It only takes seconds to chamber a round. A gun can not go off accidentally with no round in the chamber. Responsible gun owners know this. But the irresponsible owners would be against even something as easy as this.

Owners and Irresponsible Gun Owners. There is a big difference and literally all our
problems come from the Irresponsibles.

You have no answers and question advice? I know cops who don't chamber a round. Hell I bet some police chiefs require it for safety.

I would hardly call that "looking for a fight". If anything, it's those whose latest battle cry is "F--k gun owners" who are looking to fight, yes?

You have no answers and question advice? I know cops who don't chamber a round. Hell I bet some police chiefs require it for safety.

I have all sorts of answers. Ask away. As for this particular one, a handgun being carried for self defense should always have a round chambered whenever it is within one's control. Modern handguns are perfectly safe to carry this way as long as the 4 Rules are followed, and the few seconds it takes to chamber the round could, in a life or death situation, be the difference between being a victim and being victorious.

Regarding the police, every single one I've known of whom I asked carried a round in chamber. Are there PD's that don't? Almost certainly....but the vast majority do.

One question? Are you ever wrong about guns?

I would also point out that the vast majority of firearm self defense classes instruct their students to carry a round in the chamber. Are all of them (and the vast majority of law enforcement, for that matter) against safety?

One question? Are you ever wrong about guns?

On factual matters (on this forum) it's quite rare...but should I be shown to be incorrect, I will readily acknowledge the error.

On matters of policy, though, there is no objective "right" or "wrong", just opinion.

Self defense firearm instructors are extreme on purpose. A safety firearm instructor may feel differently. Depends on who you listen to.

universally recommend it.

Self defense firearm instructors are extreme on purpose.

Not in my experience. A great deal of emphasis is placed on avoiding conflict in the first place, and of the consequences of using deadly force.

I have used almost every weapon the army had at my time. I have been on the receiving end of automatic weapons too, so there's that. Later Hero.

not as much as many think.

In any case, I do thank you for your service and wish you the best.

Eight years USMC. Rifleman, Teacher, one tour RVN. Been shot at, been shot, have commanded troops in battle, got scars. SO WHAT MAKES YOU SO SPECIAL?

I don't care what you did in the marines. The poster thought I needed lessons with weapons, I don't.

Simply pointing out that you are NOT. Anybody who did a hitch in the military can say the same.

Even without a CAR. Or did you forget to mention that in your need for recognition.

The poster apparently believes that he is special because of his service. He is no more special than any other veteran.

The poster apparently believes that he is special because of his service. He is no more special than any other veteran.

why do you think you are so special? As if you know what I think? I spoke of experience with weapons is what I did. Thank you for 8 years service to Uncle Sam. I have 27 years service. Try not to make things up. It takes away from the discussion.
Apparently the poster believes? come on, now your a mind reader? I know who I am and I don't announce my Military experience, I doubt others reading this will think I am the one who thinks they are special. All this back and forth over the half second it takes to chamber a round.

I think of shooting at targets or hunting animals for food. You and all your self defense talk makes me feel you think more of humans as targets. Self defense firearms training and firearms Safety instructors are two different things. I won't recommend you take a safety course. As you feel leaving the chamber empty is not a good idea. The O P was about new ideas and that was mine. You don't agree so here we are. I have owned weapons for 60 years and never once though of people as targets.

I assume you know the difference between military and civilian behavior. Maybe seeing the results of death by humans had changed me. I have never toughed an automatic weapon since carrying one 24/7/365. My Remington pump is the fastest weapon I have now. I am just not as frightened as most people I guess. I will take my chances unarmed everyday.

As for being frightened, having an accessible firearm at home no more means I'm frightened than having a fire extinguisher does. And for what it's worth, I'm typically unarmed when outside the home.

Only frightened people wear their seatbelt.

carry a round chambered is absurd

Blanket statements like that don't help anyone or anything.

I'd rather someone not carry a firearm at all if they feel that they're not responsible enough with their firearm to have a round in the chamber.

You need to back up your answers with "facts". Otherwise it is just your opinion, and can be dismissed as such.

When the go to response of the other side is to shout "F--k gun owners", coming to a meeting of minds is impossible.

I would also point out that their definition of compromise is now "We'll only take some of your guns".

But, the question that needs to be answered is: ARE GUN OWNERS WILLING TO COMPROMISE???

Perhaps initially...at least until the gun manufacturers and the NRA begin their campaign of how this is nothing but an elaborate trick to attack and diminish the 2nd Amendment...


It's a good and balanced op, but it relies on the belief that those on the other side of this issue think that there is a need for compromise!!!

He's still looking for a compromise from republicans on voting rights.

You have to compromise to get where you want to go. Reasonable gun owners understand the need for tighter laws nationwide. Most would be willing to listen.

Although I would add individual liability insurance should be under consideration.

Gunners have:

More guns than people in the US. Sixty-five times more guns than all the military and all the police forces in the country combined.

Legal protection for gun sellers, makers and distributors from civil suits. The only industry with such protection.

Unfettered access to guns without a background check. They're called 80% receivers and are available on the internet to ANYONE. Even a 13 year old can buy and assemble a gun kit.

'Must issue' licenses and concealed carry permits. No human intervention regardless of local and familial concerns.

Guaranteed purchase of a gun in 3 days even if the background check hasn't been completed by a system that doesn't even report all agencies to the background data base.

Over the counter retail access to military grade weaponry that can be easily and legally converted to emulate full auto machine guns. Bump stocks are on again/off again legal and auto-sear/forced-reset trigger assemblies haven't been addressed.

100 round magazines available over the internet with no background check to go with those converted full auto guns some of which were assembled from 80% receivers with no background check.

Thirteen states have 'constitutional carry' with no restrictions on concealed or open carry, many with no background checks or training.

Thirty eight states have 'stand your ground' laws allowing anyone who feels threatened to shoot another person without the responsibility to retreat if possible. Note the words “feels threatened”.

Those are just the highlights of what I'm supposed to compromise with. What do you want for a compromise? Let me just cut to the chase. To repeal the NFA entirely and allow full auto, sawed off shotguns, short barrel rifles (and any other gun that can be easily concealed and kill 49 and injure 53 like at the Pulse Nightclub) as well as various explosives.

I think I know you from a previous life. Someone here about 4 years ago promoted the same 'compromise' using identical language and identical rationalization. Back then we'd send out for pizza.

I like how you didn’t even read my post. The things you said I wanted to compromise with aren’t in my post at all. Good try though, friend!

Edit: I see this is just a generic copy and paste job from something you posted in another forum and has nothing to do with my post.

We will be here discussing what we can do to actually pass gun control and you’re free to join us at any time.

It’s funny to me that the RKBA supporters here are actually interested in passing universal background checks, safe storage laws, and raising the bar for what it takes to get a concealed carry license. Self-proclaimed gun grabbers are content to rant, rave, and hurl insults while getting nothing done.

I told a gun grabber this the other day but it bears repeating: the victims of the next mass shooting will surely take solace in your righteous indignation and refusal to compromise.

My conscience will be clear. Will yours?

Last edited Thu Dec 16, 2021, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)

1) A license to own firearms. It would have multiple levels.
A) Any manually operated long gun. Said license would be no more difficult to obtain than the current ATF instant background check.
B) Handguns. License would require a similar background check, as well as a training course. Details to be hashed out. Would allow legal concealed carry nationwide.
C) Semiautomatic long guns. Background check, separate training course.
D) Full auto. More extensive background check and training course.

2) Note that the above includes universal background checks.

3) Also registration.

In return:

1) All licenses would have explicit guarantees as to reasonable cost and not having unreasonable training requirements. Licenses can be combined, each renewable every 5 years.

2) Repeal of the NFA, with SBRs and full autos treated as above. No background check for suppressors other than requiring license A or higher.

3) All magazine and "assault weapons" restrictions repealed.

And before the shouts of outrage from the other side begin, l would point out that I can already obtain everything with the exception of NFA items in most states with less paperwork under current law than I could under this proposal, and can still (and have) gotten NFA items should I be willing to put up with the red tape.

Any takers?

(Slightly edited to correct a poorly worded sentence)

You're essentially revamping the NFA into a licensing system with integrated background checks / training requirements and eliminating the antiquated portions that don't add to safety. That's quite reasonable.

the door slams shut. I don't post it with any hope of persuading the other side.

It's amusing that they're calling us fanatics when we offer more gun control than has passed in over half a century. Universal background checks, registration, licenses, training. The standard reaction to offering all of that and then asking "So what do we get in return?" is:



Still, I'm willing to be proven wrong. I'll post my proposal here as an OP tomorrow. I think GD is off-topic for general gun issues at the moment, if I'm not mistaken..

compromise or consensus.

"More guns than people in the US. Sixty-five times more guns than all the military and all the police forces in the country combined."
And, I'm amazed, that if guns cause crime, and every "gunner" is a criminal in waiting, how the murder rate is so low.

"Legal protection for gun sellers, makers and distributors from civil suits. The only industry with such protection."
Because the pedal-to-the-metal gun grabbers were trying to force legitimate manufacturers out of business, 'cuz they didn't like the product.

"Unfettered access to guns without a background check. They're called 80% receivers and are available on the internet to ANYONE. Even a 13 year old can buy and assemble a gun kit."
Wrong. 80% kits are NOT firearms, just hunks of metal that need another 20% of MACHINING to make them an actual receiver. A 13 yr old CANNOT buy one of these and assemble a gun from a kit. Receiver has to be finished, first.

"'Must issue' licenses and concealed carry permits. No human intervention regardless of local and familial concerns."
"May issue" has become a concern, because in several areas of May Issue, you have to BE somebody/know somebody to get a permit. Elitism at it's best. And, as far as IL, background checks are done before issuing a permit, as I bet other areas do, too.

"Guaranteed purchase of a gun in 3 days even if the background check hasn't been completed by a system that doesn't even report all agencies to the background data base."
Again, this goes to the radical grabbers, who used the delay to deny sales as long as possible. Here in IL, an approval (Pre-Covid) could be received in minutes. You still had to wait the delay period, but your approval was sometimes almost instantaneous.

"Over the counter retail access to military grade weaponry that can be easily and legally converted to emulate full auto machine guns. Bump stocks are on again/off again legal and auto-sear/forced-reset trigger assemblies haven't been addressed."
"Military grade weaponry, over the counter, then convert." Did you read that sentence after you typed it? If it's military grade, it is already converted (and not sold OTC. Need Class 4 license.). And, if you're talking about the AR-15, if you convert it to full auto without BATF paperwork, it is NOT legal. A bump stock is a plastic device, mounted to the rear of a semi auto rifle, that uses recoil/shooters finger to reset the trigger. Legality of it being a "firearm" has led to much debate. And the drop-in auto sears, last I heard, were a no-no, per BATF.

"100 round magazines available over the internet with no background check to go with those converted full auto guns some of which were assembled from 80% receivers with no background check."
So, what would you accept as "standard" magazine? 30? 20? 10? 5?

"Thirteen states have 'constitutional carry' with no restrictions on concealed or open carry, many with no background checks or training."
And, the death toll from those particular states must be staggering...

"Thirty eight states have 'stand your ground' laws allowing anyone who feels threatened to shoot another person without the responsibility to retreat if possible. Note the words “feels threatened”."
Yes, and if you shoot someone while you "feel threatened", you need to be able to prove it in a court of law.

Nothing passed will ever be enough. We will hear , “It’s a good start. Now we need ….” Or any thing less than total ban , collection of privately arms and total control of production.

shot many of these measures down on many occasions.

Now what?

Now what?

This has never been proposed in the context of negotiating and compromising. They've shot down universal background checks and safe storage laws when nothing was being offered in exchange. This proposal offers things that the gun community has been champing at the bit to get passed for many years in exchange for some meaningful gun control legislation.

The only folks I see here balking at these compromises are the gun grabbers who would prefer to maintain their righteous indignation than to even attempt to get anything passed that might save some lives. That, my friend, is telling.

things to make them actually take some responsibility for the tens of thousands of deaths that result from their deadly little hobby and that result from their irresponsibility as a group. It isn't enough that there are almost no laws that regulate their deadly little hobby! They are discriminated against, I tell you!

And can you imagine! Some are indignant about those tens of thousands of yearly deaths. The nerve! We just need to give the gun humpers stuff and maybe they'll agree to background checks! If we only compromise with them, maybe they will agree to rescinding the gun rights to men who have been convicted of domestic abuse! Though for that one we'll need to pay off their mortgage or something. Because right to bear arms, I tells ya! Right to bear arms!

LOL

You proclaimed "no gun control advocate would disagree with any of these!" When it was brought to your attention that it's already happened (in this very thread) you post this rant out of nowhere.

Wanna start over and try again?

to us! We can't work with them!"

As if working with them was the issue. As if there was any meaningful restriction to your little hobby.

I should have known better, because there is no sense in having a discussion with fearful, compensatory men about their little hobby. They cannot cede any ground about their guns because none of it is, really, about their guns.

I've never said "See? They are terrible to us! We can't work with them!" -- I'm not sure why you're attributing that quote to me. Not only have I not said that, I've not said anything remotely close to that.

To recap, you claimed: "No gun control advocate would disagree with any of these. Gun humpers have already shot many of these measures down on many occasions."

I pointed out that in this very thread we have gun control advocates disagreeing with these suggestions. We also have gun owners who are promoting these suggestions.

It's OK to admit you made a mistake, my friend.

They have neither the temperament nor capability to discuss the issue rationally, resorting to playground insults rather than trying to engage in a meaningful discussion.

...state concealed carry status 9 years ago:



And today:



There's now 5 times as many unrestricted states.
Why should pro-RKBA and pro-restriction compromise? Just to be realistic.

Gun control advocates get meaningful gun safety legislation passed (unthinkable in todays political climate without compromise) and gun owners get several long desired benefits and quality of life enhancements.

Everyone wins.