I heard on a Canadian radio station this morning that Canada just passed a universal gun registration. Guns owners have 12 months to register their rifles and shotguns, which can be done free online they stressed. Pistols were already previously registered like the US. Good luck woth your new Commie President, Canada
Our pistols are not "registered" with the government. It is against federal law to have a national gun registry, whether it's a pistol, rifle, etc. You may be registered locally somehow, but no place I've lived has registered firearms with their local government.
---------- Post added at 07:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:35 AM ----------
We with ever see a surplus 1911 on the market. I hope so because I would buy one. But I won't hold my breath.
They are coming to market, but they will be hard to come by due to popularity, and many, many of them have been in use since they were originally built (many dating back to the 1930's) and may have seen service. They will be very tired, very worn, and most likely need a few replacement parts. I used to shoot my Grandfather's "Property of the United States" 1911 when I was a kid, and my box stock Springfield 1911A1 is much more accurate. Best I could shoot was a 4" grouping with my granddad's, my gun will shoot 2" groups all day long.
---------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:28 PM ----------
Originally Posted by Mike in Kentucky
I have a little Kel-Tec P3AT for a carry gun, it's a tiny pocket gun - not much heavier than an iPhone. So it's easy to just toss in a pocket and go. But I'm starting to wonder what I might actually accomplish, should I ever have to use it. Brandishing a gun is one thing - actually defending yourself (or someone else) with a gun is a whole different matter. I mean ... how many people who carry could actually hit their intended targets without exacerbating the situation or endangering more people? Unless I was really close, I'm not confident I could improve a terrorist/gunman situation with my little .380.
When I took my CCW class, I got a chuckle during the shooting tests. Virtually everyone in the class brought long-barreled .22 revolvers or full frame big cal autos for taking their tests. Since you can use "any handgun" for the shooting test, nobody risked using a little pocket gun - but the majority of them planned to actually carry something small and compact like me.
I know this seems odd, but perhaps we need to have a national discussion about choice or weapon and marksmanship. Whatever value the self-defense/vigilante types might provide against terrorism - it would surely be improved by making them better trained and equipped. What do you think?
Ideally in a CCW situation you're defending yourself because you're in an immediate threat situation. Thus, your assailant is within or about to be within arm's reach. We're not supposed to be shooting across malls and past unarmed people to hit the "bad guy".
The shooting qualification for CCW is a joke, but for it's intended purpose, hitting someone within 20 feet of you while full of adrenaline, it's fairly accurate.
---------- Post added at 02:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 PM ----------
What worries me about CCW and open carry is exactly what you illustrated. I honestly think that in an active shooter situation a typical CCW or open carry citizen will, more than likely, make the situation worse rather than better along with probably hurting an innocent by accident. I understand the whole concept of having a weapon for self defense but studies have shown and continue to show that in active shooter incidents most people carrying will make the situation worse if they draw their weapon and fire. Most police also agree. I've read articles where police have said that even with their continued training in active shooter scenarios they have a hard time taking the shooter out and, unless the private citizen continually trains for that scenario, they will, more than likely, make the situation worse for him and those around him.
I have yet to be in a situation where i have to draw my weapon, but I think too much armchair quarterbacking is done as to what the "typical CCW holder" will do.
The intent isn't to stop a mass shooting, save everyone and get your own action movie franchise. The intent is to defend YOURSELF. So, let's pretend we have a responsible CCW holder in the mall with his family and someone starts shooting with an AK-47. My assumption is that the primary instinct is to find out where the gunfire is coming from, and take cover. Draw weapon so that if the shooter approaches you, you have the OPPORTUNITY to defend yourself. No one expects you, or should expect you, to go running in guns blazing and clear the room of threats. That's not the point of CCW.
If you do get the opportunity to take out the active shooter, great! But I wouldn't go looking for that opportunity. I'd be trying to stay out of the line of fire.