Mrs. Peel

Article about mass shooting that makes a compelling argument (bolstered by stats/links) for concealed carry: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442771/gun-control-statistics-liberal-hysteria-gun-owners-safe

Awww... I was only half-joking about your kiddos traversing a nuclear wasteland well-prepped by their Uncle AVB. I spent several years working with engineers and architects btw and I was always rather amazed by... The planning! The checklists! The redundancies! Yikes. I'm the first to admit I come up short on the "Be Prepared" scouting credo. So, rock on... Uncle AVB... rock on.

It's embarrassing that I don't know this... (admittedly poor understanding of civics)... but is this something Christie can/would veto?

Bingo! Reading that list... I was thinking, damn... apparently I'm a crazy, reckless fool livin' on a wing and a prayer (LOL). I admire your protective attitude(s)... such Boy Scouts on here. Adorbs! My dad did the same when I was a teenager - I learned to change a flat, change the oil, to park on a hill (so I could pop the clutch to start my little VW Bug), etc. Even had my own dad-purchased tool box (good grief, why did he think that was necessary?). Good times, good times....! But, today... I have NOTHING even close to AVB's all-encompassing, ready-for-the-nuclear-wasteland list in my car. As Bill said, today's cars are far too computerized to deal with... and I'm traveling in NJ, not Denali National Park. A great mechanic, regular maintenance (including checking the air in spare tire), jumper cables, "Premium" AAA membership, a charged cell phone, a blanket, and a waterproof poncho... baby, that's about it for me. Oh, and once the cold season hits, I also throw spare snow boots and a snow shovel in my trunk and keep them there until spring. If you must get them something, AVB, why not one of those hand crank emergency radios? I've been thinking about getting one of those myself. Most have a flashlight, a strobe light feature AND an all-important port to charge a cell phone. Combined with a AAA membership, that seems more practical to me than anything else. And it's small, so your loved ones will have the tendency to actually keep it in the car - where it's needed. Edit: one more thing... I also have a length of pipe in the car...so if I'm in a dead zone and can't get AAA on the phone, I can at least get a little leverage on the lug nuts of a wheel - to compensate for my lack of muscle.

This is now the 3rd thread on same topic, LOL.... This one... http://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/84311-a4179-and-a4180-requiring-fids-to-use-ranges/ And this one... http://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/83672-a2666a2667-no-temporary-transfers/

Oopsy!! It seems we have 2 threads running about the same topic. How do I get an administrator to lock one of these? That's probably the best thing to do. Or merge, or whatever. Thanks!

Hi, I swear that I recall this topic was posted on here before - but I searched high and low... and pulled up nothing! Administrators... feel free to lock or move it elsewhere as appropriate... Just got an NRA-ILA announcement about additional restrictions being proposed for NJ ranges (like customers must already have and show their FID card)... hearing as early as Monday, Dec 5. They are urging letters and attendance at hearing. Here's the link: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20161130/new-jersey-urgent-legislation-puts-shooting-ranges-in-crosshairs

Siamese Twins, separated at birth? Because I was thinking similarly: The Poster Formerly Known as Ataimwolswol --- if it was good enough for Prince....

Here's a nice scholarly piece by 2 criminologists and published by Harvard Law - see page 670 in particular, "More Guns, Less Crime?" http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

You might get some good stuff from this article too - http://time.com/4100408/a-criminologists-case-against-gun-control/

The factsheets on this site might not be deemed "credible" - however, they carefully footnote the sources of all of their claims - so pull up the factsheets on gun control and you have a lot list of other resources you can probably locate on a website or access easily enough through a library. (Dept of Justice has a TON of studies btw - that's one of their core missions!) https://www.gunowners.org/fact-sheets.htm Also, I can't find it at the moment, but there was a multi-city study of felons conducted by the Dept of Justice that found (if I recall correctly) 89% of the prisoners who were there for gun crimes had ALREADY been ex-felons when they committed that gun crime (and a large portion were on parole). This percentage was mirrored almost exactly in another study (an investigative report) by the NYT not too many years ago. They reviewed about a year's worth of solved homicides in NYC and found that 90% of the killers (many of whom undoubtedly used firearms) were already ex-felons when they committed the crime (and approx. half were on parole during the commission of those crimes). I'll dig around and try to find online sources for those. Why's that important? Well, because it shows that ex-felons - who cannot legally purchase guns - get them anyway. They don't follow the law. It also shows they are committing the lion's share of gun crime. Stiffer sentencing would do FAR more to reduce crime than gun control. I'll see if I can dig those 2 up. The NYT in particular might appeal to the average (leftist) professor. LOL.

Seems like everyone has the same question... LOL. Here's another thread: http://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/84129-borrowing-a-handgun-from-a-nj-resident-for-a-range-trip/#entry1077280 I'm not sure if there's a diff whether it's handgun or long gun. Folks more knowledgeable than me will weigh in if I sent you to the wrong thread!

I would tend to say you're all paranoid (LOL)... but you've raised interesting points I hadn't initially considered. Yeah, I guess any new technology or insights like this can be wielded for good or for bad. Fingers crossed this is used appropriately - to save lives, not to trample on people's freedom.

Sorry to be positing on such a sad topic...however, I found this article to be worthy of sharing for 2 reasons: 1) As we know, the topic does have a connection to guns.... those roughly 30K poor souls that kill themselves with guns each year in the U.S. (including those very rare cases that occur at gun ranges, like the ones that have been discussed on these forums). Then there's the way those gun suicides are often lumped together with gun murders - an unfair manipulation, I would argue, by the gun control movement to pad/exaggerate gun violence to inflame emotions. 2) But more importantly, just from a standpoint of basic human decency, I find it exciting that a researcher at Cincinnati Children's Hospital has apparently discovered an effective way to predict which teens are actually feeling suicidal - as opposed to those who may be experiencing a non-suicidal mental illness. In fact, this is the most promising research into this topic that I've read in a very, very long time. One can only hope that the methodology could also be tweaked to work in more situations, and perhaps to work with adults too. Hey, who knows?... Looking into the future, as the technology advances, could this even be adapted as a suicide screening tool used at public ranges? It certainly sounds like it has the potential to translate into lives saved... so at least I'm leaving you with a note of hope on an otherwise grim topic! It's a very good read for anyone interested in human psychology. Here's the initial link (which links to other articles as well): http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/11/19/detecting-language-suicide-theres-app/93944060/

http://www.guns.com/2013/02/26/car-mounts-30-photos/

Just an interesting article... I though folks might enjoy: http://www.guns.com/2016/11/14/u-s-army-tests-now-underway-for-new-aim-stabilizing-firearm/

Sorry. Meant to make a new thread. Ignore.

They're appealing, as one might expect, to their state's supreme court: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/health/sandy-hook-families-appeal-to-connecticut-supreme-court/index.html It's a weak case... I expect it will get bounced again.

Without being nosey, are you 100% sure your assumption is right? That she is thoroughly unwilling to be trained? Maybe if you encouraged her to try a shooting class for women, she might find it less intimidating? Has she even been to a range? I went to a range for the first time because there was a murder in my neighborhood and my NRA-card carrying uncle was on the phone to me as soon as it hit the news (like... instantly). Frankly, I went to the range just to get him to stop bugging me. I never thought I'd enjoy it so much... I would have rolled on the floor laughing if you told me I'd be a gun owner one day. So, I would tend to explore her resistance first. It seems you're putting the cart before the horse. Willingness to learn seems like a pretty big prerequisite to owning a firearm IMO. But, others on here are smarter than me about this stuff... let's let them weigh in. Just adding my 2 cents.

Uhhhh... Some nice perfume to go with that holster? Other than that, I got nuthin.

I've been struggling with this also, trying to land on the method that works best for me. Others have mentioned using scotch tape... or a translucent blinder on the dominant eye lens. FYI, I recently found these other products too - frosted plastic dots that self-cling to your glasses: http://www.shotgunsportsmagazine.com/shop/shooters-magic-eye-dots http://www.shotspot.co.uk/US/ ​I haven't tried them, so can't recommend them or not. But I used another idea this week that I found on the internet (these are all based on the same principle; that if you slightly blur the lens directly in front of your dominant eye, the brain will instantly switch over to the other eye without sacrificing light or peripheral vision). I bought a tube of cherry Chapstick. When prepping to shoot, I used it to make a very thin, smudgy nickel-sized spot on my glasses/dominant eye. It worked LIKE A CHARM! It was the first time that I could actually "feel" my non-dominant (right) eye taking over. It allowed me to use my right hand (I'm a natural righty) and I was shooting really well. Best part... when done shooting, it just wiped off with a tissue. So it was super-cheap, very effective, and left no adhesive residue on my glasses. And to be honest, the cherry scent wafting in the air was kinda nice too. ​So, if you're looking for a cheap way to test out this blurring technique, try the Chapstick. You can always step up to a more elegant solution afterwards. (...more elegant than the eye-gouging method recommended by the above post).

This is NOT a criticism... there is NO REASON someone's nice dad should have been subjected to such an unwarranted hassle... Pragmatically however, if one of the nice ladies happened to see his "Bond Arms T-shirt with the nice graphic"... that could have been a big tip-off that a pro-2A following had shown up. That also might have set them off into a mad scurry of phone calls to The Queen herself. (Again, utterly ridiculous as it is).

So sorry! Losing a pet is always painful... for anyone with a heart.

Eh... I think that's only the "lunatic fringe" - e.g., the real hardliners of the progressive movement (committed, over-the-top activist types). I have MANY friends/colleagues that will be voting for HRC - 1 or 2 are even relatively enthusiastic (rather hard for me to understand). They might roll their eyes if they see a Trump sign and think/voice unkind thoughts... but not a single one of them would ever dream of stealing a campaign sign, nor destroying ANY kind of property that didn't belong to them. Most people on both sides of the political spectrum are still pretty decent IMO. You may think that's naïve, but it's what my life experience tells me.

This is too wierd... I have a relative who is a fanatical Trump supporter. Someone is stealing his Trump signs in Warren County - so he's doing the same thing - setting up a "sting" w/camera. Yikes... is this a trend? Do we need bundled sign + camera packages given out by campaigns these days? Though I'm laughing at the pictures (above)... there's something very sad and outrageous about this. It's pretty despicable actually.