He doesn't like GUNS.

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

I am ready to purchase a piece to be legally stored at home. From what my police friends have informed me, standing orders for officers that 'catch' a resident of the city with a piece being transported home is to produce proof of ownership and the clearance certificate issued by CPD in addition to the IL FOID. And then all is good.

As for porches and garages... I guess you have to think about what a Chicago garage is like. Easy to break into.

To address the other comment, think about how far 12-gauge shot travels, the angle at which it exits a barrel, and how many rounds can be fired in succession. You could be an ace and still not hit as many people in a relatively small area as with a weapon with a higher rate of firing.

the way it's written about the garage - it makes it illegal for you to even carry it to your vehicle.

regarding the 12 gauge, it's an area effect firearm. you're going to hit what you aim at - and then some. far more lethal at close range than any auto or semi auto single projectile firing firearm. the average semi auto or pump shotgun can hold 5 rounds. 5 rounds of shells with 00 buck and you've fired off the equivalent of 40 .32 pistol rounds in just a few seconds. i can't think of too many firearms legally for sale in the usa that can equal or exceed that.

yet i don't see people up in arms about a shotgun.

Edited March 31, 2011 by charles!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

the way it's written about the garage - it makes it illegal for you to even carry it to your vehicle.

regarding the 12 gauge, it's an area effect firearm. you're going to hit what you aim at - and then some. far more lethal at close range than any auto or semi auto single projectile firing firearm. the average semi auto or pump shotgun can hold 5 rounds. 5 rounds of shells with 00 buck and you've fired off the equivalent of 40 .32 pistol rounds in just a few seconds. i can't think of too many firearms legally for sale in the usa that can equal or exceed that.

yet i don't see people up in arms about a shotgun.

I've been thinking of getting a Remington 1100 with a tube extension. I think thats 7+1.

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

I've been thinking of getting a Remington 1100 with a tube extension. I think thats 7+1.

good shotgun - i have an 1100 - no tube extension, standard 5 shot. had it for almost 40 years and no problems.

i'm sure you know that for hunting, you may need a plug depending on what you're hunting.

Edited March 31, 2011 by charles!

[The_Dude 1,142]

I've been thinking of getting a Remington 1100 with a tube extension. I think thats 7+1.

The last time I was looking at purchasing a gun, I was looking at the Taurus Judge, as a home defense weapon. That is probably a bad idea

[SMOKE 1,426]

The last time I was looking at purchasing a gun, I was looking at the Taurus Judge, as a home defense weapon. That is probably a bad idea

hey you never know a bear or an elephant might break in your house & you want to be prepared.

[The_Dude 1,142]

hey you never know a bear or an elephant might break in your house & you want to be prepared.

inorite? That thing is pretty badas$ though. I'm not a big fan of revolvers, or handguns in general for self defense. Shotguns are by far the best home defense weapon, ask a cop

[SMOKE 1,426]

inorite? That thing is pretty badas$ though. I'm not a big fan of revolvers, or handguns in general for self defense. Shotguns are by far the best home defense weapon, ask a cop

i bought a raging bull (taurus .454 casull) about 5-6 years ago. not very practical, but it sure is fun to take to the range.

[The_Dude 1,142]

i bought a raging bull (taurus .454 casull) about 5-6 years ago. not very practical, but it sure is fun to take to the range.

A few years ago, I bought my dad a S&W .500 (6.5) for Christmas. That thing is a beast.

[SMOKE 1,426]

A few years ago, I bought my dad a S&W .500 (6.5) for Christmas. That thing is a beast.

that wrist tingle is awesome isn't it?

[The_Dude 1,142]

that wrist tingle is awesome isn't it?

Wrist? Try full torso.

[Peikko 1,575]

oh i'm not a victim, but the residents of chicago sure are.

exactly my point - judging a book by it's cover, judging a firearm by it's appearance. just because it looks "zomg military grade" doesn't mean it is.

while "banana clips" might be popular with some, i never cared for the 30 round ar magazines as it makes firing prone difficult.

so no one said it. thanks for admitting you're making false statements then.

your proposed ideas about gun training - what's to say some gun owners haven't done that?

Right Charles, because no one spoke specific words that makes it a false statement. Ever the pedant.

I am sure some gun owners have undertaken gun training and guess what? I have a great deal of respect for those people, and I am quite sure they don't go around trying to pretend a gun is pointy stick that has a thousand and one household uses but if push came to shove it just might be useful as a weapon.

[Peikko 1,575]

And it seems you can't differentiate between legitimate uses for objects and illegitimate uses for an object. The intent of use is what puts various objects in different categories, not the object itself.

ETA: except of course for objects like James was talking about. Nukes are always dangerous.

I am quite aware that guns are designed to expel a projectile at high velocity from a barrel. I am also quite aware that unless a living object gets in the way of that high velocity projectile that projectile is entirely harmless but where does that get us? Exactly no where.

I am not the fantasist that insists that household objects make great substitutes for specifically designed weaponry such as guns for deliberately causing injury, harm and death whilst at the same time demanding that guns are specifically and uniquely granted special status as an object that every US citizen has a constitutional right to own. How does that make the slightest bit of sense? Either a gun is better at deliberately causing injury, harm and death than common household objects or it's not. I'm inclined to believe that it is.

[Zero Sum 305]

the way it's written about the garage - it makes it illegal for you to even carry it to your vehicle.

regarding the 12 gauge, it's an area effect firearm. you're going to hit what you aim at - and then some. far more lethal at close range than any auto or semi auto single projectile firing firearm. the average semi auto or pump shotgun can hold 5 rounds. 5 rounds of shells with 00 buck and you've fired off the equivalent of 40 .32 pistol rounds in just a few seconds. i can't think of too many firearms legally for sale in the usa that can equal or exceed that.

yet i don't see people up in arms about a shotgun.

I see what you mean, and thanks for the example of shot projectiles. Now add to that the accelerated and repetitive rounds fired at a much higher rate from other firearms. I'd be afraid in these cases when facing the scenario we're kind of talking about- crazy gunman on a shooting spree (eg, office, etc). Increase the firing range and I'm sure the death toll is predictably lower.

The garage wordage requires some common sense thinking. They're not going to allow you to have a gun at home and not let you get a gun to your home. See the line I replied to John before. It talks about transport.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I am quite aware that guns are designed to expel a projectile at high velocity from a barrel. I am also quite aware that unless a living object gets in the way of that high velocity projectile that projectile is entirely harmless but where does that get us? Exactly no where.

I am not the fantasist that insists that household objects make great substitutes for specifically designed weaponry such as guns for deliberately causing injury, harm and death whilst at the same time demanding that guns are specifically and uniquely granted special status as an object that every US citizen has a constitutional right to own. How does that make the slightest bit of sense? Either a gun is better at deliberately causing injury, harm and death than common household objects or it's not. I'm inclined to believe that it is.

The point is that if I were so inclined, and I am not, I could kill you just as dead with a knife, a car or a baseball bat. The object itself isn't dangerous, the person using it is. A gun sitting on a table isn't going to jump up and start shooting, it takes a person with the will to harm to do that. A gun is no different from anything else that could be used as a weapon. 99.999% of the guns ever made do not kill someone. They are not the problem, the people that have bad intentions are the problem. At any rate, the SC has spoken, the constitution gives everyone the right to own a gun if they want to. We have the right under our system of government and it isn't going away any time soon. I am sorry if you think the gun is the problem, it isn't. The criminals holding the gun is the problem.

[Zero Sum 305]

You sure can, stab at point blanc or bean expert knife thrower and the result may as well be the same as a close range gunshot. Which object can deliver a higher probability of death is what I suspect the pro-regulation arguments are after... but I infer that some people that prefer free access to most firearms would rather overlook that.

Its amazing the battle knife industries haven't taken off to serve able-bodied criminals and personal protection customer bases.