If it's crap ... We'll tell you
I figured now is as good a time as any to bring this up. Now that it's a main point in the election.
My stance on gun control? I believe it's known as "Modified Isosceles".
Hips and shoulders square to the target, feet under the shoulders, relax the arms and knees, strength in the wrists, both eyes open. Your lower body should look something like a triangle.
High grip with both hands, wrapping your support hand around the grip, right thumb up to overlay on the left palm knuckle. None of that teacup shit.
Be aware of where the grip ends and the slide begins to avoid getting slide-bit and maintain proper control over your piece.
Focus your eyes more on your sights and less on the target beyond, squeeze the trigger with an even pressure, don't pull, as it can induce flinching and/or stovepipe jamming.
Once the piece leaves the holster it will remain pointed downrange until it returns to its holster.
Always be aware of your target's backdrop.
The firearm is always loaded.
Never point it at anything you wouldn't be willing to destroy.
Above all practice, practice, practice.
The more you know and understand your firearm the less you will fear and idolize it, and the more you will come to comprehend, respect, and appreciate what it can and cannot do.
Hope that helps.
Haha! I was gonna say 'modified weaver' but it loks like you were...
quicker on the draw.
I tend to use the "Modified Weaver" or "Chapman" stance due to the fact that I was brought up with shotguns and rifles. I feel more comfortable having my left hand/arm for support. Also, due the kickback of Shotguns and rifles, I also feel more comfortable with my feet slightly apart-staggered. It's nothing against the "traditional Weaver" stance, just brought up learning how to use more powerful firearms than pistols. So, when I convert the stance to pistols, the feet placement and the "crossing" left hand/arm (As I'm right handed, I keep the weapon in my right) feels more natural.
Also, a couple of other factors that Chig left out.
Keep in mind your ejection port and the distance the casings will fly out with certain firearms. They are spitting out hot metal, that can cause skin-burns or cause clothes to catch on fire.
Maintain your weapon properly, with oiling and cleaning. A dirty barrel will cause "debris" that will either cause your bullet to go off target. Or worse, the debris could actually clog your barrel causing significant damage to your weapon. Stovepipe (or jamming) on certain handguns can also be caused by dirt, or improperly oiled loading mechanism. If your weapon does "jam", be sure to keep it pointed downward and your finger off the trigger/trigger-guard. Empty the clip/magazine, and attempt to clear the jam as soon as possible. In case of a "misfire" (meaning the bullet didn't fire)... follow the same advice, keep the weapon pointed downward and attempt to clear as soon as possible. DO NOT attempt to "re-fire".
Also, keep in mind the TYPE of weapon that you have. All handguns (Pistols) are good for personal defense and "close" range. I Shotguns/Rifles are better used for hunting than personal defense.
Also keep in mind the holster "placement". A shoulder holster has to be FIRMLY secure to prevent the weapon from sliding out. In fact, if possible avoid shoulder holsters as much as possible due to the fact that the barrel isn't always pointed downward and the weapon could slip out of the holster if not FIRMLY SECURED into place. Hip holster/Thigh Holsters, generally are more "safer" to use as they are generally designed more for an "upward" drawing of the weapon to clear the holster. There are some that are designed with "security" features built in that make it more difficult to have someone else pull it from your holster due to the "angle of the pulling force". Also, "Cross-drawing" is cool in movies (meaning holster on the left-side of your body but used with the right), but due to the "sweeping" motion of pulling it out of the holster you actually increase the chances of a "pre-fire" (firing before aiming properly towards the target)
I've learned so much I'll use this someday for... recreational purposes.
Like Lab Rat, I use a Modified Weaver when using rifles and other long-arms. Careful not to chicken-wing that right elbow, kids.
I chose to talk about pistols in the hopes that Mo-Mo will start off with something smaller and easier to control.
Preferably a revolver firing a rimfire caliber, so that he can work on his stance, drawing, reloading, and safety techniques while utilizing an inexpensive and lower recoil ammunition.
Excellent additional points. Perhaps with our help Mo-Mo will become a proficient and safe shooter.
Like I said, I was brought up on shotguns/rifles, so the "Modified stance" feels more natural to me now. =)
And yes, I believe that in retrospect, the proper way to learn is WITH pistols instead of shotguns/rifles. Especially some smaller caliber to get used to the "sound", feel or stance. My grandfather believed that the best way to make me "learn to respect the firearm" was to know how powerful they were in your own hands. That's why my first "firearm lessons" involved using a double-barrel shotgun and a very bruised shoulder.
Also, additional safety point. ALWAYS hand the weapon (especially pistols) over to someone else HANDLE-FIRST... making sure the barrel is pointed downward. Even if you just saw them unload the weapon, DOUBLE CHECK to make sure that it is unloaded before handling it yourself. And also, to keep your firing mechanism (loading and hammer) in proper working order, avoid "Dry firing" (Pulling trigger with no ammunition) as much as possible.
Now, having said the above in reference to the "stance".... Certain factors I would like to point out in the "Gun Control" debate.
1) So many people fall victim to the concept that all "Semi-Automatic Weapons" are bad. Uh, you do realize that something as small as a 22cal "revolver" is a "Semi-Automatic Weapon"? Semi-Automatic refers simply to the concept that it's possible to fire the weapon as fast as you can pull the trigger.... you just have to pull the trigger for each shot. They are "self-loading" weapons from either a cylinder, clip or magazine. They are "self-loading", meaning that the weapon is designed simply to load the next round into the chamber without having to physically reload the next round yourself. Just to point out how stupid the "Semi-Automatic Weapon Ban" concept is.... You do realize that Dirty Harry was walking around using a "Semi-Automatic Weapon", it his was just a pistol.
2) "Assault Weapon Ban"? What sort of media-spoon-feeding bullshit is this? "Assault Weapon"? You do know the meaning of that term right? "Assault" - Unlawful physical attack on another...."Weapon" - Anything used against an opponent. THESE are "Assault Weapons", but no one tries to ban people from having them.....
Rock, Bat, Club, Knife, Stick, Cane, Cup, Glass, Bottle, Brick or anything else that you can use to cause harm to another person.
So the whole "Assault Weapon Ban" debate is filled with complete and total bullshit, because virtually any item you can put in your hand is an "Assault Weapon", if misused. Even a baby-bottle could be used as an "Assault Weapon" if you try.
3) "High Power Weapon"... Who determines what is "high powered"? We talking about the "specific weapon"? Because a 12gauge shotgun can be used for hunting birds (not high powered) or Skeet (Clay "pigeons"..again, not high powered). But you alternate the "ammuintion type" from Buck-shot/Bird-shot to "Slug", you now have a "High-powered weapon". So, is the "High-powered Weapon" the type of weapon used? Or is it the ammunition type? Because a 185 grain bullet has different characteristics of a 230grain bullet. So, which is the "high powered weapon" at this point? The type of weapon, the type of ammunition? Or is it the type of "jacket" involved? A hollow-point or a full-metal jacket? A "Ball" or a "Jacketed Hollow Point"? Which one is it? Come on, someone tell me what a "High Powered Weapon" is... ..I'm waiting for someone to give me a CLEAR-CUT definition.
4) More restrictions? Uh, okay... Maybe we can put more restrictions on putting ammunition/weapon for sale on the internet and cause someone to have to do a face-to-face purchase (which I don't have a problem with). But on the other hand will that do any good? Probably not, since you can "store" ammunition for years. Well, then what sort of "tougher restrictions" do you want to put into place? It's already LEGALLY required to have a background (criminal check) in place... no one can predict "mental issues" in the future if none are already present. You already have to be a certain age to purchase a firearm yourself, or ammunition...Or at least show proof of age when doing so face-to-face with a gun-dealer. You already have STRICTER guidelines in place regarding "Concealed weapons" that generally require you to take ADDITIONAL CLASSES over seen by a State Approved agency/trainer. Keep guns away from certain areas? It's already ILLEGAL to have firearms in banks, courts, schools, anywhere that sells alcohol or other places. In fact, here are all the "legal jumping-jacks" I have to do in North Carolina to be a legal gun owner. And yet, because I live very close (Within 30min drive) of South Carolina, I have to keep in mind all of South Carolina's laws as well. Which means that I can legally carry my loaded weapon on my hip and walk down the middle of Charlotte (Biggest city in the state) as long as it is holstered and not displayed in a "threatening manner"... .But take a 30min drive, I've got to take it off my hip, lock the firearm in one place of the car (Glove box) and the ammo in another (Trunk), I can't carry it in a holster ANYWHERE in South Carolina... And on top of all that, I've also got to be completely and totally aware of all the South Carolina guidelines into the legal storage and usage of the gun, even in a life-threatening situation. So, tell me... Where is "more restrictions" going to help anyone, when I've got to know (or at least look up) 50 states worth of "restrictions" already in place? If I were to move from NC to Kansas, the "legal gun owner" would have to re-learn every single "gun-law" in order to stay legal. In fact, I've heard of people who were legal in one state NOT being legal in another due to age or type of weapon. This isn't keeping in mind all the damn FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS already in place, NOR having to keep in mind if certain weapons require "different permits" or "additional annual fees" to own.
Again, the whole "Gun Control Debate" is a fucking pipe-dream. You can't prevent someone from going insane and firing into a crowd of people. All you can do, is hope that someone INSIDE that crowd has the ability (and training) to fire back and prevent additional deaths. Think about it for 2 seconds.... You hear about a shooting spree at a school, church, kid's retreat or other "public place", yet you NEVER HEAR about someone going on a shooting spree at a gunshow, or a firing range or a skeet tournament or a hunting lodge. Why? Because people going on a "shooting spree" are taking advantage of the fact that their victims are not able to DEFEND THEMSELVES. They are relying on the "undefended general public" to be in one place, NOT the 3-5 guys spread through the crowd that can fire back at any second.
"I agree that having a public that can't defend themselves is a huge part of why it's easy for massacres to happen"
having mentally unstable folk with access to guns whether ligitimate or not is the reason why massacres happen. if by your assumption that there were people with guns to defend themselves you'd end up with more dead, I have never been involved in a gun battle but i think when bullets are flying all over some regular joe with a pistol isn't going to be all calm and controlled in his return fire for fear of getting shot. I couldn't give a fuck about your second ammendment and arguements from both sides. because of thomas hamilton walking into Dunblane school and opening fire on children it's harder for me to get a shotgun license for the purposes of clay pidgeon shooting and forget about any type of handgun but it's not the end of the world and i'm not going to cry and whine about it, it's just a fact of where in the world i live.
And as to Chig and MDS's response, you can see that they both respect and understand what it means to own and use firearms so at least if you want a different set of views you'll get a valid and educated response and not just 'ha ha i like shooting shit it's fun'
HA HA.. But shooting shit IS fun. =P
Well, let's address the issue of "fewer guns" in general.
What are the statistic of UK attacks being done by knife point? Or how many of them are using sticks/clubs/canes? What's the figures on the number of deaths in countries with "registered firearms" where people are still being killed regardless of those restrictions? What about places like Africa where you have a large population of people attacking another population with machetes? The simple truth is that people who want to kill other people, will find a way to do it. Either using a firearm, a knife, a club, or merely using a brick? It's pointless to attempt to put the blame on the "gun" itself. Okay, people might debate the fact that I'm a "sane and rational person", but if "guns are dangerous"... then explain how mine are dangerous when they are stored away (one has been stored for almost 20 years now....grandfather's shotgun that I've not used in decades, but holds sentimental value more than financial or physical value)? Again, it's due to the fact that when someone is looking to purposefully kill another person, they will use whatever they can get their hands on or create... even if it's a bat and barbed-wire.
And here's the issues with the "trained or sane user" being able to use their weapon. Most times they CAN NOT use their weapon in defense, because of so many City/County/State/Federal restrictions on how/where they can have their weapons to begin with. I gave an example in another post, but I'll give it again. Walking down the street with my weapon holstered on my hip, perfectly legal. I wanted to enter a store to purchase a 20oz Coca-Cola. But because the store had a "sticker" similar to this one (but not quite... couldn't find the one for North Carolina)
I had to turn around and store my weapon in my vehicle, then return BACK to the store to purchase the drink. Now, being a law abiding citizen, I did as required by the City/County/State/Federal government. However, 2 weeks later the "criminal" walked into the same store and killed the clerk during a robbery. Again, I would have liked to been able to prevent that death. But the fact is, signs like this one place ADDITIONAL restrictions on the "sane and reasonable people" while giving the "insane and criminal ones" more freedom to use their weapons without fear of return-fire. Let's just say that if the theater in Colorado had allowed weapons in the theater.... would the shooter have picked the same place? Or would he have decided to play it safer and go somewhere else? I don't know for a "Fact".... but I'm pretty sure that he would have at least given it a second thought....... if not more. Deterrents don't stop conflicts. That is very true. But Deterrents DO limit the size/scope of those conflicts to a smaller scale, preventing them from spiraling out of control.
You have to also keep in mind the reason that the 2nd Amendment was put in place. It wasn't for the "sake of a well armed State Militia" and that's all. It was put into place, so that if the citizens decided that they needed to replace their government, they would have the means by ESTABLISHING local militias from the population that had firearms. The Constitution was originally designed specifically with the concept that the American Government was going to be an "experiment" that no one knew if it would work or not. They needed (the original representatives) a means to ensure that if the government was "out of control", that the "general population" would still have the means to take it back if needed. It's why America is not a "Military Government", or a "Religious Government", or even based on a "Monarchy". Powers are restricted to branches of government. Means are in place to replace elected officials (impeachment and restrictions to years per term). That "general elections" are held by the vote of the population. IF those factors weren't enough to establish a working government, it would be up to the population to take up arms and have the legal right to take back the government from the people abusing their power. Basically, the 2nd Admendment is to ensure that if a "2nd American Revolution" happens, it's because the general population of America would have a means to actually HAVE that Revolution and not be placed under the thumbs of some form of regime.
I understand how that might be illogical or sounds silly to someone from another country. Or even sound silly in today's world. But that's the original concept behind keeping the "right to bear arms" in the Constitution. There was also a second factor to keep in mind too. It was also put in place to ensure the population (at the time), that the Government wasn't going to come around and limit/confiscate the firearms and keep the population powerless to be heard. Knowing that the population was legally able to overthrow you, kind of kept the politicians in line to begin with. However, it also provided the means in an extreme case to consider at the time of our "foundation as a nation". If we needed the population to fight, we could count on them being able to. We had just gotten rid of the British rule, we didn't want to "appear weak" to the Spanish or the French or Germans, or any other nation at the time either. We wanted to establish that the population would be armed and "ready" in case another foreign nation decided to attack America before it was able to establish itself.
Amongst all the issues with restricting the amounts or types of guns owned by people? I do kind of flip-flop on the issue myself, especially in regards to fully automatic or large-ammo capacity weapons. Why does someone who isn't military need to have a weapon that fires 100 rounds or so? I can't answer that one. But do I think that the limit of "magazines should be restricted to 15"? Nope, don't think that either. But that's mostly because of the fact that I believe that the "Criminals" will always over-power (more and illegal weapons than available to) the "legal" owners. Look at the LA Bank shooting years ago. The "Criminals" were able to obtain and modify (by-passing all legal restrictions) firearms that were more powerful and fired more rounds than the "law enforcement" agencies that had to stay legal. Police officers had to go into local gun/hunting stores and pull MORE powerful weapons off the shelf in order to stop the shootings, and that was only after several minutes of being out-matched when they showed up.
I believe that someone who HAS gone through all the legal loopholes to obtain a "permit to purchase a firearm" should be allowed to purchase the weapon of their choice. Provided of course, that weapon is purchased face-to-face with a legally recognized and sanctioned "Firearms Dealer". They shouldn't be allowed to "order" ammunition over the internet, but have to purchase it face-to-face. Or at least purchase the powder,casings, caps, slugs... if they want to "load their own" (Which has it's OWN risks involved). I would like to think that the people who are legally purchasing a firearm, are smart enough to actually take time at the firing-range to know how to use it properly. And if possible, some sort of class in how to determine a situation where it's legal to use it for defense (since each state is different in regards to what/how you can defend yourself). Keep in mind that in North Carolina, you must apply for a "permit" at the Sheriff's office of the county you live in. There are 100 counties in N.C.... but each "Permit to Purchase" is only valid for the county you applied. IF you try to apply to a county that you do NOT live in, you will be automatically rejected. IF you take your "Mecklenburg County" permit to another county, the seller has the right to REFUSE THE SALE.
People make mistakes and misuse their firearms. I understand this. You hear about tragedies all the time of some kid getting hold of a weapon and accidentally shooting someone. But that's because the "so-called adult" in the house, didn't take means to ensure that it was out of reach of children (Who don't know better). You hear about mass shootings as well. But again, notice that it's always on the crowd of people who have been forced to keep their firearms locked AWAY and out of reach. You never hear about some wacko going into a gun-show and shooting the place up. You never hear about some guy going to a hunting lodge and blasting away into the cabins. Why? Because again, the people who are going on a shooting spree are already aware of the fact that someone "returning fire" is very slim or flat-out nonexistent. It's the places where someone might "fire back in defense" that never have someone going apeshit and killing everyone.
Should their be a "limit" to the number of guns in a collection? No, I don't think there should be a "limit" of the number in a collection. I do believe that there should be a limit on the number of weapons you can "purchase" within a 10-year period without selling one of your pre-existing weapons off. In NC, you must have 1 "permit to purchase" per weapon. You can get 5 "permits" at a time, but you have to pay for each one separately, and it's only good for 5 years. After that, you have to re-apply for a permit again... still limited to 5 "permits" per application and 1 "permit" is only good for 1 firearm. Maybe because I'm used to it, this strikes me as a very good compromise (or limit) on the numbers being available to purchase at any one time. At MOST, you can purchase 5 guns at a time (provided you got all 5 permits).... But if you reapply again after so soon of a "permit application", it will draw a red-flag in the Sheriff's office, and you'll probably be turned down the next time you apply for a "permit".
I can't give a "one answer fits all".... no one can... to the issue of what to do about people who are going insane and firing into a crowd. I strongly believe that the WRONG answer is to add more restrictions on the law-abiding citizens who wish to defend themselves. In some ways, I wish there were LESS restrictions in place so that people would have to reconsider the situation. If only 5% of the population were to have their firearms on them at any given time, that still means that out of 50 people you only have 2 people who are carrying a weapon. Would you go on a killing spree knowing that 2 out 50 are going to fire back? I seriously doubt it.
Again, deterrents don't stop conflicts.... but they can/do limit the scope of those conflicts.
i think population sizes has a little to do with those stats as well though AC, there being a fuck load more 'merkins than brits