Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Questions About Getting Into Guns/Shooting

Questions About Getting Into Guns/Shooting (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Phileas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2009, 05:30 PM
 
I honestly think that for the vast majority of people faced with a mugger or an intruder a gun will offer little to no protection. These kinds of scenarios are not like shooting on the range, they are panicky, often underlit and just plain scary. Add to this the natural reluctance any sane person has to actually use a gun in anger and much of any perceived protection goes out of the window.

If you're worried about personal protection I'd persoanlly start by learning decent self defense, then graduate to a gun from there.
     
phantomdragonz
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Near Boulder, CO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 02:59 AM
 
If life or limb is threatened and I had the means to keep anybody from being hurt I would. But at the VERY least think I would be able to do whatever necessary to protect innocent lives.

Knowing I had a tool to save an innocent persons life and NOT use it would be horrible. I am no hero but not stopping an deadly action that I have the capability to stop is unthinkable to me. Of course self preservation would probably kick in before that, but as long as I was confident that I could do what was necessary I would try my best.

Training, practice play a HUGE part in that split second decision though.

-Zach
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 03:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
I honestly think that for the vast majority of people faced with a mugger or an intruder a gun will offer little to no protection. These kinds of scenarios are not like shooting on the range, they are panicky, often underlit and just plain scary. Add to this the natural reluctance any sane person has to actually use a gun in anger and much of any perceived protection goes out of the window.

If you're worried about personal protection I'd persoanlly start by learning decent self defense, then graduate to a gun from there.
This has gone straight into my Top 10 of really stupid posts seen on the internet. Congrats !!
     
Phileas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 07:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
This has gone straight into my Top 10 of really stupid posts seen on the internet. Congrats !!
Did you actually read, and comprehend, what I wrote or are you just shooting your mouth off? Talk to any police officer out there and they'll agree with me. Contrary to what you seem to believe, real life is not like TV.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 07:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
I honestly think that for the vast majority of people faced with a mugger or an intruder a gun will offer little to no protection. These kinds of scenarios are not like shooting on the range, they are panicky, often underlit and just plain scary. Add to this the natural reluctance any sane person has to actually use a gun in anger and much of any perceived protection goes out of the window.

If you're worried about personal protection I'd persoanlly start by learning decent self defense, then graduate to a gun from there.
"Decent self defense" for a lot of people IS a firearm, and the training to go along with carrying it. Consider that there are lots of people who are mobile but not physically robust enough to even use Judo on an attacker, but who CAN use a firearm. ANY individual who plans for being able to handle such a situation is miles ahead from the majority, who are sheep in the eyes of the mugger. There's lots of empirical evidence that the wrong-doer will high-tail it away at the first hint that his intended victim has a gun, and lots of evidence that being shot AT is almost as effective at stopping a mugger as being shot.

By just getting the training required for a concealed carry permit, a person who carries is miles ahead of the rest of society in self defense. And not knowing whether or not the next person he attacks will be armed tends to make muggers "nervous." There are good, solid statistics that places that have concealed carry laws have lower street crime rates, and that a significant decrease in those rates is directly related to the timeframe of the law's passage. This is not to say that any jerk can pick up a pistol and be effective in defending himself in any situation; rather, it means that the required training for a concealed carry permit is aimed at preparing the individual to make good, split second decisions about how and whether to use a gun in self defense.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Phileas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 08:21 AM
 
Glen - there are also good solid statistics that show that places which have very strict gun laws have lower street crime rates involving firearms. There are additional statistics that claim that in places where people carry guns, people use them. I am not doubting your sources, but statistics are, you know, statistics.

Meaning, a mugger is more likely to start the confrontation with a gun if he is worried that the intended victim has a gun. Lets be clear about this: Muggings do not start by a well lit, stationary mugger standing 20 ft in front of you, asking you for cash. No, a typical mugging will either start from behind, or with one person distracting the victim with a second mugger overpowering the victim, again from behind. In these situations you have zero chance to go Dirty Harry on the criminals, you've lost before you've even started.

If they are unarmed, self defense can buy you the time you need to run away or call for help. If they are armed, you are up the creek without a paddle. If they then find your gun, that creek just got a whole lot deeper.

We train police officers and soldiers to deal with these situations on purpose. Cops hate few things more than amateurs getting a messy situation even messier. Unless you've got constant training, a gun will do little for you.
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 02:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
Did you actually read, and comprehend, what I wrote or are you just shooting your mouth off? Talk to any police officer out there and they'll agree with me. Contrary to what you seem to believe, real life is not like TV.
lmfao. So, are you saying that if I learn Aikido instead of buying a gun, then I can't tackle an intruder like Steven Seagal? But, but you just said I should learn a martial art? Which is it? TV real or not? I'd love to see 60 year olds learning muay thai, or a pregnant woman going through some tae kwon do.

I know a police officer, actually an uncle, who thinks everyone that doesn't have a criminal conviction should have a gun. And btw, he works for the Met in London.

And since when are police officers to be THE reference for whether I should defend myself with a bamboo stick or a Mossberg?

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
"Decent self defense" for a lot of people IS a firearm, and the training to go along with carrying it. Consider that there are lots of people who are mobile but not physically robust enough to even use Judo on an attacker, but who CAN use a firearm. ANY individual who plans for being able to handle such a situation is miles ahead from the majority, who are sheep in the eyes of the mugger. There's lots of empirical evidence that the wrong-doer will high-tail it away at the first hint that his intended victim has a gun, and lots of evidence that being shot AT is almost as effective at stopping a mugger as being shot.

By just getting the training required for a concealed carry permit, a person who carries is miles ahead of the rest of society in self defense. And not knowing whether or not the next person he attacks will be armed tends to make muggers "nervous." There are good, solid statistics that places that have concealed carry laws have lower street crime rates, and that a significant decrease in those rates is directly related to the timeframe of the law's passage. This is not to say that any jerk can pick up a pistol and be effective in defending himself in any situation; rather, it means that the required training for a concealed carry permit is aimed at preparing the individual to make good, split second decisions about how and whether to use a gun in self defense.
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
Glen - there are also good solid statistics that show that places which have very strict gun laws have lower street crime rates involving firearms. There are additional statistics that claim that in places where people carry guns, people use them. I am not doubting your sources, but statistics are, you know, statistics.
Show me. Washington DC has very strict gun laws doesn't it? Chicago? Show me where banning guns has brought down gun crime. Show me. You'll be able to find some stats, and I'll find some others. There is no correlation between the banning of firearms and a drop in crime.

have some links (I haven't read them all) :

World Top 10 Countries With Highest Murder Rates

Murders (per capita) statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DEATH BY MURDER

The Caribbean Has The Highest Crime Rate in the World (credit card, home) - City-Data Forum

Foreign Policy: The List: Murder Capitals of the World

Gun laws in the United States (by state) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
Meaning, a mugger is more likely to start the confrontation with a gun if he is worried that the intended victim has a gun. Lets be clear about this: Muggings do not start by a well lit, stationary mugger standing 20 ft in front of you, asking you for cash. No, a typical mugging will either start from behind, or with one person distracting the victim with a second mugger overpowering the victim, again from behind. In these situations you have zero chance to go Dirty Harry on the criminals, you've lost before you've even started.
I don't think that this is true. I think that if a burglar *thinks* that a home owner or a mugger *thinks* that a potential victim has a gun, that they will be left alone. I'm sure that theres some study done about this by asking burglars and muggers who were in prison but I haven't got a clue what to search for.

Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
If they are unarmed, self defense can buy you the time you need to run away or call for help. If they are armed, you are up the creek without a paddle. If they then find your gun, that creek just got a whole lot deeper.
Why are burglars suddenly so smart and gun holding home owners suddenly so stupid? If you have a gun in your house for self defence then you aren't going to put it just inside the front door are you? If an un-armed burglar comes into my house, then I'd shout "I HAVE A FOOKIN GUN !!!" and if he or she came any closer, then they would get shot by said gun. Ditto for the armed burglar. And, dunno about you, but I would never leave a house being robbed especially since I have a wife and kids.

Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
We train police officers and soldiers to deal with these situations on purpose. Cops hate few things more than amateurs getting a messy situation even messier. Unless you've got constant training, a gun will do little for you.
Still lol. I personally know people in the US, and in France who train far more than most police officers with their weapons. I'm pretty sure that there are hundreds of people in the US who have had far more training than the majority (yes the majority) of police officers. You think that they spend more time training with firearms or filling in paperwork? What you saw in the film SWAT isn't reality you know. The same policeman that I mentioned before has told me stories of arresting people who are 5 foot tall, 150lbs high on who-knows-what drugs - and it taking 5 trained policemen to subdue them. 5 trained policemen to put a shorty into handcuffs. Which martial art should I learn for that? And just to prove my point, why issue police with weapons at all? If learning a martial art is good enough, why not just start karate classes?

I'll take my gun and a phone, with my wife and kids behind me in the corner of a barricaded room. I'll be shouting that I have a gun and to get out of my house. I won't go looking for them.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
We train police officers and soldiers to deal with these situations on purpose.
It's a shame, then, that they're always in the station eating donuts and filling in endless reams of paperwork that the politicians provide them with.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 03:44 PM
 
Let's not drift too far into politics and beliefs. The OP wants help and advice on a gun purchase for security and range use. Since opinions on gun politics differ, an argument on the subject will never reach a conclusion.
     
Phileas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 04:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
lmfao.
You sound like somebody who has never been in a fight. In the dark, with somebody who surprised you.

What you don't seem to understand, this is not about weapon training, this is about personal defense training. I can go the range daily, and I will still be ill prepared against a determined criminal who wants to make a statement if I have not been trained on how to react in a crisis situation. The majority of gun owners that I know haven't and a small, but typically loud, minority confuse bluster with confidence.

But as Reader said, let's not get too far from the OT, so I'll leave you to laugh in peace.
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Let's not drift too far into politics and beliefs. The OP wants help and advice on a gun purchase for security and range use. Since opinions on gun politics differ, an argument on the subject will never reach a conclusion.
OK point taken.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 10:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
I honestly think that for the vast majority of people faced with a mugger or an intruder a gun will offer little to no protection. These kinds of scenarios are not like shooting on the range, they are panicky, often underlit and just plain scary. Add to this the natural reluctance any sane person has to actually use a gun in anger and much of any perceived protection goes out of the window.

If you're worried about personal protection I'd persoanlly start by learning decent self defense, then graduate to a gun from there.
That's why training, comfort with the gun (without complacency), and situational awareness development are key. They all go hand in hand. Having guns around makes your life a lot more dangerous, and it takes adjustment and readiness.

Heck, why don't folks who might be worried about it just move to a different place? That's a lot easier than messing with scary and dangerous guns! Protecting yourself? Forget it. Just move someplace nicer.

I forgot one thing: instead of getting a gun, you should just teach yourself to run really really fast. That's the equivalent of learning TKD or something for "self defense". Any of the martial arts require "constant maintenance" too. Heck, just learn to run really fast, and then learn to scream loud (a whistle in your mouth is too dangerous while running duh) so people will hear you (and THEY can run too, presumably). Can't run fast? You're screwed.

As someone who has used a firearm to prevent a situation from becoming violent, several times, and who's seen it done by others dozens of times, I know that a pistol in the hands of a trained, cool-headed individual is a great equalizer. If you're not a trained, cool-headed individual, don't bother with guns, because they're just as likely to get you killed or shot in the leg (just axe Plaxico Burris).
( Last edited by finboy; Sep 23, 2009 at 10:32 PM. )
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2009, 08:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
Glen - there are also good solid statistics that show that places which have very strict gun laws have lower street crime rates involving firearms. There are additional statistics that claim that in places where people carry guns, people use them. I am not doubting your sources, but statistics are, you know, statistics.
These statements are good on their faces, but they are incomplete. How much total street crime exists where those "very strict" laws are in place? What weapons do street criminals use instead of guns? In the UK they're at least looking at regulating kitchen knives because bad guys are using them to commit crimes; which seems to indicate that it isn't firearms that drive criminal acts but rather criminals... Whereas in places where people are legally allowed to carry firearms, it's probably true that the OVERALL street crime rate is lower precisely because the criminal doesn't know whether he'll roll craps and jump someone that's armed.

Rates of criminal activity by licensed carriers here in Texas are extremely small and there are almost no gun related crimes by concealed carry licensees here. A licensee can have the license pulled for even misdemeanors such as "urinating in public" (which could include a secluded part of a park that doesn't have any sanitary facilities), and these misdemeanors are included in "criminal acts by licensee" stats.

I don't consider these issues to be political, as long as we don't go slinging mud or political labels. But there is an abysmal lack of candor and facts in much public discourse on firearms. We actually let the press get away with using completely wrong terminology, so much so that most of the public doesn't really know what the heck much of the press is talking about. Case in point: a Yahoo! news item from yesterday talking about the current, long-standing ammunition shortage in the States. Throughout the piece, the authors talked about availability of "bullets." No, they meant "ammunition." Try to get some "journalist" to actually bother writing with the correct nomenclature on almost any technical subject-they aren't interested. But that technical precision is VITAL to reasoned and thoughtful discussions.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
NosniboR80
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: DC, Atlanta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2009, 10:32 AM
 
Calibers -
Obviously go with what you want. I own a .40 and a .45, and I used a 9mm on active duty. I like them both, but I prefer the .45 because I like the 1911, more than I like the caliber. So, going with the gun/caliber combo that you like and are willing to practice with is a much better idea than just picking something from advice on a forum.
This talk of too big of a caliber making you less accurate is true only so far as you get distracted by the anticipation of recoil. If you are prone to that, go with a smaller caliber. If you know how to control your trigger pull and handle the pistol, you'll be fine with a .45 - and there are definitely some .45s out there that are designed for small hands.
Also, yes 9mm is cheaper than .40 and .45 ammo but not in a budget busting amount. Unless you are going to take up IDPA/IPSC/etc - in which case, you should probably reload.

Pistol choice -
This is way more important to me than caliber. I can shoot VERY well with some pistols and average in others. More practice will make me better with all pistols and make me VERY good with anything, but I have another life and consider this a hobby now rather than a job. The point is choose what works for you - it will make you more accurate and make you enjoy it more - which then makes you more likely to practice and become a better home defender.

Self-Defense -
I will echo others - a shotgun is your best bet. The argument about being so close to the intruder that he can grab your shotgun is true, but not that relevant in my opinion. If he's so close that you can't grab your weapon, load it, and bring it to bear on your enemy before he gets to you, then a pistol wouldn't be much better. (By the way, the loading process is important there. Any weapon should be stored unloaded. While a pistol can be loaded faster than a shotgun, it is an important step to consider when using hypothetical situations. It's not so much faster that the shotgun should be ruled out.)

Firearm vs Not -
I also think it's silly to recommend a martial art over a firearm, especially for home defense. No one is so good that they would prefer their hands over a pistol. If they were, then they would probably be so aware and capable of using a firearm in any situation that the original point would be moot.
Now, when it comes to carrying around town, that's a different story. I just don't see myself carrying my pistol on the street, for the exact reasons that were mentioned - being surrounded in close quarters. I'm sure I would wish that I had one, but I also imagine that it wouldn't do me much good since I couldn't bring it to bear on the aggressor until it was too late.

Back to the original post, if you plan on shooting and training before purchasing, then you are on the right track. Getting time behind a trigger is the best way to figure out what you like. Just remember that you get what you pay for. Stick with a good brand. No need to get a Baer or Dan Wesson 1911 or something like that, but I wouldn't take the cheap way out. In most cases, you're paying for quality parts and workmanship. Of course, you're in a Mac forum, so I'm probably preaching to the choir.
Semper Fi
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 06:04 AM
 
Tangential to the original subject of this thread, but appropriate to one of the major points Phileas has been trying to make:

New Scientist: Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn't worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 07:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Tangential to the original subject of this thread, but appropriate to one of the major points Phileas has been trying to make:

New Scientist: Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
I have problems with the representative quality of the study's population. I would also be curious about who selected each case to be included, and who funded the study; there is a fairly long history of a few anti-gun organizations going to extreme lengths to hide their sponsorship of poor science and skewed use of statistics to make it appear that the mere existence of these devices is harmful to the fabric of space-time. Choosing Philadelphia as THE locale to select data from is a poor start; it is difficult to make any broad study represent the totality of any population, and focusing on a very small locale makes it MUCH harder-unless you intend to make the results look a certain way.

I can't address the AJPH, but I will point out that the AMA has a fairly large financial and for some reason philosophical link to the Brady organizations. Supposedly physicians are scientists ("the art and science of medicine...") with significant time in their training dedicated to HARD science, especially statistical inquiries. And when I explain my own therapeutic approaches to many physicians, they demand "the controlled studies to support" what I do. Yet the AMA as a group has embraced pretty thoroughly debunked false science published by various Brady organizations and their adherents without even commenting on the scientific and logical conflicts in those "studies." In short, just having a published study on the issue is nowhere near enough to "establish" any facts on the issue; you have to examine the background and approach of the investigators, including how biased they are and in what direction, and whether they even bothered to adjust their investigation to address their own biases.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 08:04 AM
 
Wonder how many gun carrying government employees were shot during this time? I wonder why they didn't try and correlate any other variables : dealing drugs, stealing cars etc? What were they doing in the 3 or 4 hours before they were shot? Do they have full time employment?

This looks at first glance like the type of study that has a conclusion and finds evidence to support it.
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 10:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Tangential to the original subject of this thread, but appropriate to one of the major points Phileas has been trying to make:

New Scientist: Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
I have a couple questions for people who were able to read the full article:

1) How many people in this study had valid, legal carry permits for their gun?

2) How old were the victims? You must be 21 in PA to legally apply to carry a handgun.

I guarantee that in those 667 shootings, a miniscule % of the people killed who were carrying were law-abiding citizens with a legally owned firearm and carry permit.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 11:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
Wonder how many gun carrying government employees were shot during this time? I wonder why they didn't try and correlate any other variables : dealing drugs, stealing cars etc? What were they doing in the 3 or 4 hours before they were shot? Do they have full time employment?

This looks at first glance like the type of study that has a conclusion and finds evidence to support it.
they could have included dental health and genital shaving, as well, but it wouldn't have been terribly relevant to a study on the correlation (NOT causation - many people apparently have trouble distinguishing between the two) between gun-carrying and the likelihood of getting shot.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 11:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
I have a couple questions for people who were able to read the full article:

1) How many people in this study had valid, legal carry permits for their gun?

2) How old were the victims? You must be 21 in PA to legally apply to carry a handgun.

I guarantee that in those 667 shootings, a miniscule % of the people killed who were carrying were law-abiding citizens with a legally owned firearm and carry permit.
interesting questions, though not directly relevant to the findings of the study.
     
pooka
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 11:37 AM
 
Umm... ok...

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
The Placid Casual
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 11:57 AM
 
I really do find this thread interesting, as it highlights the different cultures of the users of the boards.

For reference, I shoot, .22 prone rifle 25/50 meters. I used to also target shoot 9mm hand guns at 25 meters too until they were totally banned in the UK.

I now live in France, and about to join another club to get up to date and back in the swing of things, and beginning the process to buy another rifle, but I am just shocked at the apparent ease of obtaining a 'permit to carry' in the US!

To put it in perspective, the carrying of handguns in the UK and most of Europe is totally illegal for civilians, and to even get a license for a 'military calibre', such as 7.62mm, 9mm, .303 British, .45 and .50 is a long, long process... and even then you are allowed to only carry them from a club to your home.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Placid Casual View Post
but I am just shocked at the apparent ease of obtaining a 'permit to carry' in the US!
Got mine in IL: $10 and a 1 page application.

Got my permit in about 2 weeks. All they do is a background check.

-t
     
The Placid Casual
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Got mine in IL: $10 and a 1 page application.

Got my permit in about 2 weeks. All they do is a background check.

-t
My god.

Short of being an on duty Policeman here in France, it is totally forbidden.

Thing is, I would have no problems about trusting myself carrying one, as I know how to handle a gun and ammunition, and have used then since I was 14, but the thought of some of my co-workers carrying a concealed Glock really does send cold sweats through me.
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 12:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
I have a couple questions for people who were able to read the full article:

1) How many people in this study had valid, legal carry permits for their gun?

2) How old were the victims? You must be 21 in PA to legally apply to carry a handgun.

I guarantee that in those 667 shootings, a miniscule % of the people killed who were carrying were law-abiding citizens with a legally owned firearm and carry permit.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
interesting questions, though not directly relevant to the findings of the study.
Perhaps these questions are not directly related to the findings of the study but they are directly related to the question of the scope of the study.

I would argue that the criteria that is left out of this study is the context in which the shooting deaths occurred. I would argue that there is not enough differentiation in the statistical details (how/when shooting deaths occurred, was the firearm legally or illegally owned, was the shooter legally licensed to carry the firearm, etc.) to draw the kind of general conclusion they did. The study's conclusion is similar to someone stating that there is a high correlation between driving and dying not taking into account that people die in cars due to varying factors.

Imagine a study gets published stating there is a high correlation between being around cars and increased likelihood of being killed by a car. But the study doesn't take into account the ways that people could die via automobile. Imagine the study doesn't discriminate between deaths due to inclement weather (ice, flooding, thunderstorms, etc.) and deaths due to driving under the influence (alcohol and drugs) or deaths due to vehicle failure (airbag doesn't deploy, brake pads too worn, structural flaw in body frame). While the results of such a study may be valid and statistically correct, they are so vague and/or generalised as to be meaningless except in the abstract.

I think this study on gun ownership and likelihood of death has results that are valid and statistically correct but they are so generalised as to be meaningless. I mean of course possession of a firearm is likely to increase one's risk of dying by firearm: The sole purpose of a firearm is to take the life of another living being (whether for food or self defense). As such, being around something that has no other purpose than to kill is likely to increase one's chances of being killed. And--to return to my parallel argument for a moment--while the sole purpose of an automobile is *not* to take the life of a living being, being around automobiles is likely to increase one's chance of dying due to an automobile. But, so is being around heavy machinery (in a farm, factory, or construction site) likely to increase one's chances of dying from heavy machinery. It is a logically valid point but meaningless to a debate about the subject.

In other words, if doing/being around X increases a person's likelihood of dying due to X, does that conclusion (exposure to X increases the likelihood of dying from X) have any real-world significance? We could be talking about almost any action a person does* and the same results would apply: doing X increases one's likelihood from dying due to X.




*except for working with pink, fluffy bunnies. They are all that is good and perfect in the world.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Placid Casual View Post
Thing is, I would have no problems about trusting myself carrying one, as I know how to handle a gun and ammunition, and have used then since I was 14, but the thought of some of my co-workers carrying a concealed Glock really does send cold sweats through me.
I think this is the point being made by mattyb and Mrjingleusa, namely the "reliability" or level of responsibility of the person carrying the firearm. This study highlighted by Spheric doesn't take that into account at all.

Just like in my hypothetical argument about cars causing deaths with a study not taking into account the level of responsibility associated with driving a vehicle. (Was the vehicle death due to an impaired driver versus a tire blow-out versus black ice?)

Again, I wish to state that I think it is in the details of such studies where interesting conclusions can be drawn. And I think this study regarding gun ownership does not delve into those details.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Placid Casual View Post
My god.

Short of being an on duty Policeman here in France, it is totally forbidden.

Thing is, I would have no problems about trusting myself carrying one, as I know how to handle a gun and ammunition, and have used then since I was 14, but the thought of some of my co-workers carrying a concealed Glock really does send cold sweats through me.
Fact is, they could be carrying one right now and you would have no idea. If you're going to sweat all the time, you should be sure to eat lots of bananas (they're loaded with potassium).
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 01:18 PM
 
To make one final point: I am not heavily involved in debating this point because I started this thread or because I am heavily invested in the idea of gun ownership. Rather, I am heavily invested in the idea of good, logical thought/debate and this study seems to be the antithesis of good logical thought/debate. It performs a cursory analysis of data then makes sweeping generalisations based on that cursory analysis. And I hate that kind of lazy logic.
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Oct 7, 2009 at 01:27 PM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 01:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Placid Casual View Post
My god.

Short of being an on duty Policeman here in France, it is totally forbidden.
To be honest, I also think it's far too easy to get a permit.

I actually didn't get the permit for a gun. I needed it for a tazer.
(Please, spare me the "tazers are deadly" routine; they are as deadly as chain saws and knives.)

-t
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 03:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Placid Casual View Post
Short of being an on duty Policeman here in France, it is totally forbidden.
Thats not my experience when I did some shooting in France.

You can buy a black powder weapon or a 22 bolt action or lever action rifle in France with no permit. Shops require you to be a member of a gun club for the 22LR rifle. To be a member of a gun club, you need to get a doctors note saying that your are not crazy. 22LR rifles of this type are 7th category. A Ruger 10/22 isn't. My black powder revolver (Remington 1858) can be bought by anyone over 18. I'm not sure about the rules for the powder, the armorer was a member of my gun club. I did notice that he noted down the quantity that I bought.

Once a member of a gun club you then have to shoot every so often. IIRC its at least every three months. You shoot, I did it with a 22 target pistol that belonged to the club, and they note in a book when you shot. After taking a simple multiple choice test, and shooting for 6 months, you can apply for a license. You have several classifications, categories. Military calibres have their own category. Shotguns and hunting weapons have their own category. You have to have a safe to store your weapons in to have the license. The police *WILL* visit your house to look at the safe before granting you the permit. You are limited to the number of bullets that you can buy per year for everything except 22LR. You can buy bullet making equipment and make as many bullets as you want per year. To maintain your license you need to shoot as often as to obtain a license.

You can also not shoot very often, blast away with the black powder or a 22LR rifle and not get a permit. If you are stopped by the police and not either going to or coming from the range when you have a weapon in your car, you can have major problems. Different for hunters I presume. I always had my gun club membership papers with the weapon.

For some reason the military calibres are more difficult to obtain licenses for than stuff like 357/38 or 44. Its easier to get a license for a 458 elephant gun than a 9mm. Its also easier to get a 357 than a Ruger 10/22. There is a limit to magazine capacity for autos and semi auto shotgun magazine capacity. You are limited to the number of weapons of each category that you can possess. I wanted to shoot and own some of the older rifles like a Lee Enfield or a Mosin Nagant but they are classed as military calibres and the ammunition is very very expensive.

I don't know how hunting licenses are gotten, but you can buy quite a few rifles with a hunting license.
     
The Placid Casual
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
Thats not my experience when I did some shooting in France.

SNIP
You are 100% right in your comments. I am going through the process now, and it is a pain. It breaks down as follows:

1 Self loading rifles, Self loading pistols, Pistols/Rifles that are 'military calibre'.
4 Revolvers of non-military calibres, self-loading .22lr pistols and rifles.
5 Rifles not self-loading of non-military calibres.
7 Not self-loading .22lr rifles and similar, antique weapons

To buy 7th category firearms, all you need is proof of a name and address.

To progress and purchase any more, you have to be a member of the ‘Federation Francaise De Tir’ which means a target shoting club. I just paid 100 Euro to do this.

As soon as you are a club member, you can buy category 5 arms, eg small calibre non self-loaders. This also covers shotguns for clay pidgeon shooting.

To progress to category 4 weapons you need to go to the your shooting club and get a log book, or 'carnet de tir' stamped every 2 months to prove you attend. After 6 months of stamps, you can apply for a ‘Avis Preable’. This confirms in theory that you are not a psycopath.

Once you have the 'Avis Preable', you can apply to the prefecture and the Gendarmerie for a ‘Demand de la retention des arms’. This covers you for a specific weapon, of a specific type, including Cat 1. The Police will check your house, the gun cabinet, the locks and security etc. If they agree, you have 3 months to buy a weapon that conforms to one listed in the application. For each new weapon, you have to do the whole application process again through the Gendarmerie.

For ammo, you can buy as much .22 as you like. But you are limited to 1000 rounds per year of the higher calibre. You can however make your own amunition as long as you reuse the casings.

For a 'Permis De Chasse', you have to pass a theory and practical test with your local hunting association via the national association. You have to pass tets involving simulated hunting with blanks, target shooting with pictures of allowed and prohibited animals, and also shooting moving targets.

You need to renew the licence each year, which is total pain.

I guess my point was;

You can never carry a concealed weapon legally, you can only only really transport weapons between your club, home or hunt, and also there is a restriction on what weapons can be used for which things. Such as in the hunting exam, they are going to fail you if you think you can go boar hunting with a HK USP Compact.

When you compare our system to -$10 and filling out a page of questions and you get a concealed weapon permit - the disparity strikes me as huge.

Good to know there are other Fench habitants using NN too!

Peace,

Marc
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 04:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Placid Casual View Post
When you compare our system to -$10 and filling out a page of questions and you get a concealed weapon permit - the disparity strikes me as huge.
Not all states allow concealed carry.

In IL, it's NOT allowed. You need the permit to be allowed to have a gun at home, or to transport unloaded guns.

-t
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 05:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
To make one final point: I am not heavily involved in debating this point because I started this thread or because I am heavily invested in the idea of gun ownership. Rather, I am heavily invested in the idea of good, logical thought/debate and this study seems to be the antithesis of good logical thought/debate. It performs a cursory analysis of data then makes sweeping generalisations based on that cursory analysis. And I hate that kind of lazy logic.
Actually, all I did was post the link and point out that *causality* was explicitly beyond the scope of the study.

First, you establish correlation. The "why" comes after.

I'm not interested in sweeping generalizations, nor am I interested in mudslinging. If I were, I wouldn't have had myself voluntarily banned from the poli lounge.

I merely felt this link was relevant to the discussion here.

Disclaimer: I was brought up to dislike guns, though I imagine I'd enjoy sports shooting quite a bit, judging from a couple of experiences in tournaments with air guns. Outside of sports and legally regulated hunting, however, I don't see any reasons why private individuals should ever be allowed to own or carry a gun. personal opinion.
     
phantomdragonz
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Near Boulder, CO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 05:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Placid Casual View Post
When you compare our system to -$10 and filling out a page of questions and you get a concealed weapon permit - the disparity strikes me as huge.

it NOT that easy in my state... Although I think there may be some confusion on what type of permit this is, some states require a permit to simply own a gun (Massachusetts) My state only has age and criminal record requirements (18 for longs guns, 21 for pistols)

To get a Concealed Carry permit (basically do day to day tasks while carrying)
you have to attend a Concealed carry class, or a basic pistol class (they both focus on safe firearm handling) this class costs about $130 then you have to apply for a permit through the county Sheriff. they take your fingerprints and run a thorough background check, this can take as little as a couple weeks to three months (law limits it to a max of 90 days) this process costs $150

THEN you get your permit, you cannot carry into any federal buildings, schools and any business that forbids concealed carry (they can post a sign, or just ask you to leave)

however, In my state any non-felon can have a loaded firearm in their house or car (which is considered an extension of your house) and not be considered "concealed" once you leave those places though the rule no longer applies.

you can posses as much ammo as you want in any caliber.

You can apply to get a fully automatic and even suppressed (silenced) weapons. you have to pay a $200 "tax stamp" and personally get a signature from your local sheriff (I think, little shady on the details here) but the process is relatively easy, as long as you are a law-abiding citizen and have enough cash.

I am missing a bunch of the checks and balances in the system here but basically as long as you have a clean criminal record and have enough money you can own just about any firearm, at least in my state. Each state has different laws. Texas has the most open laws and Illinois and california have some of the most restrictive. Colorado is pretty close to texas as far as I can tell.

However you can have a face to face transaction and buy any non-automatic non-supressed weapon without a background check, it's the responsibility of the seller to make sure you are allowed to own a weapon (but no background check is required)

Wow, that really makes us sound crazy...

With all the open public lands we have here in Colorado (national forests and such) we have a thriving hunting season and lots of places to target shoot.

-Zach
( Last edited by phantomdragonz; Oct 7, 2009 at 05:59 PM. )
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2009, 10:25 PM
 
Concealed carry in Texas requires photographs and fingerprints, a complete law enforcement background check, a FULL day of classroom work and marksmanship evaluation (the training and practice are on your own) which costs anywhere from $150 up, and THEN the application fee (nonrefundable) of $140. It can take 3+ months to get the license after a properly completed application is submitted.

The classroom work involves a LOT of legal concepts, including what is deadly force, when it may and may not be used (you'd be surprised), and what sorts of responsibilities go with the license. The classroom work focuses HEAVILY on responsibility. Considering that one's license and ability to GET a license WILL be revoked for a conviction of a Class A misdemeanor, they're pretty serious about this.

No US state has any "trivial" sort of licensing requirement. There is NO "$10 and filling out a page of questions and you get a concealed weapon permit" anywhere that I'm aware of. Instead there are a number of states that have even more stringent requirements than Texas in terms of classroom training, marksmanship, and so on, and all states require ADDITIONAL classroom work to renew a license. Maybe some cities with their own ordinances about concealed carry have such trivial requirements, but no state level license is that weak.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
The Placid Casual
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 04:39 AM
 
Ah cool, thanks all for the clarifications. I only based my comments about the system in IL as mentioned above. Glad to hear that it is more stringent on a whole across other states.
     
phantomdragonz
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Near Boulder, CO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 04:44 AM
 
Il has some of the strictest laws, o think the 10 dollar permit is just an owners permit not a ccw permit. Mass. does this too

-Zach
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 08:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by phantomdragonz View Post
Il has some of the strictest laws, o think the 10 dollar permit is just an owners permit not a ccw permit. Mass. does this too

-Zach
I believe you're correct on this. Michigan has an owner's permit requirement as well, and it's inexpensive, but JUST covers ownership. Sort of a "gun owner registration" system. Sure hasn't helped do anything about crime in the big cities though...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Phileas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 09:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
a FULL day of classroom work
Gee. A FULL day? I feel so much safer now.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 10:52 AM
 
Criminals are not required to carry guns. Criminals are not required to carry knives. The person who chooses to use a tool in committing a crime is where the problem is. A loaded gun will sit on your kitchen table and turn to rust over time. It requires that human intervention to become dangerous. Laws banning the tool instead of the bad guys are the problem. HOW STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE to think the bad guys won't choose a different weapon? Personal responsibility is a concept lost on liberals.
     
Phileas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 11:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
HOW STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE to think the bad guys won't choose a different weapon?
Different weapons have different capabilities. You cannot kill a person with a knife trough a wall/door/distance.
That's the main reason why we get all gnarly when rogue states develop nuclear capabilities.

PS: Writing in caps makes baby J. cry.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Placid Casual View Post
Ah cool, thanks all for the clarifications. I only based my comments about the system in IL as mentioned above. Glad to hear that it is more stringent on a whole across other states.
I hope it's clear that I wasn't talking about a concealed carry permit, only for a permit to own guns at home.

Btw, that you need a permit in IL to have a gun at home is actually quite more stringent that many other states.

-t
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I hope it's clear that I wasn't talking about a concealed carry permit, only for a permit to own guns at home.

Btw, that you need a permit in IL to have a gun at home is actually quite more stringent that many other states.

-t
WAY more stringent. In Texas it's really nobody's business-unless you do something bad, of course.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 05:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
You cannot kill a person with a knife trough a wall/door/distance.
Yes, you can. I can kill a man through a door with a good-sized knife, break through a typical wall and stab a person, throw a knife with deadly accuracy. It only takes some practice and will. It isn't the tool, it's the intent. If I want someone dead, no matter what tool I have, they're dead.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Yes, you can. I can kill a man through a door with a good-sized knife, break through a typical wall and stab a person, throw a knife with deadly accuracy. It only takes some practice and will. It isn't the tool, it's the intent. If I want someone dead, no matter what tool I have, they're dead.
What's the point, you can kill a person with a ballpoint pen.

But you'll never see someone with a ballpoint pen hold up bank, hijack a plane or run amok in a school.

-t
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 07:30 PM
 
The point is that the person is the problem not the weapon. Cars kill more people, but guns are targeted as 'evil' because they were specifically designed to kill other people. Limiting the ability to possess a gun doesn't stop the bad guys who aren't gonna follow any laws that get in their way. Gun Bans and such are only taking away the rights of law abiding citizens, since the bad guys will still have guns. It's a shame that more people don't understand this.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2009, 07:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The point is that the person is the problem not the weapon. Cars kill more people, but guns are targeted as 'evil' because they were specifically designed to kill other people. Limiting the ability to possess a gun doesn't stop the bad guys who aren't gonna follow any laws that get in their way. Gun Bans and such are only taking away the rights of law abiding citizens, since the bad guys will still have guns. It's a shame that more people don't understand this.
I understand that, but it seems like some here don't understand that there is a great difference between an automatic gun and manual weapons in terms of how much harm they can cause.

-t
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 08:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I understand that, but it seems like some here don't understand that there is a great difference between an automatic gun and manual weapons in terms of how much harm they can cause.

-t
That sort of depends on what you mean by "automatic gun" and which "they" you're talking about. No firearm is capable of doing ANYTHING by itself-it takes a human being (or facsimile thereof) to operate it, much as a chain saw is by itself a harmless chunk of metal.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 08:15 AM
 
I don't understand why cars shouldn't be banned before guns. Cars kill far more people each year in North America and Europe then guns do. AFAIK you can take a driving test without having lessons as well.

And mosquitos. They should be banned as well.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2009, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
What's the point, you can kill a person with a ballpoint pen.

But you'll never see someone with a ballpoint pen hold up bank, hijack a plane or run amok in a school.

-t
No, to hold up a bank you just need a simple note, no weapon at all.

and yeah, I probably could kill a person with a ballpoint pen, but it would be pretty messy. Blood from the carotid artery can spray up to 20'.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:36 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,