest in his basement.On another note, the Second Amendment:Whether one realizes it or not, the right to bear arms is quite old. Way back in the day, EVERYONE:-hunted game for food (or fished)-was in the militia and needed a gunNot to mention guns were more readily available to civilians. They didn't register guns back then. They do so now to help solve crimes.The world was different back then. It was a fiercer, more dangerous place, and less was known of what might be lurking in the woods I find it unfair to pin anti-gun legislation on just Obama. Remember that there are other people in Washington who voted for or against guns.Just try to see where the other side is coming from with this. I support bans on guns for certain situations. Why in the world would someone with a failmy with children even WANT a gun? In this day and age, one needs to invest in better security for their failmy and insurance for their valuables or precious failmy items. But a gun that fires bullets, unless it happens to be for people who do war reenactments or the weapon is a failmy heirloom, does not need to be in a home with children. What if something happened to one’s children, especially if they have access to a gun? Remember Columbine?It wouldn’t bother me to see gun bans be put on in cities with a lot of gang violence. Or on an area like where I live, surrounded by rednecks and hicks who give their toddlers BB guns or pellet guns and let them have at it while wearing thick clothes.My father owns a small handgun and a rifle; both only fire copper-covered metal BBs. He obviously does not have these for self-defense or failmy defense, he keeps them to fire at rodents that come into his yard and try to nest in his basement.On another note, the Second Amendment:Whether one realizes it or not, the right to bear arms is quite old. Way back in the day, EVERYONE:-hunted game for food (or fished)-was in the militia and needed a gunNot to mention guns were more readily available to civilians. They didn’t register guns back then. They do so now to help solve crimes.The world was different back then. It was a fiercer, more dangerous place, and less was known of what might be lurking in the woods I find it unfair to pin anti-gun legislation on just Obama. Remember that there are other people in Washington who voted for or against guns.Just try to see where the other side is coming from with this. I support bans on guns for certain situations.

]]> Comment on Buying a Concealed Carry Gun by G. V. http://lojshooting.com/?p=43#comment-12 G. V. Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:13:54 +0000 http://lojshooting.com/?p=43#comment-12 What you write about sound good, but I think one less confident might should consider small revolver with the first and maybe second rounds loaded in the chamber shot shells. In the heat of the momment the simplicity of a revolver loaded with shot shells could disable, blind, and or kill an attacker. Know need to aim, just point toward the atackers face and pull the trigger. The shot pattern will be wide enough to offset poor aiming. What you write about sound good, but I think one less confident
might should consider small revolver with the first and maybe second rounds loaded in the chamber shot shells. In the heat of the momment the simplicity of a revolver loaded with shot shells could disable, blind, and or kill an attacker. Know need to aim, just point toward the atackers face and pull the trigger. The shot pattern will be wide enough to offset poor aiming.

]]>