$100 OFF a new Beretta Semi-Automatic Shotgun

[Mawashi]

$750 - $100R = $650 including Tax and shipping to CA for a "special edition" , is this a hot/warm or cold for this type of shotgun?
Friend of mine bought a $300 S&W shotgun from BIG5 in CA couple months ago, how does these two compare?

 

[Havoc13]

It would be nice if one shooting related thread didn't turn into this.

HEY Know-it-all thread crappers, what's wrong there aren't any good religious threads to crap in right now?


It's simple, an armed society is a polite society.

 

[Busaninja]

Originally posted by: Jersey Joe
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: natenut
Do they have an auto 3 1/2" chamber 12 ga? and if so does it work well?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I shoot competetive skeet/sporting clays and can tell you Beretta is a great firearm. They have a huge percentage of the market out there and for good reason. Their semi-autos can go for thousands of rounds without issue in any type of weather. If you're into waterfowling you may want to look at the Benelli(a Beratta company I think) which is recoil operated and will literally keep on working after being dropped in the muck. Depends on your application. I've been shooting a Beretta 682 O/U for 15yrs, somtimes 500-700 rounds in a day, and have yet to break something or have it malfunction... damn... just jinxed myself didn't I

--JJ - Owner of Beretta's 682, 301, 309, 84

Benelli-Nothing else compares

 

[mscdex0]

Originally posted by: Busaninja
Benelli-Nothing else compares

Except for the ones that have plastic orange pieces on the end of their barrels.

 

[Lithan]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

There haven't been many cases of Innocent bystanders getting shot by defensive gunshot for several reasons. The most obvious being that due to the dificulty in most states of obtaining the permits, not too many law-abiding citizens carry concealed weapons.

Apparently you skipped to the end of the thread without reading. Your argument is flawed factually.

There are now 34 states encompassing over 70% of the US population, with legislation on the books not merely allowing but requiring the state to give citizens a license to carry firearms in public, so long as they they pass the requisite background check and training course. In Florida alone, over 800,000 permits have been issued since their concealed weapons law was passed, but only around 200,000 licensees maintain a valid license in any given year.

Let's see, a lie, a misleading statistic, and another misleading statistic. You are on a roll.

In Vermont, no license is needed to carry a handgun in public, it is protected by the state constitution. Vermont also happens to have one of the lowest per capita crime rates in the country.

And that's not at all related to the lack of significant urban development. Care to tell the people the population of vermont's largest city??

The reason there are not many cases of innocent bystanders getting shot by citizens defending themselves is because citizens rarely are called upon to make the judgements that police are required to. In defense of the police, they often find themselves in circumstances where it is not readily apparent who the bad and good guys are. A citizen who becomes a victim usually has no trouble reliably telling who the bad guy is, its the one trying to kill or rob him.

So the reason innocent bystanders are rarely shot by civilians is that civilians rarely fire guns in public. There are FAR more people shot in hunting accidents then as bystanders of police fire yearly. The statistic isn't even in the same ballpark.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Originally posted by: Mawashi
$750 - $100R = $650 including Tax and shipping to CA for a "special edition" , is this a hot/warm or cold for this type of shotgun?
Friend of mine bought a $300 S&W shotgun from BIG5 in CA couple months ago, how does these two compare?

It clearly says on the link that the suggested retail was $699....looks like the dealer jacked up the price by $50 for you. I think you paid $50 too much with the discount, but that's just my opinion.

As for comparing it with the S&W... Hard to say how they compare. You'd have to get the spec on it and compare it with the muzzle velocity, range, etc of yours...then just see how it feels. I'd say if you're happy with your purchase, it's all good.

 

[tcsenter]

Let's see, a lie, a misleading statistic, and another misleading statistic. You are on a roll.

My statement is unequivocally factual, but feel free to challenge it with something more substantive than an unsupported assertion.

And that's not at all related to the lack of significant urban development. Care to tell the people the population of vermont's largest city??

Population doesn't matter, population density does. There are numerous factors associated with higher violent crime rates, but gun control isn't among them.

So the reason innocent bystanders are rarely shot by civilians is that civilians rarely fire guns in public.

Not at all, there are more defensive gun uses by civilians every year than by police, by some order of magnitude. Again, there are at least 150 million adults in the US, and only 500,000 of them are sworn police officers. Criminals tend to avoid confrontations with police, it is civilians who are most often the target of violent crime, by some order of magnitude.

There are FAR more people shot in hunting accidents then as bystanders of police fire yearly. The statistic isn't even in the same ballpark.

There are FAR more hunters than police officers that enter more limited geographic areas over a limited amount of time, firing far more rounds in several weeks time than police fire all year. There are more hunters in Michigan than police nationwide. It would only stand to reason.

 

[RideFree]

Originally posted by: Lithan
Watch any of the "Caught On Tape" shows and see a storekeeper who was robbed of fifty dollars shoot a fifteen year old who's running away in the back and then try and defend your position that these bad criminals are filing frivilous lawsuits.

Fvck the criminal and his "rights". If he's dead, he's got a lot less "rights".
And a few more of these "caught on tape" episodes as you suggest may have any potential criminal think, "Maybe I shouldn't do it!"

It's just like these child rapists...cut their nuts off and sew 'em in their mouths; publicize three "nutting" episodes on TV and POOF! No more child molesters!

OK, so call me strict! Flame away!

 

[RideFree]

PS
Great Hot Deal, midwestfisherman!

 

[tcsenter]

Watch any of the "Caught On Tape" shows and see a storekeeper who was robbed of fifty dollars shoot a fifteen year old who's running away in the back and then try and defend your position that these bad criminals are filing frivilous lawsuits.

No problem. Here's is my solution to getting shot in the back after robbing someone: Don't rob people.

It works every time - guaranteed.

 

[Dre]

Originally posted by: magnux

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: magnux
Kickass! Just in time, too.. Gov. Bush just finished signing the "Meet Force With Force" bill!

What about states that don't allow ordianry citizens to carry firearms?

Not a problem, just pick up one of these as well.

Or pick up one of these:
link

 

[Lithan]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Watch any of the "Caught On Tape" shows and see a storekeeper who was robbed of fifty dollars shoot a fifteen year old who's running away in the back and then try and defend your position that these bad criminals are filing frivilous lawsuits.

No problem. Here's is my solution to getting shot in the back after robbing someone: Don't rob people.

It works every time - guaranteed.

So because the only person a violent killer has slain was a thief, there is not problem? You're being foolish.




"Not at all, there are more defensive gun uses by civilians every year than by police, by some order of magnitude. Again, there are at least 150 million adults in the US, and only 500,000 of them are sworn police officers. Criminals tend to avoid confrontations with police, it is civilians who are most often the target of violent crime, by some order of magnitude."


Your first claim is an outright lie. Again, the statistics aren't even close. The majority of handgun owners have never fired the gun outside target shooting. And a significant minority of americans even are handgun owners.

"Population doesn't matter, population density does. There are numerous factors associated with higher violent crime rates, but gun control isn't among them."

Silly me, I thought that cities were areas of high population densities. How good of you to correct me and the entirety of the civilized world in our flawed perception of things. And also to correct the countless statistics that prove indisputably that gun control reduces gun-related crimes and gun-related deaths. The most startling figure being accidental gun-related deaths, which are entirely eliminated in countries with strict gun control.

 

[Lithan]

Originally posted by: RideFree

Originally posted by: Lithan
Watch any of the "Caught On Tape" shows and see a storekeeper who was robbed of fifty dollars shoot a fifteen year old who's running away in the back and then try and defend your position that these bad criminals are filing frivilous lawsuits.

Fvck the criminal and his "rights". If he's dead, he's got a lot less "rights".
And a few more of these "caught on tape" episodes as you suggest may have any potential criminal think, "Maybe I shouldn't do it!"

Or much more likely, "Maybe I should shoot the clerk before I leave."

 

[Jersey Joe]

Lithan...

Are you suggesting that an armed robber should NOT be shot? HOLY CR@P!!!

You try to talk sensibly to Liberals and then they come out with things that just make you wonder....

 

[Lithan]

Are you suggesting that it is right to shoot someone who is fleeing in the back? Every single moral authority as well as the law tend to side with me. Who's not talking sensibly again?

 

[Jersey Joe]

I'm pretty sure if I feel my life is danger I can shoot them anywhere I want, front, back, or wherever. What's to say they're not gonna turn around and start shooting at me or someone else. They have already proven that they are no stranger to the the use of terror and force. Would you rather they run out to the street, grab a hostage or something worse? I'd rather not take that chance.

 

[Lithan]

Good luck convincing a jury that there was a reason to believe that a thief who's running away with his stealings will turn around and come back to shoot you. What you are advocating is cold-blooded murder, and I would hope those who commit it receive the death penalty.

 

[Jersey Joe]

The "death" penalty... if they actually used that efficiently there would be much less violent crimes. Instead they should call it "prolonged sentence with infinite appeals on the tax payers dime". Doesn't sound as dramatic though.

 

[Lithan]

Agreed. Of course it's all a band-aid. They convict 200+ people of crimes that they are later proven innocent of (after they are executed)... so now instead of actually getting juries to follow the rule of law instead of making judgements based on whose lawyer is more charismatic, they just make death penalties into 20 years debacles of justice... unless of course you are poor, black and unmarketable. Then you get a nice prompt execution.

 

[Jersey Joe]

Yes... the whole system seems to have gotten away from us. The jury system is flawed, there are no penalties for frivolous lawsuits brought by unscroupulous attorneys, and the whole idea of rehabilitation in prison is a complete joke.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Lithan


Silly me, I thought that cities were areas of high population densities. How good of you to correct me and the entirety of the civilized world in our flawed perception of things. And also to correct the countless statistics that prove indisputably that gun control reduces gun-related crimes and gun-related deaths. The most startling figure being accidental gun-related deaths, which are entirely eliminated in countries with strict gun control.

Comprehensive firearms bans cause violent crime and property crime to skyrocket in the nations that have them.

 

[tcsenter]

Every single moral authority as well as the law tend to side with me.

Sorry, fleeing felons can be shot in many states. Here is the Michigan Court of Appeals slam dunking your "every single moral authority as well as the law":

The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon is justifiable where the following three circumstances are present: (1) the evidence must show that a felony actually occurred, (2) the fleeing suspect against whom force was used must be the person who committed the felony, and (3) the use of deadly force must have been "necessary" to ensure the apprehension of the felon. People v Hampton, 194 Mich App 593, 596-597; 487 NW2d 843 (1992). The right of a police officer to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon is the same as that of a private citizen, with the exception that a police officer may use deadly force if he reasonably believed that (1) a felony occurred, and (2) the fleeing suspect was the person who committed the offense. People v Fielder, 194 Mich App 682, 693-694; 487 NW2d 831 (1992); People v Whitty, 96 Mich App 403, 411; 292 NW2d 214 (1980).

Here is the Washington State legislature on fleeing felons and recognizing that citizens have broader rights than police officers in using deadly force (I will note that Seattle is a bastion of leftwingers):

RCW 9A.16.020 - Use of force -- When lawful.

The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;


RCW 9A.16.030 Homicide -- When excusable.

Homicide is excusable when committed by accident or misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means, without criminal negligence, or without any unlawful intent.


RCW 9A.16.040 - Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:

(a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or

(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.

(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:

(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;

(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:

(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or

(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.

Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.

(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.

(4) This section shall not be construed as:

(a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or

(b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section.

Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.]

Although each state has its own laws and court precedents on fleeing felons, these are two representative examples.

How's that foot taste? You wouldn't by chance live in the U.K. or France, would you? That would explain the vast disparity between your understanding of how things are and how things actually are in reality.

Are we both talking about the United States or do you live abroad?

 

[tcsenter]

Let's see, a lie, a misleading statistic, and another misleading statistic. You are on a roll.

Here is another slam dunk against your unsupported assertions, from Wikipedia no less:

Florida has issued over 800,000 permits since adopting the law, and has 289,644 permit holders as of October, 2004 State Police Reports show similar numbers: New York 530,000 (1997), Pennsylvania 575,000 (1998), Texas 235,000 (1999).

You're right, I lied. Instead of the 200,000 active permit holders I claimed, Florida has nearly 300,000. My bad.

Regarding the number of states with shall-issue legislation on the books:

For a shall-issue gun law, authorities (usually the local police) are required to issue a concealed carry permit to any individual who request it if he meets the state's issuance criteria, often a background check and a safety class.

The following are undisputed shall-issue states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

You can count to 34, can't you? I guess we'll know in a while...

Ok, now its your turn to back up your false assertions and lies with support. You know, that thing people use to give credibility to their arguments?

Typical antigunner detached from all reality and ignorant of all matters of fact.

 

[Lithan]

You misinterpreted your wikipedia link. There is no mandate that the state issue a permit. There are literally dozens of allowable denials for permits not mentioned. And they are at the disgression of the state in nearly all states. Most are related to mental competency. WHat is required is that a person With a licensed weapon not be denied a CCW. Of course exercising a CCW is probably the single largest reason people have their licenses taken from them. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you should ask someone who actually carries a concealed weapon the risks involved.

It's a misleading statistic because a conceal carry license in Florida is not what you make it out to be. Do some research next time. Let's get you started, The same permit is required to carry effective concentrations of mace as is required to carry a concealed handgun. Want to carry a fishing knife on your belt over a certain length? Guess what permit you need. Want to keep a .38 for hunting in your trunk? Guess what permit you need.

In Pa, Psych eval's, prescription of certain medications, and several other things are all usable to deny a handgun permit.

Oh and you might want to look up the famous case where the supreme court ruled that firing on a fleeing suspect without reason to believe he intended to harm you or someone else was unconstitutional. Funny thing, US Constitution trumps state law.

 

[bchalker]

Originally posted by: magnux
Kickass! Just in time, too.. Gov. Bush just finished signing the "Meet Force With Force" bill!

:thumbsup: I love it when the law falls on the side of citizens rather than the criminals.