chances R

I really appreciate the thought provoking posts. At times my fuse is short, but this underscores the need to maintain a cool head and let things that really don't matter just slide.

nice to see them respond. There for a minute thought there was no use in making a visit. Glad to see the change in policy. I will make it a point to stop in.

Dave, Todd would have probably made it home without killing anyone with his car or gun. Rather a broad assumption he didn't because the Police stopped him on your part. But none the less, I'm glad he was stopped, and he will have his day in court. No sympathy from me, no excuses whatsoever. I don't tolerate driving impaired. IMO, the car was the most dangerous situation. Society seems to overlook alcohol problems because so many people we all know are involved in these situations routinely. It is one thing to be high or drunk and shoot things up, but the press treats the presence of a weapon as the appearance of satan himself. That is all I was pointing out.

OK, Rep Todd screwed up. BUT, the media is focusing on the handgun. Let's get this straight. Rep. Todd endangered the public by driving a vehicle while drunk. NOT by handling or firing a handgun while drunk. Neither is acceptable, but many more people are killed and maimed by DRUNK DRIVING, for which there are numerous laws, commercials, etc. which address this. That is where the real problem is. But the liberal press is obsessed by the fact a gun was present, not brandished, not shot, only stowed away, and no harm to anyone. This is what really bothers me. WE need to somehow get the focus off the gun. This man could carry a gun anyway; he didn't need a permit, but that's obviously all we will hear.

Good thing about JSR is that it is inside the City Limits, and if it were not for the TWRA taking it over, would probably been shut down. Bad thing is the overbearing RSOs. Not that they don't have some responsibility and headaches dealing with the general public, but some have forgotten how to do so in a calm, professional and helpful way. No use joining the VRPC to use the range; just pay TWRA the nominal range fee and go. Still a decent place to sight in rifles. The best thing about it is the Pistol program. Good folks there and very friendly. Just consult the VRPC monthly newsletter to see schedule and show up whatever interests you.

Yes, it is a blow for 'us'. But I have no sympathy or tolerance for driving while intoxicated, PLUS he was armed......STUPID.

The TWRA range in Knoxville allows shooting ONLY while seated. There is a pistol range, but its use is on a very limited basis.

Look at Mastercast bullet co. or J an J out of Ark. for remanufactured ammo. This will decrease your costs, especially if you collect your own brass.

Dry practice is fine for all modern firearms, except rimfires. Worst case something breaks, doubtful, but it can be fixed. I'm not a believer in snap caps. Did hear of some incidents where snap caps were in the gun, owner thought it loaded with live rounds in a time of need......not a good result. I'm sure the reverse could happen as well. If dry practice, I believe NOTHING should be in the chamber as a matter of habit. As far as your R1, IMO a great shooter. I've put several thousand rounds through mine. It's a keeper.

I agree. "Sir you own a .380, why did you feel compelled on this evening to carry your .45? You knew you were going to shoot someone didn't you?! You intentionally carried a larger, more dangerous, and lethal weapon." Factory ammo is not infallible. If your comfortable with the ammo, whether your own, or reman, or factory I don't think that is your big concern in a shooting........a 'good shoot' is a good shoot period. All that really matters is that you and your equipment work if you are facing a life-threatening situation.

[TABLE] [TR] [TD][h=1]Media Silence Is Deafening About Important Gun News[/h]By John Lott | Published September 30, 2011 | FoxNews.com Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C. Politicians predicted disaster. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Washington's Mayor Adrian Fenty warned the day the court made its decision. Chicago's Mayor Daley predicted that we would "go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets . . . ." The New York Times even editorialized this month about the Supreme Court's "unwise" decision that there is a right for people "to keep guns in the home." But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn't rise after the bans were eliminated -- they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate. Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news. One can only imagine the coverage if crime rates had risen. In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year - back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago's murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982. Meanwhile, the other four most populous cities saw a total drop at the same time of only 6 percent. Similarly, in the year after the 2008 "Heller" decision, the murder rate fell two-and-a-half times faster in Washington than in the rest of the country. It also fell more than three as fast as in other cities that are close to Washington's size. And murders in Washington have continued to fall. If you compare the first six months of this year to the first six months of 2008, the same time immediately preceding the Supreme Court's late June "Heller" decision, murders have now fallen by thirty-four percent. Gun crimes also fell more than non-gun crimes. Robberies with guns fell by 25%, while robberies without guns have fallen by eight percent. Assaults with guns fell by 37%, while assaults without guns fell by 12%. Just as with right-to-carry laws, when law-abiding citizens have guns some criminals stop carrying theirs. The benefit could have been even greater. Getting a handgun permit in Chicago and Washington is an expensive and difficult process, meaning only the relatively wealthy go through it. Through the end of May only 2,144 people had handguns registered in Chicago. That limits the benefits from the Supreme Court decisions since it is the poor who are the most likely victims of crime and who benefit the most from being able to protect themselves. The biggest change for Washington was the Supreme Court striking down the law making it illegal to have a loaded gun. Over 70,000 people have permits for long guns that they can now legally used to protect themselves. Lower crime rates in Chicago and Washington, by themselves, don't prove that gun control increases murders, even when combined with the quite familiar story of how their murder rates soared and stayed high after the gun bans were imposed. But these aren't isolated examples. Around the world, whenever guns are banned, murder rates rise. Gun control advocates explained the huge increases in murder and violent crime rates Chicago and Washington by saying that those bans weren't fair tests unless the entire country adopted a ban. Yet, even island nations, such as Ireland and the U.K. -- with no neighbors to blame -- have seen increases in murder rates. The same horror stories about blood in the streets have surrounded the debate over concealed handguns. Some said it was necessary to ban guns in public places. The horror stories never came true and the data is now so obvious that as of November, only one state, Illinois, will still completely ban law-abiding from carrying concealed handguns. Forty-one states will have either permissive right-to-carry laws or no longer even require a permit. The regulations that still exist in Chicago and Washington primarily disarm the most likely victims of crime. Hopefully, even the poor in these areas will soon also have more of an opportunity to defend themselves, too. [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

Exactly...+me too

would I ? IF I perceive a threat, like all other circumstances, I try not to discriminate based on sex, race, etc.

Disparity of force, a clear victim, and a continued attack all scream for intervention. Any altercation is potentially a serious bodily threat; if not deadly. All it takes is ONE blow to the head, either directly by the punch or by hitting your head on the ground. This video is clear on that point. See a girl in seizures for proof. To me there is no question that when there was an obvious victim it would be time to step in. IMO, if the threat was not stopped it wouldn't bother me to pull my weapon. I agree with Lumberjack; do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may.

In the case of the 870, the quality of the gun you bought is better than if you bought a 'fresh' gun. The wingmaster, or special purpose 870s are very good guns. Even the express shotguns were a lot better then. I think you really lucked out.

This happened just recently on a South Carolina rural area road trip with the wife. Following an older model car full of young men. They happen to turn the same way we were going; but this was across a rather large median for a two lane road. They came to a complete stop, without any traffic coming or other obvious reason. Their back door opened and a young man got out. At that time both the wife and I are reaching for weapons, I'm checking my 'six', starting to put the car in reverse to create some distance. At that time the car pulls on off, and they were simply letting the fellow out at that point, as they all continued on. We proceeded as well and a short distance just glanced at one another and realized what had just happened without saying a word at the time. We had a smile of relief, and realized that our previous discussions of events had prepared us to start an appropriate response. It pays to stay code 'yellow'. You never know when the next time is for real.

OK, I have a better understanding now, Dave. So if TN does away with the HCP process, and the language is such that makes carry a right of a Tennessean, would this then imply that an employer would be in a more difficult position to enforce such a ban? Just thinking 'out-loud".

?? A crime? I assume in general without a HCP? The question is not really about actually carrying, on person, the firearm. I is more about having a gun in the a locked car at your place of employment. In a broader scope, employers are denying an employee the ability to adequately defend ones self to and from work. I wholeheartedly believe the employer can decide to not allow 'carrying' on the property. I do think it needs to be addressed once again in the Legislature.

Thanks, that was the info I needed.

Need some help with this. Does TN have a state law permitting lawful carry on the property of their employer, if firearm is left in ones car?

I understand Dave, it happens everyday when criminals are released back into the public.........I vote for destroying the criminals and the weapon, but if not, we got to release both. But the obvious, real danger is the criminal.

+ 1 The more you stir in sh** the more it smells. If you carry legally you have nothing to worry about. It doesn't infringe upon the HCP owner. Let 'em blow smoke. I am sure there are many laws regarding carry that are still in effect that do not apply to HCP. Walk softly and carry a big gun.

yes, you need to buy a "Tennessee" gun........good excuse as any to have to get a new gun

Thank God!!

Sight alignment, complete focus only on the front sight......not the target, then press the trigger, this should result in a surprise break (shot). This is the process every time, dry practice or live.