Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tigeress on December 06, 2007, 11:00:40 AM
-
A few well placed shots from a skilled and licensed carrying gun owner would have pulled the plug on this guy and promoted the 2nd amendment, yes? no? maybe?
Nine dead in Nebraska mall shooting --> http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2007/12/06/america/OUKWD-UK-SHOOTING-NEBRASKA.php
Instead we see this: excerpt --> The Nebraska shooting was the latest in a series of mass killings that have shocked the United States, where gun ownership is widespread and the right to bear arms is a fiercely contested constitutional issue.
TIGERESS
-
Well it's obvious that there just aren't enough guns in the hands of average citizens. Other wise I'm sure some John Rambo closet type would have saved the day for sure.
-
Nebraska is a far cry from Texas.
-
Here's what will happen:
The anti-gun types are going to blame it on the proliferation of guns in private hands and use it to promote their agenda.
The pro-gun types are going to blame it on the absence of guns in private hands and use it to promote their agenda.
Nothing will be resolved and the cycle of politically skewed statistics and name-calling will continue. :rolleyes:
-
the mall is probably a "safe, gun free zone", so you won't need a gun there, after all, there is mall security to protect you.
-
I don't know about where you live Tigress but I have seen several malls that list themselves as gun free zones, just like schools. If, and I have to say if since I don't know, Nebraska does not have a CCW permit and if the mall is listed as gun free then there wouldn't be anyone there carrying outside of Mall security if they are even armed. There are too many unknowns to be able to say if it is even possible (legally) for anyone to have been able to stop this nut job.
-
Gun free zones = Nutjob's Safety Zone
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
[SNIP]
Is society to blame for this young man's actions? hard to say. we dont know what shaped his mind and we dont know exactly how his life developed from childhood. to be honest all i do know is that he let himself down (or was let down by society?) in the worst way, took a deep and thoughtfull mind and turned it to evil and insanity as a way to escape the reality he created around himself.
so why would a soul continue to create a reality that needed escaping from? one possibility is that we all crave a reason to live, some of us crave more than others and imaginations are the key to creating your life to be worthy of continuation. this person lost any reason to live, by his own fault or other's matters not. I think it is a growing increase in the evidence of humanity falling off the right road in evolution. more and more people are growing up and lacking any reason to live other than thier own deluded fantasy and in an age where huge populations are no longer restricted with inhibitions and the fear of punishments for thinking outside the box there is only going to be an increase in these sick individuals venting on our children and loved ones.
Hate to say it, but told you so...
thread (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=219343)
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
A few well placed shots from a skilled and licensed carrying gun owner would have pulled the plug on this guy and promoted the 2nd amendment, yes? no? maybe?
Nine dead in Nebraska mall shooting --> http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2007/12/06/america/OUKWD-UK-SHOOTING-NEBRASKA.php
Instead we see this: excerpt --> The Nebraska shooting was the latest in a series of mass killings that have shocked the United States, where gun ownership is widespread and the right to bear arms is a fiercely contested constitutional issue.
TIGERESS
What troubles me is how the facts are already being distorted for political reasons - everyone in the media seems to be reporting that the weapon used was an "Assault Rifle" (which was not the case - it was a conventional semi-auto carbine).
Bottom line - Nebraska has no concealed carry law - and IMHO that prevented anyone from stopping this maniac. :(
shamroc
-
That is a hard question.
I do have a carry permit and would I have fired? It really depends on the situation. There is a fine line between self defense and taking the law into your own hands. If I was with my family or buy my self when that started happening in front of me, yes I would shoot in a heart beat, but If there was a clean way out for my family then I would take it and get them out.
A permit to carry a gun is just that. It is not a badge nor does it mean that a person carrying a gun “has” to get involved in gun fights. Does it happen, yes we do read about it when a person shoots another somewhere to save the lives of others, but understand this is still a very grey area in many states.
Some questions you might ask your self if you think this might happen and you have a gun.
If I shoot this person, am I going to shoot someone else? I saved the day by killing the shooter, but one of my rounds kill a 6month old baby behind him that I did not see. Can I live knowing that I killed a child?
Whenever you use a gun in self defense you will have to answer for it. It might be clear as to what happened and the local DA will not file charges. The again, if you stay and shoot the person, one of the question you will be asked and have to show (usually at the seine) how were YOU threatened/ Did YOU have a way out? Why did YOU take the law into your own hands?
If you start shooting, will others think you are part of the problem? Will you get shot by the other good person trying to stop the shooter?
Can you live with your self if you duck and run and many others are killed?
This is really not a question you can ask where there is a simple answer. It will be different for everyone you talk to. Most will say, I’ll shoot the guy”. Well they just might, but no plan works out the way you think when the lead is flying.
All you can really do is keep practicing with your gun, Think up shooting scenarios could happen at the places you frequent. Be aware of your surroundings at all times. Keep an eye on the quickest way out. Keep an eye on you family. Also it is very important that you are also a good witness for law enforcement. What were they wearing, color hair, close and stuff like that.
For me, I shoot with my carry about once a month. I pay extra for “frangible” ammunition that when it strikes something hard it breaks up into a fine power to help prevent ricochets.
This is not a perfect answer, because there is none. Everyone will respond as to there own abilities.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Gun free zones = Nutjob's Safety Zone
yeah... ensured the nut jobs will have no opposition.
I have never personally seen a mall security guy or gal with a gun.
Thanks guys for cluing me in on Nabraska's carry gun law and "gun free zones."
I am admittedly not up on that stuff.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by shamroc
What troubles me is how the facts are already being distorted for political reasons - everyone in the media seems to be reporting that the weapon used was an "Assault Rifle" (which was not the case - it was a conventional semi-auto carbine).
Bottom line - Nebraska has no concealed carry law - and IMHO that prevented anyone from stopping this maniac. :(
shamroc
I looked at the NRA web site and it said thay have a shall issue law?
-
Good post Phaser11...very good.
Perhaps it will give some perspective to the wannabe John Wayne types around here.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the mall is probably a "safe, gun free zone", so you won't need a gun there, after all, there is mall security to protect you.
i was on a first name basis with some of the guards in that mall as a teenager.
:cool:
(no no....just spend alot of time there.)
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
Originally posted by Phaser11
That is a hard question.
I do have a carry permit and would I have fired? It really depends on the situation. There is a fine line between self defense and taking the law into your own hands. If I was with my family or buy my self when that started happening in front of me, yes I would shoot in a heart beat, but If there was a clean way out for my family then I would take it and get them out.
A permit to carry a gun is just that. It is not a badge nor does it mean that a person carrying a gun “has” to get involved in gun fights. Does it happen, yes we do read about it when a person shoots another somewhere to save the lives of others, but understand this is still a very grey area in many states.
Some questions you might ask your self if you think this might happen and you have a gun.
If I shoot this person, am I going to shoot someone else? I saved the day by killing the shooter, but one of my rounds kill a 6month old baby behind him that I did not see. Can I live knowing that I killed a child?
Whenever you use a gun in self defense you will have to answer for it. It might be clear as to what happened and the local DA will not file charges. The again, if you stay and shoot the person, one of the question you will be asked and have to show (usually at the seine) how were YOU threatened/ Did YOU have a way out? Why did YOU take the law into your own hands?
If you start shooting, will others think you are part of the problem? Will you get shot by the other good person trying to stop the shooter?
Can you live with your self if you duck and run and many others are killed?
This is really not a question you can ask where there is a simple answer. It will be different for everyone you talk to. Most will say, I’ll shoot the guy”. Well they just might, but no plan works out the way you think when the lead is flying.
All you can really do is keep practicing with your gun, Think up shooting scenarios could happen at the places you frequent. Be aware of your surroundings at all times. Keep an eye on the quickest way out. Keep an eye on you family. Also it is very important that you are also a good witness for law enforcement. What were they wearing, color hair, close and stuff like that.
For me, I shoot with my carry about once a month. I pay extra for “frangible” ammunition that when it strikes something hard it breaks up into a fine power to help prevent ricochets.
This is not a perfect answer, because there is none. Everyone will respond as to there own abilities.
Hi Phaser,
Very very thought provoking post.
If a legally carrying gun owner failed to respond to a mass murder spree in progress with deadly force would he/she be culpable for loss of life in the event of non-action, in the eyes of the law?
Thank you,
TIGERESS
-
I guess going the other direction with this my question is where were the cops during all this? Aren't they there to protect citizens? No private citizen with a CCW should have been necessary.
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by FBBone
I guess going the other direction with this my question is where were the cops during all this? Aren't they there to protect citizens? No private citizen with a CCW should have been necessary.
Hi FBBone,
That is another good question, in my view. Terrorists have already claimed malls as a soft target of choice. Where the hell is the armed protection?
Sorry, an unarmed walkie-talkie convo with other unarmed walkie-talkie people is not immediate protection from a rampaging serial killer in a mall.
TIGERESS
PS: Someday you'll simply must tell me the basis of your callsign, dear! :)
-
See Rule #7
-
Originally posted by FBBone
I guess going the other direction with this my question is where were the cops during all this? Aren't they there to protect citizens? No private citizen with a CCW should have been necessary.
How may Police do you think there are? There isn't enough manpower to put one on every corner and in front of every store just in case something might happen.
-
Nebraska does have a concealed gun permit.. or whatever they're called. Something they passed in the last year. I only know about it because a sign suddenly showed up at my workplace that said firearms weren't permitted.
And, the mall does specify that firearms are not permitted... when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns type of thing, I guess.
The weapon was an SKS - whatever that is, that was stolen from his step-dad. According to the news, anyway.
IMHO, even if the mall allowed firearms, I kinda doubt that the store in question ( Von Maur ) would be catering to those that would feel the need to carry weapons.
I haven't seen a list of victims yet, but the closest I am to them, so far, is one lady was the mother of a child in my bell-choir director's husband's middle school class.
Omaha is shocked by this event.
-
Hi Phaser,
Very very thought provoking post.
If a legally carrying gun owner failed to respond to a mass murder spree in progress with deadly force would he/she be culpable for loss of life in the event of non-action, in the eyes of the law?
Thank you,
TIGERESS
No,
I have never heard of that. We pay law enforcement to do that, but they cannot be all places at all times to protect you. That is one of the reason many people do carry.
-
Originally posted by APDrone
Nebraska does have a concealed gun permit.. or whatever they're called. Something they passed in the last year. I only know about it because a sign suddenly showed up at my workplace that said firearms weren't permitted.
And, the mall does specify that firearms are not permitted... when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns type of thing, I guess.
The weapon was an SKS - whatever that is, that was stolen from his step-dad. According to the news, anyway.
IMHO, even if the mall allowed firearms, I kinda doubt that the store in question ( Von Maur ) would be catering to those that would feel the need to carry weapons.
I haven't seen a list of victims yet, but the closest I am to them, so far, is one lady was the mother of a child in my bell-choir director's husband's middle school class.
Omaha is shocked by this event.
hey elkhorn.
156th and pacific here. (millard) (or was at one point)
terribly sorry to hear about all of this. just terrible.
-
Heya JB88,
Yeah, I saw by another post Omaha is your home-town.
First house we had was at 168th and Pacific ( Rose Garden ) '89 - '96.
Guess we were neighbors.
Next time you come home, be sure to check out Texas Roadhouse, right down your street. Awesome food.
Take care,
-
i carry a gun to protect myself.
i don't carry a gun to protect strangers, they will have to wait for SWAT to get there.
------
the media said earlier that it was a AK-47, but to the media all rifles are the dreaded AK-47 assault rifles..
-
(quote) the mall is probably a "safe, gun free zone", so you won't need a gun there, after all, there is mall security to protect you. (unquote)
Our unarmed cell-phone totin' "security" guards can run over shooters with their new Segways.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i carry a gun to protect myself.
i don't carry a gun to protect strangers, they will have to wait for SWAT to get there.
------
the media said earlier that it was a AK-47, but to the media all rifles are the dreaded AK-47 assault rifles..
Would you not feel a moral obligation to prevent death of innocent women and children in the event you were armed and observing a maniac like this slaughtering us?
Had I been in that malled armed I would have been compelled to unload as many clips as I had into this nut job and let the non-present armed police sort it out later when they finally got there.
Easy to say, I know, but I feel that very strongly. I am sure I would have shot him where he stood and never to loose a single moments sleep over doing so... The F&*$@ing Bastard.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by APDrone
Heya JB88,
Yeah, I saw by another post Omaha is your home-town.
First house we had was at 168th and Pacific ( Rose Garden ) '89 - '96.
Guess we were neighbors.
Next time you come home, be sure to check out Texas Roadhouse, right down your street. Awesome food.
Take care,
i know exactly where that is. a good buddy of mine used to live there.
shall do!
:aok
-
See Rule #5
-
To the letter of the law if it (the states law) describes using the carried weapon as a last resort you, legally, cannot use it if you have an avenue of escape. If the shooting is going on in an east wing of a mall and I (private citizen with a CCW) am in the west wing and go looking for trouble I can for damn sure find myself in trouble. If things worked out "well" and the shooter ended up dead guess who the family of the dead shooter is going to come after?
I wasn't in the situation to tell you what I'd do but my inclination is if I'm not in the immediate vicinity of what's happening and as such I am not in danger...I'm staying out of the way keeping as many folks away as I can. If I knowingly enter a hostile area then I might as well be walking into jail for a good long time because it wouldn't surprise me if I ended up a felon in the mess when the lawyers got done with me :(
I'll leave the heroics to Martin Riggs and John McClane.
-
Originally posted by Golfer
To the letter of the law if it (the states law) describes using the carried weapon as a last resort you, legally, cannot use it if you have an avenue of escape. If the shooting is going on in an east wing of a mall and I (private citizen with a CCW) am in the west wing and go looking for trouble I can for damn sure find myself in trouble. If things worked out "well" and the shooter ended up dead guess who the family of the dead shooter is going to come after?
I wasn't in the situation to tell you what I'd do but my inclination is if I'm not in the immediate vicinity of what's happening and as such I am not in danger...I'm staying out of the way keeping as many folks away as I can. If I knowingly enter a hostile area then I might as well be walking into jail for a good long time because it wouldn't surprise me if I ended up a felon in the mess when the lawyers got done with me :(
I'll leave the heroics to Martin Riggs and John McClane.
In researching CCW for the Pink Thread I came across this...
Texas signs new self-defense by gun law --> http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2721289620070327
excerpt: "By Ed Stoddard
DALLAS (Reuters) - Criminals in Texas beware: if you threaten someone in their car or office, the citizens of this state where guns are ubiquitous have the right to shoot you dead.
Governor Rick Perry's office said on Tuesday that he had signed a new law that expands Texans' existing right to use deadly force to defend themselves "without retreat" in their homes, cars and workplaces.
"The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature," Perry said on his Web site.
The new law, which takes affect on September 1, extends an exception to a statute that required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. The exception was in the case of an intruder unlawfully entering a person's home.
The law extends a person's right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force, the governor's office said.
The reasonable use of lethal force will be allowed if an intruder is:
- Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes
- Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place
- Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.
The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully slays an intruder or attacker in such situations.
Texas joins several other states including Florida that have or are considering similar laws.
Sympathy for violent offenders and criminals in general runs low in Texas, underscored by its busy death row. The state leads the United States in executions with 388 since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A conservative political outlook and widespread fondness for hunting also means Texans are a well-armed people capable of defending themselves with deadly force.
It is easy to acquire guns over the counter in Texas and lawful to carry a concealed handgun with a permit."
About the Castle Doctrine :
New Texas Gun Laws --> http://vesler.blogspot.com/2007/07/new-gun-laws-in-texas.html
I am from Texas.
You can take the girl out of Texas but you can't take Texas out of the girl.
TIGERESS
-
(quote) Some questions you might ask your self if you think this might happen and you have a gun. If I shoot this person, am I going to shoot someone else? I saved the day by killing the shooter, but one of my rounds kill a 6month old baby behind him that I did not see. Can I live knowing that I killed a child?
Whenever you use a gun in self defense you will have to answer for it. It might be clear as to what happened and the local DA will not file charges. The again, if you stay and shoot the person, one of the question you will be asked and have to show (usually at the seine) how were YOU threatened/ Did YOU have a way out? Why did YOU take the law into your own hands?
If you start shooting, will others think you are part of the problem? Will you get shot by the other good person trying to stop the shooter?
Can you live with your self if you duck and run and many others are killed?
This is really not a question you can ask where there is a simple answer. It will be different for everyone you talk to. Most will say, I’ll shoot the guy”. Well they just might, but no plan works out the way you think when the lead is flying. (unquote)
Whole lotta thinking going on there. Forums like this are good places for such introspection. A key issue is such unofficial responders not getting confused with the attacker(s). But during an actual attack, hopefully that background perspective would coalesce into selflessly attacking the shooter to stop the slaughter and worry about legal nitpicking later.
Attackers rely on surprise, shock, and herd confusion. If targets en masse would turn on the attacker with any weapon they have -- teeth, fingernails, purses, shoes, belts -- there might be much less inclination for the attack to ever happen.
Time for society to start teaching mass response to such terrorist actions instead of passive or no resistance.
-
one baby or nine people?
besides...you take your shot when it's best.
even if you missed you would only risk sacrificing yourself as the gunmans eyes turned to you...allowing others to escape.
nothing wrong with taking a bullet to save nine more. gotta go sometime.
it would take the shine off of it if these wackjobs didnt think they would get very far if they tried.
-
Originally posted by Halo
(quote) Some questions you might ask your self if you think this might happen and you have a gun. If I shoot this person, am I going to shoot someone else? I saved the day by killing the shooter, but one of my rounds kill a 6month old baby behind him that I did not see. Can I live knowing that I killed a child?
Whenever you use a gun in self defense you will have to answer for it. It might be clear as to what happened and the local DA will not file charges. The again, if you stay and shoot the person, one of the question you will be asked and have to show (usually at the seine) how were YOU threatened/ Did YOU have a way out? Why did YOU take the law into your own hands?
If you start shooting, will others think you are part of the problem? Will you get shot by the other good person trying to stop the shooter?
Can you live with your self if you duck and run and many others are killed?
This is really not a question you can ask where there is a simple answer. It will be different for everyone you talk to. Most will say, I’ll shoot the guy”. Well they just might, but no plan works out the way you think when the lead is flying. (unquote)
Whole lotta thinking going on there. Forums like this are good places for such introspection. A key issue is such unofficial responders not getting confused with the attacker(s). But during an actual attack, hopefully that background perspective would coalesce into selflessly attacking the shooter to stop the slaughter and worry about legal nitpicking later.
Attackers rely on surprise, shock, and herd confusion. If targets en masse would turn on the attacker with any weapon they have -- teeth, fingernails, purses, shoes, belts -- there might be much less inclination for the attack to ever happen.
Time for society to start teaching mass response to such terrorist actions instead of passive or no resistance.
If you start shooting, will others think you are part of the problem? Will you get shot by the other good person trying to stop the shooter?
Prehaps they would shoot me. Same for a plain clothes police officer in the same situation.
Can you live with your self if you duck and run and many others are killed?
No I couldn't live with myself.
My karma would also be damaged beyond hope if I didn't...
I simply couldn't live with myself if I could have stopped it and didn't.
I would do it even if it meant I died doing so by friendly fire. I mean it.
These are among the questions I have been pondering because of the Pink Thread. --> http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=220697
I don't have a gun and never have. Doesn't mean I will or wont in the future, though.
The responsibility to partake of gun ownership, and, in doing so, having control of deadly firearm force is quite staggering and very very sobering.
I wonder how many people who own guns and who carry guns really think about these particular questions of responsibility.
TIGERESS
-
yeah, you shoot him and some overzealous prosecutor that wants more convictions to further their political career says you used excessive force to kill a mentally challenged person.
no thanks, unless he is shooting at me i will "redeploy".
-
I'm not sure if you're aware, Tigeress, that you used "Could" instead of "Should." This may seem like a trivial or insignificant difference, but it really isn't.
-
Originally posted by john9001
yeah, you shoot him and some overzealous prosecutor that wants more convictions to further their political career says you used excessive force to kill a mentally challenged person.
no thanks, unless he is shooting at me i will "redeploy".
silly.
"i didn't help because i was afraid i'd get sued."
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I'm not sure if you're aware, Tigeress, that you used "Could" instead of "Should." This may seem like a trivial or insignificant difference, but it really isn't.
I understand you point Sailor.
In the sentence:
I simply couldn't live with myself if I could have stopped it and didn't.
I used "Could" for a valid reason.
It's not a forgone conclusion I could prevent a further shooting because I don't presently own a gun and whether I will or will not in the future is still an unknown.
Given the ability to stop such an event in progress, personally I "would"...no question of "should" about it for me.
Should is about judgments; could is about possibility; would is about action.
I am not afraid to die.
I made peace with my Maker about this unavoidable consequence of life long ago. But that doesn't mean I stand in the middle of the freeway either.
How someone dies can be as important to humanity as how they lived.
That is why I am so reverent about those who fall in combat to protect us... We The People.
TIGERESS
-
If I were in fear for my life I would probably shoot the guy.
Being in fear for my life would naturally put me close enough to be confident in hitting him.
I would not start banging away in a crowded mall otherwise.
shamus
-
Originally posted by shamroc
everyone in the media seems to be reporting that the weapon used was an "Assault Rifle" (which was not the case - it was a conventional semi-auto carbine).
shamroc
Hmmm...news reports I've seen and read report the weapon to be a semi-auto version of the AK-47.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by APDrone
Nebraska does have a concealed gun permit.. or whatever they're called. Something they passed in the last year. I only know about it because a sign
My bad - I have not been to Omaha for about 2 years now... last time I was there you couldn't CCW.
FWIW I actually went to the mall in question on my last trip.
Shamroc
-
Picture this.. You have a carry permit.
You see a nutjob open fire so you pop a few rounds in him. At the end of the isle another person has a permit and sees you shoot after several shots in the mall, so he decides to stop YOU the raving lunatic and shoots you. Makes people think twice before shooting doesn't it.
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by shamroc
FWIW I actually went to the mall in question on my last trip.
Shamroc
I work about 4 miles from there. I go every now and then when I do some shopping at lunch or dine at the food court.
Or, when I'm looking for something impulsive to surprise the wife with. Gotten a lot of good ideas from there over the years.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Hmmm...news reports I've seen and read report the weapon to be a semi-auto version of the AK-47.
ack-ack
By definition, even if it was a semi-auto version of an AK-47, it wouldn't be an Assault Rifle (the selectable full auto fire is gone, which is a pre-requisite to be considered an Assault Rifle).
For the record it was a SKS Carbine. It is neither capable of full automatic fire, and it does NOT have a detachable magazine (another Assault Rifle pre-requisite). I know I know... to the dead, what difference does it make ?
That's what I mean by the media inventing facts to sensationalize political agendas... I've seen some foreign media describe the weapon as a "machine gun" which are "readily available in the USA to anyone".
BTW it was also stolen.
shamroc
-
no matter what the policos make of this on either side.... some facts are indisputable.
Bad people like this exist.
If you are unarmed you are helpless against them.
The cops will never be there in time to do you any good.
Your chances of running into one of these guys is rare.
Your chances of running into one of these guys in a "gun free zone" are not quite as rare.
Your chances of another concealed carry holder shooting you by accident after you resolve the situation are infintesimal.
lazs
-
Originally posted by APDrone
I work about 4 miles from there. I go every now and then when I do some shopping at lunch or dine at the food court.
Or, when I'm looking for something impulsive to surprise the wife with. Gotten a lot of good ideas from there over the years.
Omaha has damn good pizza - that's what I remember most about the trip :D
shamroc
-
godfathers?
:confused:
-
I fail to see why citizens should not be encouraged to defend their brother and sister citizens.
I fail to see why it's taken until a year or two ago for the new Texas "no retreat in your own home/office/car" law to be pushed through.
I just don't get it.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Would you not feel a moral obligation to prevent death of innocent women and children in the event you were armed and observing a maniac like this slaughtering us?
Had I been in that malled armed I would have been compelled to unload as many clips as I had into this nut job and let the non-present armed police sort it out later when they finally got there.
Easy to say, I know, but I feel that very strongly. I am sure I would have shot him where he stood and never to loose a single moments sleep over doing so... The F&*$@ing Bastard.
TIGERESS
I'm quoting this particular post as it was the starting point for a couple others. Tigress lets talk real world here for a few minutes.
Texas law, which doesn't apply in Omaha Nebraska BTW, is worded in a very nice way. One thing I want to point out is that it will take some court decisions to firm it up. Here is what I am saying. It was quoted that the law allows you to "stand your ground" when faced with a potentially deadly situation. "Stand your ground" does not mean go out looking for a "bad guy". It can be taken to mean defend yourself and others when faced with a threat, not go looking for a threat you are not facing at the time. To do that could be taken as being a vigilante. Removing the duty to retreat does not mean you have been given the option to advance into a situation, it just means you do not have to flee if confronted.
Some other factors here.
This shooting happened in a rather populated place. That means you have to find the suspect in a crowded environment already in a panic mode. Not as easy as it looks on TV especially if he decides to move about concealing the rifle.
The suspect was firing a semi auto rifle. Trying to hunt down a person who has that while you are armed with a pistol is a very very poor tactical choice particularly when you factor the above situation and he has taken a superior tactical position such as an upper floor balcony looking over an open area.
Factor also that you are not trained for this kind of job. That means you have not been taught how and when to move and how to figure an approach to the suspect without being a victim yourself. You also have no additional firepower to call upon to help out and no way to direct help in real time to get the real bad guy.
Consider that the Police, who are called to the area will likely only be told there is some person, unknown description that is shooting people in the mall. Now there you are looking for the bad guy holding a gun. Instead of concentrating on the real bad guy, they are now concentrating on you if they see you first. All kinds of bad things can happen there. Including the bad guy getting away while you are being dealt with.
If the situation is that you are walking along the upper floor balcony and you just happen to see this whackjob start shooting into the crowd, fine, hose him down. You are there, identifying the threat is simple and accurate and you just might have surprise on your side before you pop the first round. I would hope that you shoot accurately and incapacitate him before he can unload on you.
There are any other number of things that can have a bad outcome if you decide you are going to go looking for the bad guy to "save the day".
As another person has stated, redeploy away from the threat. If confronted directly, take action.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
no matter what the policos make of this on either side.... some facts are indisputable.
If science ever invents a "panic button" type device that will Star Trek style transport a SWAT team to my location instantly, then I am ok with giving up the right to bear arms. I actually do have faith in the police - so long as they can get there in time to stop Bad People from doing Bad Things.
shamroc
-
I went to the local mall last night and carried my Glock19 in a shoulder holster. There were no problems while I was there.
-
Originally posted by JB88
godfathers?
:confused:
Old Chicago
Big Fred's
Valentino's
and
Godfathers at the airport right before going home :)
Awesome town - lots of great little "oldtimey taverns" with down to earth people. CHEAP BEER.... everywhere.
For hangovers, Runza's and Bronco Burger can't be beat.
shamroc
-
Originally posted by Maverick
As another person has stated, redeploy away from the threat. If confronted directly, take action.
I just can't fathom anyone really feeling this way as his societal peers are being slaughtered before his/her eyes.
I am of the feeling that it is the duty of each capable person to look out for each other in the face of uninvited violence.
Who's to say that while you are running for your life, your gun safely in you belt, that the gunman isn't killing your son's best friend? Your pastor? Your brother? What level of intimacy with the victims must you have in order to be driven to action? Would you intervene knowing that the shooter was sighting at a single mother of four who was headed to her second job?
Moreover, if you chose to retreat when you could have possibly intervened, how do you live with yourself?
redeploy? It sickens me that anyone would feel this way, that you would run away when you are capable of intervening in the slaughter.
-
I think it's safe to assume that if everyone in that mall had been armed the shooting was less likely to have taken place but even if it had, someone would likely have popped him before he killed 8 others.
-
Originally posted by shamroc
For the record it was a SKS Carbine. It is neither capable of full automatic fire, and it does NOT have a detachable magazine (another Assault Rifle pre-requisite). I know I know... to the dead, what difference does it make ?
BTW it was also stolen.
shamroc
What were the 2 30 round clips.
It was a AK family Wasr 10.
It was illegal till recently and the uncle he stole it from is being investigated for the time he purchased it.
-
yep.. if cops weren't so heavy I would carry one around...
But... maybe not.. I spent about an hour yesterday talking to the range officer who was training new cops. he was not encouraging. He said that most of the new cops had never been in a fight (fist) before... many had never fired any kind of a gun and most never a handgun... most were pretty much untrainable except by todays very lax standard which means that.. most of us who liked guns were about ten times more proficient than them right after training....
A few years on the job of lax training and most of us would shoot a dozen of em before they figured out which end the bullet would come out.
He also said that many were actually afraid of weapons or disliked them.
About half I seen would not be able to carry me out of a building and I only weigh 190 lbs.
We are being cheated as taxpayers.
lazs
-
that you would run away when you are capable of intervening in the slaughter.
You don't know that. Everyone is capable of intervening. If everyone made a mad dash right at the shooter, sure 2 or 3 might get killed, but once there are 10 or 15 people smashing him he would be stoped.
There is nothing wrong when sometimes you have to run away, redeploy or whatever. We ALL have the means it stop a shooter, the only question is who's going first. If you think it might be you...or maybe it was you long ago that stoped a shooter by charging his position my hats off to you. Many heros have done so......and many heros have not.
I have asked some other vets here at work. What does a bullet sound like to you when it zips past your ear. Anyone?
Pease
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yep.. if cops weren't so heavy I would carry one around...
lazs
I know this is a very important debate, but I could not let this one pass.
It the dougnts!
-
Originally posted by shamroc
Old Chicago
Big Fred's
Valentino's
and
Godfathers at the airport right before going home :)
Awesome town - lots of great little "oldtimey taverns" with down to earth people. CHEAP BEER.... everywhere.
For hangovers, Runza's and Bronco Burger can't be beat.
shamroc
you know it brother.
all on the list of favorites.
:aok
of course you are missing "romeos" mexican restaurant. great crappy enchilladas. can't go home without eating there. (used to be called casa de reys in la vista) and spagetti works beer cheese sauce of course...
ii noticed that you didn't mention one steak house.
shame on you.
:D
-
It sounds like bacon frying.. naa.. that ain't quite right... imagine bacon frying but going by so fast you almost miss it? hard to describe. I know the muzzle flash looks like the end of the world and you will never forget it.
tactics have everything to do with it of course.. if all you have is a j frame revolver you might not rush the guy... good idea to get cover take your time in a hurry and get off a shot with a 90% chance of connecting. figure it all out again after that series of events.
You may or may not hit him.. you may stop him and confuse him.. you may have to move and shoot again... how the hell would I know? too many variables. have to take every situation as it comes... one thing for sure.. you are not bound by policy.. you do what works.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Phaser11
that you would run away when you are capable of intervening in the slaughter.
We are discussing intervening while armed, not charging a rifleman bare handed.
-
Originally posted by Bingolong
What were the 2 30 round clips.
It was a AK family Wasr 10.
It was illegal till recently and the uncle he stole it from is being investigated for the time he purchased it.
Well, regardless of whether it was an SKS or a WASR-10, BOTH are semi-automatic Rifles/Carbines and NOT Assault Rifles. That was the point - the media is using inaccurate blanket terms to sensationalize the tragedy and use it as propaganda to further political aims.
shamroc
-
Well Steve, it's pretty easy to sling words from your nice safe keyboard. It's another to really have a bunch (or just one or two for that matter) of tactically untrained amateurs running around in an uncoordinated move looking for someone they have no description of in a location they do not know about armed with a weapon in a position of superior tactical advantage. Couple that with a very large location filled with people in a full (and justified) panic.
These are not trained people who know what they are doing. Running into the teeth of a dragon to slay it sounds all nice but is pretty darn stupid when you think about it for the average person on the street.
Change the situation to one where they can instantly ID the "bad guy" and have a chance to engage them quickly and effectively and I fully agree with you. Going hunting in a mall isn't that kind of situation.
-
none of us know what we would do.. I know I would rather not live with myself if I were armed and did absolutely nothing. I may not do the bravest of most effective thing but I would do something. I might for instance.. take one shot from cover at 50 yards with a 2" snubby and duck for better cover... even that tho.. would probly save some lives.
I bet I could.. at the very least... shake the sob up.
lazs
-
I don't understand how he could smuggle a rifle of that size into his sweatshirt.
I own a WASR 10, I'm 6' even and I doubt I could fit it into a sweatshirt, a large jacket, maybe, without the magazine in it.
The SKS is longer than a WASR 10, So that would make it more difficult. Unless it was a folder, without a magazine in it (WASR or SKS), I dont see how it could be carried concealed into a public place with scores of people and security cameras. How could someone not see it?
-
Originally posted by Bingolong
What were the 2 30 round clips.
It was a AK family Wasr 10.
It was illegal till recently and the uncle he stole it from is being investigated for the time he purchased it.
You have a link to any of this?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Going hunting in a mall isn't that kind of situation.
Mav, we don't often get to choose the ground we fight the bully on so hunting down a guy w/ a rifle who is shooting from an advantageous position might just be what you are stuck with.
I'm not advocating suicide. I'm saying that I feel it is incumbent upon us all to intervene where there is a reasonable chance of helping, sometimes even if there isn't a "reasonable" chance.
Take a sec to consider these circumstances, all of which are extreme, but what we are discussing is extreme: You turn the corner in your neighborhood and come upon 3 guys pummeling an old women as they try to steal her purse. The strap is wrapped around her arm and they are beating her in an effort to get it. You are unarmed and alone with no help in sight.
You:
A: run away.
b: Watch and do nothing, maybe dial 911.
c: intervene(maybe after calling 911), knowing you are probably going to get thumped but also knowing what is likely be a good beating for you would maim or kill the old woman.
I'd like to believe that most people would choose C. It's not a "smart" move, but it might be the best for the awful circumstances. I bet you'd chose C.
or
d: you are Nilsen so you stop to help the muggers get the purse off the old ladies arm. :lol
-
i got modded for a rule 5 just for predicting the future of this type of thing?
not sure i understand that skuzzy... but far be it from me to argue with the forum gods, sorry for the hassle.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I'm quoting this particular post as it was the starting point for a couple others. Tigress lets talk real world here for a few minutes.
Texas law, which doesn't apply in Omaha Nebraska BTW, is worded in a very nice way. One thing I want to point out is that it will take some court decisions to firm it up. Here is what I am saying. It was quoted that the law allows you to "stand your ground" when faced with a potentially deadly situation. "Stand your ground" does not mean go out looking for a "bad guy". It can be taken to mean defend yourself and others when faced with a threat, not go looking for a threat you are not facing at the time. To do that could be taken as being a vigilante. Removing the duty to retreat does not mean you have been given the option to advance into a situation, it just means you do not have to flee if confronted.
Some other factors here.
This shooting happened in a rather populated place. That means you have to find the suspect in a crowded environment already in a panic mode. Not as easy as it looks on TV especially if he decides to move about concealing the rifle.
The suspect was firing a semi auto rifle. Trying to hunt down a person who has that while you are armed with a pistol is a very very poor tactical choice particularly when you factor the above situation and he has taken a superior tactical position such as an upper floor balcony looking over an open area.
Factor also that you are not trained for this kind of job. That means you have not been taught how and when to move and how to figure an approach to the suspect without being a victim yourself. You also have no additional firepower to call upon to help out and no way to direct help in real time to get the real bad guy.
Consider that the Police, who are called to the area will likely only be told there is some person, unknown description that is shooting people in the mall. Now there you are looking for the bad guy holding a gun. Instead of concentrating on the real bad guy, they are now concentrating on you if they see you first. All kinds of bad things can happen there. Including the bad guy getting away while you are being dealt with.
If the situation is that you are walking along the upper floor balcony and you just happen to see this whackjob start shooting into the crowd, fine, hose him down. You are there, identifying the threat is simple and accurate and you just might have surprise on your side before you pop the first round. I would hope that you shoot accurately and incapacitate him before he can unload on you.
There are any other number of things that can have a bad outcome if you decide you are going to go looking for the bad guy to "save the day".
As another person has stated, redeploy away from the threat. If confronted directly, take action.
Great post Maverick.
Going hunting for bad guys as a civilian with a gun is not smart and I believe in the illegality of that on the grounds of being a self-appointed vigilante is as bad as the bad guys.
Yes, opportunity of surprise multiple shots at close range would be about the only way I could take down a killer like that in the act of slaughter.
I know I am not trained to engage in armed combat and realize it would be foolhearty to do so.
Thank you for your very sage and thoughtful post, dear.
If I did shoot him you can believe I would be ringing up 911 to tell them I was there and what I did to him as soon as possible.
TIGERESS
-
Well Steve, it's pretty easy to sling words from your nice safe keyboard.
FWIW Mav, I do not consider myself any more or less brave than your average white guy in the US but I have been held at gunpoint at about 5 feet by a person whom I was certain was going to shoot me. I have also been in a fistfight where my opponent pulled a knife and tried to cut/stab me. My point is, that to the degree I've just mentioned, I have been under the duress of violence and therefore know how I'd react.
-
Originally posted by shamroc
Well, regardless of whether it was an SKS or a WASR-10, BOTH are semi-automatic Rifles/Carbines and NOT Assault Rifles. That was the point - the media is using inaccurate blanket terms to sensationalize the tragedy and use it as propaganda to further political aims.
shamroc
btw
a SKS can be full auto just like a m1 carbine can and it can hold as big as a clip you can find for it. They make 50 round clips for it that I know.
http://www.rifletech.com/bullpup002.jpg
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Great post Maverick.
I believe in the illegality of that on the grounds of being a self-appointed vigilante is as bad as the bad guys.
TIGERESS
Tigress, this is incorrect. You have the legal right to use deadly force in the protection of others from like force.
Edit: Here is Nebraska's take on it :
Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others
-
Originally posted by Nefarious
I don't understand how he could smuggle a rifle of that size into his sweatshirt.
I own a WASR 10, I'm 6' even and I doubt I could fit it into a sweatshirt, a large jacket, maybe, without the magazine in it.
The SKS is longer than a WASR 10, So that would make it more difficult. Unless it was a folder, without a magazine in it (WASR or SKS), I dont see how it could be carried concealed into a public place with scores of people and security cameras. How could someone not see it?
According to the NY Daily News, he was also decked out in camo gear complete with buzz-cut.
I'm quite surprised he didn't arouse major suspicion... Of course, it probably all went down very fast...
shamroc
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
FWIW Mav, I do not consider myself any more or less brave than your average white guy in the US but I have been held at gunpoint at about 5 feet by a person whom I was certain was going to shoot me. I have also been in a fistfight where my opponent pulled a knife and tried to cut/stab me. My point is, that to the degree I've just mentioned, I have been under the duress of violence and therefore know how I'd react.
On a business trip to my former company's Munich office some years ago we had to clear customs in Frankfurt.
Not understanding german and being herded to the ground near the wheels of the plane with the rest of the passengers and watching all of the baggage being unloaded on the ground near us, I started wandering around the opposite side of the growing pile to see if my bag was there.
A German soldier walked towards me with his machine gun pointed at my mid-section and he motioned with the barrel of his machine gun that I should move in the direction he was gestering, I learned first hand what it felt like to be on the "pointed at" end of a gun.
Then I observed the other passengers pulling luggage from the pile and understood... claim your bags here from the ground and proceed to customs; don't go too far away.
I will never forget that... as long as I live...
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Bingolong
btw
a SKS can be full auto just like a m1 carbine can and it can hold as big as a clip you can find for it. They make 50 round clips for it that I know.
http://www.rifletech.com/bullpup002.jpg
and? Was a full auto used?
-
Munich is a nightmare.
me and jan after snowboarding in austria sitting in munich airport smoking a cig before the flight.
enter gestapo customs guys. 6'7" and beefy looking.
"you vill put of your cigs and come vis me"
"er....ok"
"can i see your passports"
shows passports
"why are you visiting munich airport?"
"we are looking to hire a speed boat"
"ok, now vee vill make you pay for that joke, englieesh swine"
we were lucky not to get full cavity search.
i hate munich airport.
-
Dont lie, you wanted the cavity search:D
-
See Rule #7
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Tigress, this is incorrect. You have the legal right to use deadly force in the protection of others from like force.
Edit: Here is Nebraska's take on it :
I misunderstood Maverick it seems.
My thinking of hunting for bad guys would be driving around looking for a crime in progress so I could shoot a bad boy.
That, I believe to be illegal and I have no justification to do it.
Trying to get position and a gun solution on a maniac shooting people in a mall I am shopping at is not "hunting" in my view. It is not something I am trained to do but I would do my best to stop him while minimizing danger my fire might bring to his intended victims.
TIGERESS
-
Phaser and Saxman win this thread.
Oh, and Slash.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
Munich is a nightmare.
me and jan after snowboarding in austria sitting in munich airport smoking a cig before the flight.
enter gestapo customs guys. 6'7" and beefy looking.
"you vill put of your cigs and come vis me"
"er....ok"
"can i see your passports"
shows passports
"why are you visiting munich airport?"
"we are looking to hire a speed boat"
"ok, now vee vill make you pay for that joke, englieesh swine"
we were lucky not to get full cavity search.
i hate munich airport.
dang...
I didn't have trouble in the Munich airport it was the Frankfurt airport but having a German soldier point a machine gun directly at me made all sorts of things swirl in my head.
Similar kind of thing... sorta... happened when I was on assignment in Osaka. I had a rental car and was out for a drive on a Saturday afternoon.
I am listening to the Japanese music on the car radio and looking at the road and country side and happened to glance in my rear view mirror.
OMG!!!! My brain literally hit the all out panic button!
There in my mirror was a big green Japanese Army truck with big red circle on its sloping hood and a Japanese soldier in his green uniform driving it and he was directly behind me looking straight at me!
I did manage to get myself under control but I was really thunder struck for a few moments.
I had never seen a Japanese soldier except in war movies... till then.
The soldier probably would have felt hurt had he known my initial reaction to him. I love the Japanese people and culture immensely.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Phaser11
that you would run away when you are capable of intervening in the slaughter.
You don't know that. Everyone is capable of intervening. If everyone made a mad dash right at the shooter, sure 2 or 3 might get killed, but once there are 10 or 15 people smashing him he would be stoped.
There is nothing wrong when sometimes you have to run away, redeploy or whatever. We ALL have the means it stop a shooter, the only question is who's going first. If you think it might be you...or maybe it was you long ago that stoped a shooter by charging his position my hats off to you. Many heros have done so......and many heros have not.
I have asked some other vets here at work. What does a bullet sound like to you when it zips past your ear. Anyone?
Pease
I can tell you exactly what a bullet sounds like whizzing past your head. I can also tell you what it sounds like when it hits the chicken shield of your Hummers turret. Btw I can also tell you what an rpg sounds like when fired at you and whizzes by.
-
A few times we've been pinned down by HP rifle fire. Its a far different feeling then being shot at by handguns, and Ive been shot at by both multiple times. One summer a street gang was always popping at us with 7.62x39, 3006, 5.56mm, and 30/30 rifle. We know what kind of rifles they were, besides knowing it when you hear it, cause the next morning when they got off their rock highs and fell asleep we would find all the shell casings around the project High Rises.
Its easy to say that if you heard an AK, or SK, popping off how you would rush in, save the world, be the hero, sleep with the high school cheerleader you used to dream about as they draped medals over your chest during the parade in your honor. And its quite another to have the thing actually shooting at you. At which time that 9mm you bought to slay dragons with will begin to look like the little pea shooter it actually is.
The Human instinct to survive is very strong. That's all Im saying.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
FWIW Mav, I do not consider myself any more or less brave than your average white guy in the US but I have been held at gunpoint at about 5 feet by a person whom I was certain was going to shoot me. I have also been in a fistfight where my opponent pulled a knife and tried to cut/stab me. My point is, that to the degree I've just mentioned, I have been under the duress of violence and therefore know how I'd react.
Please tell me what the relationship of your post has to a mall shooting? You were not in a mall unaware of the location of the shooter surrounded by panicked people fleeing in all directions. Now tell me how you are going to search a mall with what was it 115 stores and an unknown number of holiday shoppers for an individual that you have no idea what he / she looks like with an unknown weapon. Perhaps with one or maybe more civilians who just might have the same idea. Tell me how you will tell them from the original gunman. Couple that with the fact that Police, who also have no idea what the shooter looks like including gender, won't be able to tell you from the shooter when they arrive. They will be looking for a person with a gun.
I'll state this again. If you are in the immediate vicinity of the shooter, can ID him as the shooter and are in a position to do so, go for it. Take him down. Going rambo and trying to find him from some other part of the mall is not just silly, it's stupid.
We'd all like to be the hero and stop this kind of situation from happening. The sad fact is that unless you are just right there in proper position in an ideal situation you are far better off getting as many folks out as you can. Oh and you'll have to convince them that you aren't the bad guy while doing it. Since they are worried about a person with a gun, there you are
with one in their face. Another conundrum. Hopefully you won't be scaring them back towards the shooter. Remember they are panicked, they are not thinking they are in full flight mode.
-
Man...we are a LAZY society. Although it's their own backsides on the line many people would rather trust someone else to protect it for them.
We're also GULLIBLE...to the extreme. Because of the aforementioned laziness, many find it comforting to believe the government's claims that it, and only it, is capable of responding to lethal situations. The truth is, according to a report I once saw, a policemen responding to a violent domestic disturbance is far more likely to mistakenly shoot an innocent civilian than a civilian would who was using deadly force to defend hearth and home under similar circumstances.
In this most recent incident, the police failed to arrive in time to do anything more than draw the chalk lines on the pavement. According to recent accounts, the shooter was another psychologically disturbed individual that the authorities failed to control or contain.
In addition, our society is a HAND-WRINGING society. We're immobilized by the fear of what "might" happen if we take matters into our own hands. Rather than take that risk, many assume the demeanor of sheep.
It's ridiculous.
I still maintain, as I have in the past, that we need to learn to trust the judgement of our neighbors as well as our own. CCPs should be readily available to any law-abiding citizen willing to take a course in handling deadly force in a crisis situation. If some find that unpalatable, then how about allowing all ex-servicemen to carry. Since putting a cop on every street corner isn't possible, this would be the next best thing. They already have at least as much training in handling themselves when the crap hits the fan as most cops, and probably more. We trust them to carry weapons overseas: why not in their home country? The Israelis do this, as do the Swiss.
It may never happen, for large sections of our society will only be content when we are all sheep.
-
Originally posted by Nefarious
I don't understand how he could smuggle a rifle of that size into his sweatshirt.
I own a WASR 10, I'm 6' even and I doubt I could fit it into a sweatshirt, a large jacket, maybe, without the magazine in it.
The SKS is longer than a WASR 10, So that would make it more difficult. Unless it was a folder, without a magazine in it (WASR or SKS), I dont see how it could be carried concealed into a public place with scores of people and security cameras. How could someone not see it?
Well, it was pointed out he was in fatigues, I guess.. even then, it's pretty cold up here this week. Trench coats are quite common and being bundled up wouldn't get a second look.
I could probably strap a bazooka under some of the outerwear I've seen around here.
About the only way to really stop somebody from bringing in firearms to those places would be the installation of metal detectors at the entrances.
Ugh.. not sure I want to see us go there..
-
Originally posted by Maverick
How may Police do you think there are? There isn't enough manpower to put one on every corner and in front of every store just in case something might happen.
Mav, my statement was "tongue in cheek", but you certainly helped prove my point. Tigress' opening line.........
Where were the sane licensed carrying gun owners in all this?
.......seemed to me to say that even though the citizens were able to get a CCW permit they did nothing to prevent the assault. I personally know a few LEOs that believe that they should be the only people able to carry, that the general population are incompetent, and the police will take care of all the bad guys. I know more than a few in the general population that feel the same way, so I figured I'd put my opposing question out there for discussion. Really, I realize that there can't be a cop on every corner, I just don't understand the mentality of someone that would say I shouldn't be able to carry a firearm to defend myself, thats what the police are for.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
then how about allowing all ex-servicemen to carry. Since putting a cop on every street corner isn't possible, this would be the next best thing. They already have at least as much training in handling themselves when the crap hits the fan as most cops, and probably more. We trust them to carry weapons overseas: why not in their home country? The Israelis do this, as do the Swiss.
Well, I'd still have to rely on someone to protect my family and me, no thanks. I'd rather just carry my own.
-
a metal detector is not going to stop someone like that, when it goes "beep" he will just start shooting.
-
It all comes down to what was said before....
Most people couldn't pull the trigger.
Those that can would probably end up in serious trouble.....
And BOTH sides of the gun argument will spin it to make a point.
Good OR bad....CCW is an option.....Crooks that WANT to kill or seriously hurt folks will....and we ALL are up until confronted with them....unable to do anything about it.
Cops wont be there hardly EVER whne they are needed. Aren't enough.
John Wayne types for the most part talk big...until they are in it.
Phaser's post early in the thread was one of the best I have read.
I had a recent episode at my home involving a gun....Trust me that having a gun in your hand....pointing it....is a VERY SCAREY proposition.
-
Originally posted by Phaser11
That is a hard question.
I do have a carry permit and would I have fired? It really depends on the situation. There is a fine line between self defense and taking the law into your own hands. If I was with my family or buy my self when that started happening in front of me, yes I would shoot in a heart beat, but If there was a clean way out for my family then I would take it and get them out.
A permit to carry a gun is just that. It is not a badge nor does it mean that a person carrying a gun “has” to get involved in gun fights. Does it happen, yes we do read about it when a person shoots another somewhere to save the lives of others, but understand this is still a very grey area in many states.
Some questions you might ask your self if you think this might happen and you have a gun.
If I shoot this person, am I going to shoot someone else? I saved the day by killing the shooter, but one of my rounds kill a 6month old baby behind him that I did not see. Can I live knowing that I killed a child?
Whenever you use a gun in self defense you will have to answer for it. It might be clear as to what happened and the local DA will not file charges. The again, if you stay and shoot the person, one of the question you will be asked and have to show (usually at the seine) how were YOU threatened/ Did YOU have a way out? Why did YOU take the law into your own hands?
If you start shooting, will others think you are part of the problem? Will you get shot by the other good person trying to stop the shooter?
Can you live with your self if you duck and run and many others are killed?
This is really not a question you can ask where there is a simple answer. It will be different for everyone you talk to. Most will say, I’ll shoot the guy”. Well they just might, but no plan works out the way you think when the lead is flying.
All you can really do is keep practicing with your gun, Think up shooting scenarios could happen at the places you frequent. Be aware of your surroundings at all times. Keep an eye on the quickest way out. Keep an eye on you family. Also it is very important that you are also a good witness for law enforcement. What were they wearing, color hair, close and stuff like that.
For me, I shoot with my carry about once a month. I pay extra for “frangible” ammunition that when it strikes something hard it breaks up into a fine power to help prevent ricochets.
This is not a perfect answer, because there is none. Everyone will respond as to there own abilities.
If you are witnessing a Felony (some assorted lunatic committing murder, not to mention eight counts), you are JUSTIFIED in ending him. I would. I'm not just saying it either. If I'm found guilty, then so be it, I ended the cowards plans prematurely and minimized his impact.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Please tell me what the relationship of your post has to a mall shooting? You were not in a mall unaware of the location of the shooter surrounded by panicked people fleeing in all directions.
If you cannot see the commonality of being in a disadvantaged situation now, then no amount of explaining it to you is going to help. Start by looking up the word: analogy.
Now tell me how you are going to search a mall with what was it 115 stores
You are so desperate to win this discussion that you are willing to be completely obtuse, aren't you?
If the guy is shooting a frikking gun in the "mall" area, how much searching are you going to have to do? I'm losing patience with you, Maverick. You are trying to twist the scenario to win a pointless argument, I'll not allow it.
-
yes we do read about it when a person shoots another somewhere to save the lives of others, but understand this is still a very grey area in many states.
Not grey in Nebraska.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
It all comes down to what was said before....
Most people couldn't pull the trigger.
It's terrifying, no question whatsoever, but I contend that Texans WOULD be more likely to shoot than Most People:
http://www.break.com/index/brave-neighbor-kills-2-robbers-911-call2.html
shamroc :aok
-
Texans...yeah I agree with that...simply by nature I guess...no idea really.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
I had a recent episode at my home involving a gun....Trust me that having a gun in your hand....pointing it....is a VERY SCAREY proposition.
I had an experience at my home where I honestly thought I was about to shoot someone. Definitely no thoughts of Dirty Harry or John Wayne at the time. Just scared and a sickening feeling I dont ever recall having before or since.
-
Exactly!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Slash27
I had an experience at my home where I honestly though I was about to shoot someone. Definitely no thoughts of Dirty Harry or John Wayne at the time. Just scared and a sickening feeling I dont ever recall having before or since.
Bleh, no doubt. I think killing someone, regardless of the justification, would haunt a sane person for the rest of his/her life, to some degree or other. I'd be just fine without ever having to do that.
-
Originally posted by Bingolong
btw
a SKS can be full auto just like a m1 carbine can and it can hold as big as a clip you can find for it. They make 50 round clips for it that I know.
http://www.rifletech.com/bullpup002.jpg
No liberal handsomehunk can rub two sticks together and magically make a semi-auto fire arm fully auto. Hell, even us experienced with fire arms probably won't be successful 4 times out of 5.
Even if we were successful, we aren't really making the gun full auto. We're just breaking it. And because we're breaking it, other things will start to break easily.
On top of that, the reliability of most magazines above 30 rounds is questionable at best.
-
Ok, this is a question for everyone.
How many potential mass-murders have been thwarted by a carrying CCW holder? Where would you go to look for that info?
Phaser, I believe you answered truthfully, which is somewhat rare anymore. Great post.
However, everyone in the thread's brought up lots of good points, on both sides of the coin.
True, LEO's usually aren't there at the scene of the crime, when it is perpetrated. So, in a sense, the citizen's are on their own. However, as somebody stated, a CCW is a permit to carry a gun, and just that. It does not make the bearer a trained LEO. It does not make the bearer immune to any exception's to the law of whatever state this happens' in. There are many What If's? in this scenario. Every time this happens, there are different circumstances. Maybe a CCW holder can save the day. Maybe he/she will make a situation infinetely worse. That door can swing both ways.
What would I myself do? Don't know. Never had to face it. Very few here can say they have.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
If you cannot see the commonality of being in a disadvantaged situation now, then no amount of explaining it to you is going to help. Start by looking up the word: analogy.
You are so desperate to win this discussion that you are willing to be completely obtuse, aren't you?
If the guy is shooting a frikking gun in the "mall" area, how much searching are you going to have to do? I'm losing patience with you, Maverick. You are trying to twist the scenario to win a pointless argument, I'll not allow it.
No I am not trying to "twist the scenario" at all. I've been talking about the mall shooting situation the entire time. You brought up the other "scenarios". All I did was point out they were irrelevant to the "discussion".
Yep I really do have a hard time seeing the commonality of you being threatened with a gun by a guy you are facing with as well as a fist fight face to face vs a mall shooting. If you really need to say you are a real bad arse, fine, now exactly what does that have to do with trying to find some one shooting in a crowded mall. If you have not noticed I have not questioned your courage in any of the posts here.
You are welcome to lose your patience all you want, that's your problem not mine nor does it impress me.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Ok, this is a question for everyone.
How many potential mass-murders have been thwarted by a carrying CCW holder? Where would you go to look for that info?
Off the top of my head...
The Utah Trolley Square mall shooting (last year) was tharted by an off-duty police officer who was carrying concealed. He was at the mall eating lunch with his wife if I remember correctly.
Saved many lives. Shooter had a shotgun, handgun and a backpack full of ammo.
shamroc
-
Originally posted by shamroc
Off the top of my head...
The Utah Trolley Square mall shooting (last year) was tharted by an off-duty police officer who was carrying concealed. He was at the mall eating lunch with his wife if I remember correctly.
Saved many lives. Shooter had a shotgun, handgun and a backpack full of ammo.
shamroc
Ok...a trained LEO. Any Off-the-street, simply-have-a-CCW regular Citizens?
-
Originally posted by shamroc
Off the top of my head...
The Utah Trolley Square mall shooting (last year) was tharted by an off-duty police officer who was carrying concealed. He was at the mall eating lunch with his wife if I remember correctly.
Saved many lives. Shooter had a shotgun, handgun and a backpack full of ammo.
shamroc
The gunman's rampage was stopped after trading shots with off-duty police officer Kenneth Hammond, and Sgt. Andrew Oblad of the Salt Lake City Police Department; their actions prevented further loss of life. The final confrontation, in which Taloviæ was killed, occurred in the Pottery Barn Kids home furnishing store.[7] Hammond was at Trolley Square with his pregnant wife, 911 dispatcher Sarita Hammond. Sarita borrowed a waiter's cell phone to call 911.[8] Taloviæ was cornered and was shooting at officers, until an active shooter contact team composed of Salt Lake City PD SWAT team members arrived and shot him. Salt Lake City police officials on February 13, 2007, thanked Hammond as a hero in saving countless lives.[6]
nope try again.
-
Dang, I was in the process of pointing out the "Off duty cop" part but everyone else beat me to it. ;)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
No I am not trying to "twist the scenario" at all. I've been talking about the mall shooting situation the entire time. You brought up the other "scenarios". All I did was point out they were irrelevant to the "discussion".
Yep I really do have a hard time seeing the commonality of you being threatened with a gun by a guy you are facing with as well as a fist fight face to face vs a mall shooting. If you have not noticed I have not questioned your courage in any of the posts here.
You are welcome to lose your patience all you want, that's your problem not mine nor does it impress me.
In the scenario with the three thugs beating the old woman, you don't really have a good choice among them. The choice to intervene wasn't about being a badass, it was about saving the old woman from a beating that would no doubt cause her more harm that it would cause you.
You/I would still probably get stomped, but could probably handle said beating better than the old woman. I'm not talking about beating up the three bad guys... I'm talking about wading in and getting a beating(probably) so the old woman doesn't... get it? In other words, it's a crummy situation with no neatly wrapped solution, much like the mall scenario.
The analogy is that neither the old woman scenario or the mall scenario(where you are armed with a pistol) offer an ideal solution but that one may have to make a tough choice. Is it really that hard for you to understand?
If you really need to say you are a real bad arse, fine, now exactly what does that have to do with trying to find some one shooting in a crowded mall.
You are assuming the guy is wandering through the mall while shooting people. you added this to the scenario. In our scenario in Nebraska, the guy was basically stationary on a third floor balcony, overlooking the mall area. As I've been saying... there wouldn't be any hunting down to do.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
nope try again.
You just validated what I said...
shamroc
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Ok...a trained LEO. Any Off-the-street, simply-have-a-CCW regular Citizens?
This search took about 1/10th of a second. i'm sure if I looked deeper I could find more.
http://www.acslpa.org/n_armed_citizen_reports.htm
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
dang...
I didn't have trouble in the Munich airport it was the Frankfurt airport but having a German soldier point a machine gun directly at me made all sorts of things swirl in my head.
Similar kind of thing... sorta... happened when I was on assignment in Osaka. I had a rental car and was out for a drive on a Saturday afternoon.
I am listening to the Japanese music on the car radio and looking at the road and country side and happened to glance in my rear view mirror.
OMG!!!! My brain literally hit the all out panic button!
There in my mirror was a big green Japanese Army truck with big red circle on its sloping hood and a Japanese soldier in his green uniform driving it and he was directly behind me looking straight at me!
I did manage to get myself under control but I was really thunder struck for a few moments.
I had never seen a Japanese soldier except in war movies... till then.
The soldier probably would have felt hurt had he known my initial reaction to him. I love the Japanese people and culture immensely.
TIGERESS
yours is far more disturbing for you i imagine. i wouldnt want anyone pointing a gun at me ever, a friend shot me with a gas pellet pistol when he thought the saftey was on...well that was kinda funny but...
as to the munich customs....well...we took the piss out of them with the wisecrack and they got us back 100 times better....i could almost swear i saw a cheeky half smile twitch of the tall guys eyes but never can be sure.....they really tok us in hard and then shortly before our flight boarded they just said..ok you can go now and dropped the searches just before they got to really get personal.
geuss we messed with the wrong dudes :)
-
Originally posted by Bingolong
What were the 2 30 round clips.
It was a AK family Wasr 10.
It was illegal till recently and the uncle he stole it from is being investigated for the time he purchased it.
Actually, this evening's news showed his entire gun collection being confiscated and carried off by the authorities. All the long guns they were carrying appeared to be typical sporting arms: pump action shotgun, and bolt action rifles. I could see them doing this if he was a felon in possession of firearms. But nothing like that has been said so far by the authorities.
Obviously, this relative did not have the gun locked up where it could not be easily taken from.
I would think that attorneys for the victims of this shooting may well be able to sue him, for his role in this matter. For if the rifle had been responsibly locked up in a safe, this incident would not have taken place.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No liberal handsomehunk can rub two sticks together and magically make a semi-auto fire arm fully auto. Hell, even us experienced with fire arms probably won't be successful 4 times out of 5.
Even if we were successful, we aren't really making the gun full auto. We're just breaking it. And because we're breaking it, other things will start to break easily.
On top of that, the reliability of most magazines above 30 rounds is questionable at best.
AK47 can be easily converted into full auto within 10 min.
Dont even need to be experienced with fire arms,but hey,what do we liberal handsomehunkes know.
-
Originally posted by KgB
AK47 can be easily converted into full auto within 10 min.
Dont even need to be experienced with fire arms,but hey,what do we liberal handsomehunkes know.
Post Proof Positive or Retract.
shamroc
-
Originally posted by shamroc
Post Proof Positive or Retract.
shamroc
Seconded
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
This search took about 1/10th of a second. i'm sure if I looked deeper I could find more.
http://www.acslpa.org/n_armed_citizen_reports.htm
Interesting links, Steve, but...What I meant was, How many have stopped the kind of shooting that happened in the Omaha Mall, or VT, or Columbine.
I could'nt find that kind of situation in your link. They were robberies, or Home invasion's. While no less dangerous, I was looking for something where someone shot the Columbine shooter first, so to speak.
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Actually, this evening's news showed his entire gun collection being confiscated and carried off by the authorities. All the long guns they were carrying appeared to be typical sporting arms: pump action shotgun, and bolt action rifles. I could see them doing this if he was a felon in possession of firearms. But nothing like that has been said so far by the authorities.
Obviously, this relative did not have the gun locked up where it could not be easily taken from.
I would think that attorneys for the victims of this shooting may well be able to sue him, for his role in this matter. For if the rifle had been responsibly locked up in a safe, this incident would not have taken place.
SIG 220
That depends' on Nebraska state law-If there are minors in the house, what are that state's statute's? They may not actually require weapons' locked up.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Interesting links, Steve, but...What I meant was, How many have stopped the kind of shooting that happened in the Omaha Mall, or VT, or Columbine.
I could'nt find that kind of situation in your link. They were robberies, or Home invasion's. While no less dangerous, I was looking for something where someone shot the Columbine shooter first, so to speak.
I'd have to have a crystal ball to do what you are asking. Who knows what the bad guys who were thwarted might have done? If you mean specifically a bad guy put down in a mall/school scenario... dunno... can't look now. :)
-
took me a while to find the report on the type of rifle, first all i saw was assault rifle, if it had been an ar-15 or a mini14 thats what they would have called it right off. but finally i found out it was an sks, aperantly with the clip kit and thats were the anti gun side will go , to the clips,(magazines)
i think alot of the reason this happens is because of the media makeing him into something other than just a cold blooded killer/MY OPINION!
you dont have to agree!
but i got the feeling from all that i read, that i was supposed to feel sorry for this guy, it was our fault he needed to kill, so he would be somebody
i think the news should be today, a moron who shall remain nameless , forever, took the lives of nine people! he is to be burried at the bottom of the nearest cespool, as soon as the people are thru desicrating (yea my spelling aint all that) his body, his family shall be on display for all to see and will be awaiting your comments and sugestions on how to try to repay the world.
this event is to be seen by all young people, so as to know that you will not be a hero you will not be missed, and nobody will ever be proud of what you have done,should you chose to do something as stupid as this!
p.s. dont mean too offend, i just hate that anyone even thinks this kind of stuff could ever fix anything!
-
Originally posted by shamroc
Post Proof Positive or Retract.
shamroc
Let me guess,you want me to give you link on how to convert AK47?
Have you lost your mind?
The difference between legal version of AK47 and full auto is that hammer in legal version locks after each round is fired,much like semi-automatic selector setting,requiring the trigger to be released and depressed again for the next shot.By removing(or grinding off) that pin or whatever the hell you call it you'll stuck with only full-automatic setting,its purely mechanical.
Blindfold disassembling and assembling of AK47 was in USSR high school program.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
That depends' on Nebraska state law-If there are minors in the house, what are that state's statute's? They may not actually require weapons' locked up.
That would apply to any criminal prosecution. Even if the state law did not require them to be locked up, they could still possibly face a liability in civil court. People have certainly been sued for issues much more minor than this.
People tend to get very upset when a family member dies. And the United States has far more attorneys than any other nation on earth. There are many lawyers actively looking for cases to represent across the country.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by KgB
Let me guess,you want me to give you link on how to convert AK47?
Have you lost your mind?
The difference between legal version of AK47 and full auto is that hammer in legal version locks after each round is fired,much like semi-automatic selector setting,requiring the trigger to be released and depressed again for the next shot.By removing(or grinding off) that pin or whatever the hell you call it you'll stuck with only full-automatic setting,its purely mechanical.
Blindfold disassembling and assembling of AK47 was in USSR high school program.
KgB - the myth of "filing down" the firing pin of a semi-auto AK47 to convert it to full auto is an urban legend. Other variations of this is to somehow insert a "twist tie" into the works to make the conversion complete.
It is 100% untrue. It's a common myth pushed by the Gun Control Lobby in an attempt to ban all semi-auto firearms.
To convert a semi-auto AK47 to fully auto entails replacing several major components (components that are highly restricted and not readily available in the USA). You also have to know what you are doing (aka a well trained/experienced gunsmith).
It is not something a layperson can do via magic internet-instructions.
And yes, most AK47 derivatives are extremely easy to field strip and maintain. It's a fine, reliable, inexpensive, hard hitting and rugged firearm - albeit not that accurate due to the fact that it has very loose tolerances and it has a big heavy action that produces massive recoil.
What bothers me most about that weapon is it's popularity portrayed as a weapon designed by the "Soviet Regime" to bring down the "West". In reality, it was designed to be a commoner's rifle to keep the Nazi's from coming back.
shamroc
-
Originally posted by shamroc
KgB - the myth of "filing down" the firing pin of a semi-auto AK47 to convert it to full auto is an urban legend. Other variations of this is to somehow insert a "twist tie" into the works to make the conversion complete.
It is 100% untrue. It's a common myth pushed by the Gun Control Lobby in an attempt to ban all semi-auto firearms.
To convert a semi-auto AK47 to fully auto entails replacing several major components (components that are highly restricted and not readily available in the USA). You also have to know what you are doing (aka a well trained/experienced gunsmith).
It is not something a layperson can do via magic internet-instructions.
And yes, most AK47 derivatives are extremely easy to field strip and maintain. It's a fine, reliable, inexpensive, hard hitting and rugged firearm - albeit not that accurate.
What bothers me most about that weapon is it's popularity portrayed as a weapon designed by the "Soviet Regime" to bring down the "West". In reality, it was designed to be a commoner's rifle to keep the Nazi's from coming back.
shamroc
I disagree,however i cannot prove wrong.So plz accept my apologies for ending this argument.
-
Originally posted by KgB
I disagree,however i cannot prove wrong.So plz accept my apologies for ending this argument.
How about I buy you a Stoli and we can call it even ? :)
shamroc
-
Bring back the Gibbet!
-
Originally posted by shamroc
How about I buy you a Stoli and we can call it even ? :)
shamroc
Actually Stoli is like a Jet fuel,its horrible.Would you be interested in Gray goose?:aok
-
Originally posted by KgB
Actually Stoli is like a Jet fuel,its horrible.Would you be interested in Gray goose?:aok
Works for me Comrade ! :aok
(and who says there's no chance for world peace)
Shamroc
-
Originally posted by shamroc
By definition, even if it was a semi-auto version of an AK-47, it wouldn't be an Assault Rifle (the selectable full auto fire is gone, which is a pre-requisite to be considered an Assault Rifle).
For the record it was a SKS Carbine. It is neither capable of full automatic fire, and it does NOT have a detachable magazine (another Assault Rifle pre-requisite). I know I know... to the dead, what difference does it make ?
That's what I mean by the media inventing facts to sensationalize political agendas... I've seen some foreign media describe the weapon as a "machine gun" which are "readily available in the USA to anyone".
BTW it was also stolen.
shamroc
Never bump fired an AK before? My son was an AK fanatic. I learned more about the things from him then i thought possible. He had a SAR1, then an AK103, then a Polish underfolder, and then an AK74. All semi Auto of course. Very fun to shoot. The 74 is probably the nicest shooting of them.
But lets be honest here. They look nasty. There is nothing ordinary semi-auto rifle about them. And I have two of his now since he passed away to go with my 2 AR-15s so it's not like I'm anti shooting. Lets just not undersell what they are.
SKS most definately can be adapted to a 30 round magazine. You can buy them just about anywhere.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
SKS most definately can be adapted to a 30 round magazine. You can buy them just about anywhere.
This website has several detachable mags for the SKS available for sale, all the way up to 40 rounds:
http://www.tickbitesupply.com/sks.html (http://www.tickbitesupply.com/sks.html)
My son just bought an SKS. However, I do not believe that he plans to commit mass murder. I already bought him an AR-15 for his 21st birthday last year.
SIG 220
-
Most states including mine (Pennsylvania) allow in the laws for the use of deadly force in not only the protection of yourself but others as well.
Do do otherwise is simply idiotic.
Anyone with a concealed carry permit should KNOW the laws pertaining to a citizens right to use deadly force. If they do not simply they should not be carrying a firearm.
Maverick I understand your point and it has merit. Police train for situations like this constantly. I know in Pa every officer in the State has had what is called active shooter training. This came about after the incident at Columbine High School. Police are trained to deploy as a squad 3-5 guys and how to move tactically towards an active shooter.
Does John Q Public have the training necessary to combat a situation like this one. Normally no, unless they have prior training.
However for those of who have posted who feel that the fact that you travel from one side of the mall to the other during a situation such as this in and of itself makes it an illegal use of deadly force, I assure you this is not the case.
The laws that pertain to the use of the element of retreat are applicable to the use of deadly force in the protection of PROPERTY ( In Pa anyhow) not in the defense of yourself or another whom you reasonably believe is in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury.
Though it may be tactically unsound for a single civilian to try and move towards an active shooter on their own to end a situation such as this it would by no means be against the law to do so.
For those that feel they would choose to do something to put an end to this type of incident I personally salute your bravery. For those that would choose not to I understand this as well.
However, to those that have the ability and opportunity (meaning it is right there and you are armed and have a clean shot) to end this but would choose not to out of fear of criminal or civil repurcussions I can only say I have no idea as to how you would be able to lay your head on your pillow each night and sleep knowing you could have pervented people from dying but chose to do nothing out of selfish fear.
I KNOW what I would have done but that I will keep to myself.
-
No matter what the situation is, unless you somehow end up behind a guy with a rifle and have an easy opportunity to engage him, using your CCW Handgun against a shoulder supported weapon being used by somebody bent on killing everything in sight is going to be an uphill struggle.
No easy answers.
And yes, an SKS can be adapted to take AK mags and drums. I have done this myself. I think that this idiot must have ran out of ammo and then killed himself because there couldn't have been any shortage of targets in the confusion.
It's the tool not the operator. Any high powered rifle in a mall being used by somebody even half competent is going to wreck all kinds of havoc.
What surprises the hell out of me in the USA is that the FBI claims that there are hundreds if not thousands of "sleeper" AQ agents or what have you in the country. What would happen if 50 of them went into 50 different elementary schools with an AK or SKS or what have you and a large supply of ammunition and shot 100 kids plus at each school. Thinking for the "red" team, this type of operation would be easy compared to 9/11 and think of the aftershocks. What would happen when one parent of a 2 parent working family decided that schools aren't safe for their kids and stayed home with the children and home schooled them, even for a short term.....economic crisis at the very least.
That's my nightmare scenario.
-
Originally posted by shamroc
It's terrifying, no question whatsoever, but I contend that Texans WOULD be more likely to shoot than Most People:
http://www.break.com/index/brave-neighbor-kills-2-robbers-911-call2.html
shamroc :aok
Yes, I certainly agree with you, Shamroc, and all this has tapped into something I rarely ever speak of.
On the subject of the "spirit" of that which makes True Texans, Texans...
The core culture has not changed all that much from the early days when there was no "federal" government at all.
...Only the small strained Texas government which did the best it could and often times that wasn’t very much.
And, the harsh deadly land and weather which literally killed or forced its surviving peoples to place great need and value on looking out for the lives and welfare of each other and visitors.
In other words, if we didn't look out for each other no one else would thus we were good as dead ourselves.
In a way, true Texans are like one big extended family who are welcoming and hospitable to each other and visitors.
The deadly nature of the land and climate and the very thinly spread government of Texas, forced its people to either die or toughen up and be self-reliant early on and that spirit was, and still is, blended into the core of true Texans even to this day.
When one visits Texas communities away from the big city culture, you are met with a big smile and handshake and welcoming and a kind of fathering/mothering nature to help you and protect you and keep you safe as if you were a long lost relative.
Would we shoot something or someone trying to kill you? Yes.
And, we expect the same from each other in return. That's how it is.
That is why I was totally floored no one stood up and took that shooter out and why I would have shot him dead myself to save others, given the means and opportunity to do so.
True Texans are not bred to live and die like a herd of sheep... not even us women.
I also think that is why many of us true Texas women are often attracted to men who are rugged and self-confident survivors and value them for who and what they are. That's probably why I have always had a thang for cowboy types in general... can't help it.
It isn't about pride unless you consider beating the odds something to be proud of; it's about core survival and pulling together.
This is also why I feel such a particular kinship for the Russian women who fought and died beside their brave men during WWII... what these men and women did side by side was about core survival on their own rugged and deadly lands fighting to simply survive and protect each other against a common enemy; pulling together to survive as a people.
It's the same kind of spirit in another time and place... half a world away.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Never bump fired an AK before? My son was an AK fanatic. I learned more about the things from him then i thought possible. He had a SAR1, then an AK103, then a Polish underfolder, and then an AK74. All semi Auto of course. Very fun to shoot. The 74 is probably the nicest shooting of them.
But lets be honest here. They look nasty. There is nothing ordinary semi-auto rifle about them. And I have two of his now since he passed away to go with my 2 AR-15s so it's not like I'm anti shooting. Lets just not undersell what they are.
SKS most definately can be adapted to a 30 round magazine. You can buy them just about anywhere.
Well I can't argue the notorious looks of the AK47 - it just looks mean... Also has had innumerable photo ops with some of the most notorious people
ie:
(http://static.flickr.com/47/177666473_55b5b346fc_m.jpg)
And sorry about your son :(
shamroc
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
In the scenario with the three thugs beating the old woman, you don't really have a good choice among them. The choice to intervene wasn't about being a badass, it was about saving the old woman from a beating that would no doubt cause her more harm that it would cause you.
You/I would still probably get stomped, but could probably handle said beating better than the old woman. I'm not talking about beating up the three bad guys... I'm talking about wading in and getting a beating(probably) so the old woman doesn't... get it? In other words, it's a crummy situation with no neatly wrapped solution, much like the mall scenario.
The analogy is that neither the old woman scenario or the mall scenario(where you are armed with a pistol) offer an ideal solution but that one may have to make a tough choice. Is it really that hard for you to understand?
You are assuming the guy is wandering through the mall while shooting people. you added this to the scenario. In our scenario in Nebraska, the guy was basically stationary on a third floor balcony, overlooking the mall area. As I've been saying... there wouldn't be any hunting down to do.
Once again, you are trying to add a situation that did not happen. There was no old lady being mugged in that mall shooting. Please stay with the situation at hand. I'm not playing the "what if" game.
The guy did not stay stationary. According to the news as of last night he entered the mall went to the elevator and up to the 3rd floor. He then started shooting upon exiting the elevator inside the store and walked through the store. He also shot folks on the escalator still from the 3rd floor. He then went further through the store and finally offed himself. Total time from entry to the mall to killing himself was described as 6 minutes.
I'll try to state this again. Had there been a ccw holder in the area where they could ID the shooter and take action immediately then engaging him makes sense. If the ccw holder is not in that position then they are better off getting as many folks, including themselves away from the shooting area. Going hunting for the bad guy as an untrained civilian in a confused situation like that is a bad idea. Running around with a gun in a shooting situation looking for an unknown shooter is not going to make things better, it will only add more problems when the Police do finally get there to include mistaking you for the shooter if not just adding a new target for the shooter who has no target ID problems. Everyone is a target.
-
To answer the one question about shootings.. fully one quarter of all school shootings were stopped by a civilian with a firearm before the police arrived.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/NROMultipleVicShootings305.html
It would be higher of course if they were not "gun free zones" the law school one for instance ended in the parking lot and the civilian with the gun was never given credit. The three guys who jumped the gunman AFTER he was subdued by the civilian with the gun were given credit.
There is no magic to police training.. anything an off duty cop can do a civilian with some guts and some shooting experiance can do. I would venture to say that I am a better shot than 90% of the cops out there. That is no big deal.. I know lots of guys who are.
as for bingalongs idea of converting a commercial version of an AKS to full auto... not gonna happen.. even a gunsmith would probly give up as a waste of time. Just as there is a huge difference between an M1 carbine and an M2 carbine.
lazs
-
and.. I agree with mav. and the couple of cops here who have been shot at.. I would not rush a SKS armed nut in a mall with a snubby J frame smith or even a full size 45... I would look for a shot from cover.. even if it was a long one.. say 50 yards.. I would probly hit him but who knows.. for sure I would break up his rythum.. I would move like hell to find a new spot of cover if he took an interest in me.
Point is... If one in ten people were armed and competent.. these guys would just stay home with a bottle and blow their brains out when they were finished.
They go to places where they can kill a bunch of sheep before they die in a hail of bullets... it plays out real big for them... Having a couple of civilians shooting at em is distracting and not to their liking.
lazs
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and.. I agree with mav.
lazs
No you don't. Mav says to run away. you are talking about shooting at the bad guy. I never mentioned anything about rushing a guy w/ an SKS.
I said that if you were there w/ a weapon you should try to do something to intervene. Shooting at a guy from 50 yards away is just that.
As I've already said, I'm not advocating suicide.
-
Oh.. for those interested in what "bump fire" is..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Va1TXGSCXk&feature=related
These are semi autos and it is for fun... It is no way to use a gun effectively.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
...
Point is... If one in ten people were armed and competent.. these guys would just stay home with a bottle and blow their brains out when they were finished.
They go to places where they can kill a bunch of sheep before they die in a hail of bullets... it plays out real big for them... Having a couple of civilians shooting at em is distracting and not to their liking.
lazs
I'm afraid, laz, that these freaks would simply find an easier target to attain their desired recognition... like, .. perhaps.. and it sickens me to even mention it..
schools... playgrounds...
We're doomed...
Don't get me wrong.. I'm not taking a stand for or against arming or disarming the masses. I don't own a gun, have no desire to own a gun .. ok, except maybe some skeet shooting if I ever find time to take on another hobby. And, quite frankly, pistols scare me.
I believe that there are nutcases that, no matter what rules and road blocks are in place, they will find some way to satisfy their twisted desires.
I don't see any answers.. and I guess that's the disappointing thing.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Oh.. for those interested in what "bump fire" is..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Va1TXGSCXk&feature=related
These are semi autos and it is for fun... It is no way to use a gun effectively.
lazs
I can bump my WASR from the shoulder, Although not accurate its certainly more accurate than from the hip.
-
Originally posted by shamroc
KgB - the myth of "filing down" the firing pin of a semi-auto AK47 to convert it to full auto is an urban legend. Other variations of this is to somehow insert a "twist tie" into the works to make the conversion complete.
It is 100% untrue. It's a common myth pushed by the Gun Control Lobby in an attempt to ban all semi-auto firearms.
To convert a semi-auto AK47 to fully auto entails replacing several major components (components that are highly restricted and not readily available in the USA). You also have to know what you are doing (aka a well trained/experienced gunsmith).
It is not something a layperson can do via magic internet-instructions.
And yes, most AK47 derivatives are extremely easy to field strip and maintain. It's a fine, reliable, inexpensive, hard hitting and rugged firearm - albeit not that accurate due to the fact that it has very loose tolerances and it has a big heavy action that produces massive recoil.
What bothers me most about that weapon is it's popularity portrayed as a weapon designed by the "Soviet Regime" to bring down the "West". In reality, it was designed to be a commoner's rifle to keep the Nazi's from coming back.
shamroc
dont know about the ak but the sks is easily converted to full in less than 10 min. and can be adjusted for rate of fire while fireing, I own 10 of these and have sold a few more (none of mine ever had this conversion ) but i have seen it done, not sure why im telling you this other than to say i dont think you know all there is to know about this weapon, if you did you would understand that to ban any gun is stupid it only works all or none and i must say none.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
See Rules #4, #5
You try to introduce a situation totally different from what was being discussed and I called you on it. No dumbing there.
I also see you conveniently refuse to read what was actually written in the post. Now who is the person who has a problem understanding? Be that as it may, if you cannot discuss the actual situation and stay focused on that without reverting to personal attacks as your only means of arguing it's probably best you do drop the thread.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Oh.. for those interested in what "bump fire" is..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Va1TXGSCXk&feature=related
These are semi autos and it is for fun... It is no way to use a gun effectively.
lazs
Too true. A guy shooting it semi-auto would be much more deadly.
Photos from the mall cameras sure make it look like it was an AK, probably an underfolder.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Any right wing nut job can rub two sticks together and magically make a semi-auto fire arm fully auto. Hell, even us inexperienced with fire arms probably will be successful 4 times out of 5
Fixed
-
Originally posted by Maverick
You try to introduce a situation totally different from what was being discussed and I called you on it. No dumbing there.
I also see you conveniently refuse to read what was actually written in the post. Now who is the person who has a problem understanding? Be that as it may, if you cannot discuss the actual situation and stay focused on that without reverting to personal attacks as your only means of arguing it's probably best you do drop the thread.
Look up the word: analogy. It's good to learn things.
-
Originally posted by Bingolong
Fixed
And Im sure you believe thats the case. Im surprised you even venture outside.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and.. I agree with mav. and the couple of cops here who have been shot at.. I would not rush a SKS armed nut in a mall with a snubby J frame smith or even a full size 45... I would look for a shot from cover.. even if it was a long one.. say 50 yards.. I would probly hit him but who knows.. for sure I would break up his rythum.. I would move like hell to find a new spot of cover if he took an interest in me.
Point is... If one in ten people were armed and competent.. these guys would just stay home with a bottle and blow their brains out when they were finished.
They go to places where they can kill a bunch of sheep before they die in a hail of bullets... it plays out real big for them... Having a couple of civilians shooting at em is distracting and not to their liking.
lazs
once again, lazs and i agree on something.
these guys think that they won't have to contend with unknown variables.
i do not own a gun, but i not at all opposed to having them in the hands of competent people.
so long as guns are made, there should be guns in places people can't set their watches by.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
And Im sure you believe thats the case. Im surprised you even venture outside.
Before I go walk the dog :p
Luckily there arnt that many of you here.
it is the case takes about 10-12 mins as already stated and a m1 just needs a m2 kit. Wanna tell me more about fires?arms?
-
I just got back from meeting up with folks from all over the world. the tragic event in omaha was hot topic for the last two evenings of the convention at the watering hole. a texan related an anecdote about some guy walking into a dallas mall and racking a shotgun only to have a good number of texans point handguns at him and wait until the police apprehended him. I'm skeptic because I don't recall seeing anything like that in the news and that story would certainly be newsworthy. do any of you texans recall the incident?
-
cripes... 88 agreed with me... where did I go wrong? Am I getting old and soft?
bingalong.. what exactly is an "M2 kit"? are to make an M1 into a functional and reliable full auto with M2 parts you would need the entire trigger group and bolt. It may take 10 minutes... it may take a lot longer.
Who cares in any case.. where you gonna buy an M2 trigger group? In the case of full auto ak and sks guns... most are crude.. the guns themselves are forgiving and sloppy and will take some bad amature gunsmithing but.. they won't be very reliable.
lazs
-
<<
I just got back from meeting up with folks from all over the world. the tragic event in omaha was hot topic for the last two evenings of the convention at the watering hole. a texan related an anecdote about some guy walking into a dallas mall and racking a shotgun only to have a good number of texans point handguns at him and wait until the police apprehended him. I'm skeptic because I don't recall seeing anything like that in the news and that story would certainly be newsworthy. do any of you texans recall the incident?>>
__________________
that story is not news worthy, there was no assault rifle/AK-47, multiple dead bodies.
-
Originally posted by storch
I just got back from meeting up with folks from all over the world. the tragic event in omaha was hot topic for the last two evenings of the convention at the watering hole. a texan related an anecdote about some guy walking into a dallas mall and racking a shotgun only to have a good number of texans point handguns at him and wait until the police apprehended him. I'm skeptic because I don't recall seeing anything like that in the news and that story would certainly be newsworthy. do any of you texans recall the incident?
If there is no known news story to back it up, Then you have just witnessed the birth of an urban legend.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
If there is no known news story to back it up, Then you have just witnessed the birth of an urban legend.
Storch gave birth! Congrats! :D :aok
-
Originally posted by storch
I just got back from meeting up with folks from all over the world. the tragic event in omaha was hot topic for the last two evenings of the convention at the watering hole. a texan related an anecdote about some guy walking into a dallas mall and racking a shotgun only to have a good number of texans point handguns at him and wait until the police apprehended him. I'm skeptic because I don't recall seeing anything like that in the news and that story would certainly be newsworthy. do any of you texans recall the incident?
If he didn't shoot anyone then it is not a good enough story to make the American news media. Need some blood and guts to make it.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Look up the word: analogy. It's good to learn things.
Let me know when you are ready to discuss the situation that happened. Heck I'll even wait a bit for you to get around to it.
An analogy is only good if it relates to the original situation. In the mean time you just might want to actually read what I posted in several of the posts I made. If you have something to discuss related to the situation that happened and the discussion that was raised over it I'm all for it.
Leave the personal attacks and what if's at home please.
-
i do not like analogies, they are never as accurate as the facts.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
If there is no known news story to back it up, Then you have just witnessed the birth of an urban legend.
It may not have been considered newsworthy in Texas but there will be a record of it if it’s true... a filed police report.
With a location and date one could find out whether the story is credible or not.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by lazs2
cripes... 88 agreed with me... where did I go wrong? Am I getting old and soft?
bingalong.. what exactly is an "M2 kit"? are to make an M1 into a functional and reliable full auto with M2 parts you would need the entire trigger group and bolt. It may take 10 minutes... it may take a lot longer.
Who cares in any case.. where you gonna buy an M2 trigger group? In the case of full auto ak and sks guns... most are crude.. the guns themselves are forgiving and sloppy and will take some bad amature gunsmithing but.. they won't be very reliable.
lazs
Okay Lazzette Its Bingo thanks,
The trigger housing is about 50 and the rest of the {Whole7} part "group" of rocket science, disconnect, disconnect plunger and spring, selector switch and spring, and the actuator arm, is about another 75. Easy to get to I might add. There are gun nuts all over :)
and here's a video for ya since you like them, of an unreliable sks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYDEI1arGZ8
It only has to work once eh?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
An analogy is only good if it relates to the original situation.
Leave the personal attacks and what if's at home please.
The analogy did relate in a parallel manner and I clearly explained how yet you were unable to grasp it. Our command of the English language is so disparate as to make any attempt at communicating with you both unpleasant and frustrating. I see no point in making any further attempts since I was unable to make you see even the simplest of ideas.
So, for the first time ever, I put someone on ignore. Feel free to have the last word, I'll not be troubled by them.
:aok
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
The analogy did relate in a parallel manner and I clearly explained how yet you were unable to grasp it. Our command of the English language is so disparate as to make any attempt at communicating with you both unpleasant and frustrating. I see no point in making any further attempts since I was unable to make you see even the simplest of ideas.
So, for the first time ever, I put someone on ignore. Feel free to have the last word, I'll not be troubled by them.
:aok
I put someone on ignore once. Lasted about 2 hours. :D
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
The analogy did relate in a parallel manner and I clearly explained how yet you were unable to grasp it. Our command of the English language is so disparate as to make any attempt at communicating with you both unpleasant and frustrating. I see no point in making any further attempts since I was unable to make you see even the simplest of ideas.
So, for the first time ever, I put someone on ignore. Feel free to have the last word, I'll not be troubled by them.
:aok
Still can't relate anything but a personal attack rather than argue the point I see. Ignore works for me.
:cry :cry
-
Originally posted by Bingolong
Before I go walk the dog :p
Luckily there arnt that many of you here.
it is the case takes about 10-12 mins as already stated and a m1 just needs a m2 kit. Wanna tell me more about fires?arms?
Many of who? And what is it you would like me to tell you about fires? I'd hate to spoil some of your myths you hold so dear though.
-
Originally posted by WWhiskey
dont know about the ak but the sks is easily converted to full in less than 10 min. and can be adjusted for rate of fire while fireing, I own 10 of these and have sold a few more (none of mine ever had this conversion ) but i have seen it done, not sure why im telling you this other than to say i dont think you know all there is to know about this weapon, if you did you would understand that to ban any gun is stupid it only works all or none and i must say none.
Its interesting as a lot of the AK junkies bought parts kits coming out of Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria etc.
These were 'de-milled AKs meaning they cut up the reciever. But having bought a couple of Polish underfolder kits, you get everything but that. The original auto fire control group etc. All you need is a new reciever and someone to put it all back together for you. Most folks play fair and because of required US made parts us a US made fire control group. But if you are going to play dirty, the parts are there to make it auto.
I was thinking about it while at work today. An undefolder AK47 when collapsed is a little over two feet long. Not tough at all to hide under a coat while looking for a place to open fire. A couple of 30 round mags in the pockets and unless you were looking for it, you'd never notice it until the firing started,
-
Originally posted by Phaser11
Whenever you use a gun in self defense you will have to answer for it. It might be clear as to what happened and the local DA will not file charges. The again, if you stay and shoot the person, one of the question you will be asked and have to show (usually at the seine) how were YOU threatened/ Did YOU have a way out? Why did YOU take the law into your own hands?
It is legal in all 50 states to employ deadly force to stop someone in the act of committing a murder. Whether you are threatened or not is irrelevant. Whether or not you could escape is irrelevant.
Had anyone shot down that kid, they would not be facing criminal charges.
Lets apply some common sense thinking, ok?
The only question that seems worth thought is, how smart would it be to face off against an AK-47 with a sidearm? Not a good idea, generally.
You had better get around the shooter's flank and get close enough not to miss.
As to Mall security; it doesn't exist. These "guards", poorly paid and not representing the finest of society, specialize in rousting mall rats and flirting with female sales clerks at the Gap. In terms of value in a shooting situation, they are nearly useless. Not completely useless, as they can serve as an example of utter futility.
What people don't seem to grasp is that if you want security, you had better provide it for yourself. There's little chance that anyone will aid you in time to save your bacon. So, you better be prepared to deal with things on your own. When it comes to most crime, your local police officer is little more than a crime statistics data miner rather than a crime fighter. Most of the time they arrive just in time to take the report.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Many of who? And what is it you would like me to tell you about fires? I'd hate to spoil some of your myths you hold so dear though.
:aok
Yes, I learned even more about "fire" today,....better?
extremely unreliable
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c&feature=related
-
Originally posted by Bingolong
:aok
Yes, I learned even more about "fire" today,....better?
extremely unreliable
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c&feature=related
Well, it is on fire.:rofl
If thats your neighbor I can sympathize with you.:huh
-
Originally posted by APDrone
I'm afraid, laz, that these freaks would simply find an easier target to attain their desired recognition... like, .. perhaps.. and it sickens me to even mention it..
I do not believe that it is politically correct any longer to refer to mentally ill people as "freaks". These are human beings, and should thus not be dehumanized.
This teenager's death is tragic also. What a messed up and wasted life he had. He is also a victim of his illness.
I think that our nation clearly needs to have more mental institutions.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by SIG220
I do not believe that it is politically correct any longer to refer to mentally ill people as "freaks". These are human beings, and should thus not be dehumanized.
This teenager's death is tragic also. What a messed up and wasted life he had. He is also a victim of his illness.
I think that our nation clearly needs to have more mental institutions.
SIG 220
I understand your sentiments...
Freak is not a bad word in itself but is intentionally used in a hurtful way by many people as an inapproprate insult.
Anyone is capable of committing mass murder under the requsite circumstances, imv, but most never do thus this kind of behavior is considered freakish behavior.
freak --> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freak
There is no money to be made in institutionalizing MIs, just costs…
Lefties would spend federal money to put them away and righties would save that money so it could be spent on something else and let the chips fall where they may then complain when the media points the finger at gun ownership as the problem.
Only way to institutionalize people like him where taxpayer money is available is prison but that requires a crime first.
And, I suspect there are lefties who hate the 2nd amendment so much that they like to see this sort of thing happen so they can say "See?? See?? If his uncle had been prevented from owning guns this would not have happened."
People become pawns for political agendas.
This kid was a sociopath of the worst kind... had he merely committed suicide instead of killing innocent people I could feel sympathy for him.
He was rational enough to make a conscious decision to commit mass murder because of his dislike of the life he had... and to be "special" ...go out in a blaze of infamy. I doubt his mental problems were bad enough to warrant institutionalizing… he was simply a murderer building to a climax.
A single person, any person, can affect the lives of us all and some do so to simply feel they matter.
I feel sorry for a rabid dog and would shoot it nonetheless.
I have chopped the head off rattlesnakes in my yard with a garden hoe; I felt sorry for them but I did it to survive should they bite me unaware and to protect others... in the wild I would let them go in peace.
TIGERESS
-
I think anyone illegally converting their semi-auto to full auto has created a serious problem for yourself, your family, and legal gun owners in the US.
Is it worth committing a felony and going to prison over? dang...
In my opinion, you guys who defend the 2nd amendment need to apply peer pressure on any of you who possess illegally owned full automatic weapons.
If you want to shoot a machine gun go to a range that lets you shoot theirs.
Imagine the field day the media and the lefties would have if this kid's uncle had converted a gun to full auto and this kid choose that one... and no doubt his uncle would go to prison for 10 years.
That alone would no doubt affect the upcoming 2nd amendment case before the supreme court.
Men who get caught pushing the envelope like that eventually hurts everyone interested in the primary reason the 2nd amendment exists in the first place.
Over the top gun obsession, like over top gambling obsession or over the top sex obsession, etc., is considered a mental problem by many reasonable people across the political spectrum; left and right.
Please act responsibly and legally about your gun hobby if you are illegally converting semi-auto to full-autos.
And, those who are responsible and legal, please pressure your illegal peers for their sake and yours or turn them in if they fail to get it for your hobby's sake and protection of the 2nd amendment from those looking for the means to abolish it.
Admittedly, I don't get it when it comes to fanatic over-the-top pre-occupation with fire arms but I get the part where the need for the 2nd amendment caused it to be written into the constitution.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by SIG220
I do not believe that it is politically correct any longer to refer to mentally ill people as "freaks". These are human beings, and should thus not be dehumanized.
This teenager's death is tragic also. What a messed up and wasted life he had. He is also a victim of his illness.
I think that our nation clearly needs to have more mental institutions.
SIG 220
For the most part, I don't 'do' politically correct. It's foolish, stupid, cowardly, and has probably done more to undermine the emotional development of our society than anything else.
I grew up in the heart of Dixie with the birthplace of St. Paul, MN.
I caught hell for talking funny and being a 'damn Yankee'. Guess what? I had to deal with it. After a few years of taking it and making fun of it, it was no longer a problem.
With no counselors or lawyers involved. Who'd thunk?
I have far more 'colorful metaphors' to use on the likes of this freak, but I won't expose them here for it would be unnecessary.
Bring back the days of peer pressure and beating the heck of somebody in the parking lot to 'adjust their tude'. Worked just fine back in my day.
Wouldn't keep our armies of lawyers happy nowadays, I'm afraid. Heaven forbid we re-learn how to exist without litigation.
We have a society. This society has rules of behavior, many based on common courtesy and respect. Now the courtesy is gone and respect is non-existant, and our society is crumbling.
If you cannot cope with our society, then you should be removed from it.
Period.
Have a nice day.
-
Originally posted by APDrone
For the most part, I don't 'do' politically correct. It's foolish, stupid, cowardly, and has probably done more to undermine the emotional development of our society than anything else.
I grew up in the heart of Dixie with the birthplace of St. Paul, MN.
I caught hell for talking funny and being a 'damn Yankee'. Guess what? I had to deal with it. After a few years of taking it and making fun of it, it was no longer a problem.
With no counselors or lawyers involved. Who'd thunk?
I have far more 'colorful metaphors' to use on the likes of this freak, but I won't expose them here for it would be unnecessary.
Bring back the days of peer pressure and beating the heck of somebody in the parking lot to 'adjust their tude'. Worked just fine back in my day.
Wouldn't keep our armies of lawyers happy nowadays, I'm afraid. Heaven forbid we re-learn how to exist without litigation.
We have a society. This society has rules of behavior, many based on common courtesy and respect. Now the courtesy is gone and respect is non-existant, and our society is crumbling.
If you cannot cope with our society, then you should be removed from it.
Period.
Have a nice day.
amen
-
Originally posted by SIG220
I do not believe that it is politically correct any longer to refer to mentally ill people as "freaks". These are human beings, and should thus not be dehumanized.
This teenager's death is tragic also. What a messed up and wasted life he had. He is also a victim of his illness.
I think that our nation clearly needs to have more mental institutions.
SIG 220
Sig, that would be the Humane way to go about it.
However, it's only effective if you can travel back and forth in time, to see what kind of crimes' these people are gonna commit, and then you can say,"Wow, you really are in need of help."
Think about the pressures' that people go through day-to-day.
When you consider the strains of feeding a family, keeping a job, marriage, schoolwork, or anything in which you have to push yourself for personal accomplishment, then there are literally thousands, if not millions, of candidates for a potential shooting spree. It is literally impossible to screen through all these people, to "help" them, to prevent things like VT or this shooting in Omaha.
Read through this:http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10203459
A pile of bricks with the label of "Mental Health Center" doesn't give those lost loved ones' back to their families.
The only chance for that is at the moment...Maybe if they had been armed? Who knows. Not everyone carries a gun for self defense. Even if this guy had seeked or been given prior help (Remember, the VT shooter had been in and out, and STILL went on a rampage) It's not a guarantee. My heart goes out to the families of the Victims. AP, if you know any, would you please relay my sympathies?
-
For me, the underlying points in all this are:
1) had someone been armed and ready to act it could have been stopped after the first killing. not perfect world stuff but better than multiple killings and and then suicide.
2) the guns are not the problem, murders happen with all kinds of devices and soemtimes just human hands. you cant stop murders by banning guns.
3) this guy could have killed just as many people without a gun. and also easily could obtain a gun in a country where guns are ilegal.
for the pro-gun camp this is a victory in theory and a tragedy in reality
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
For me, the underlying points in all this are:
1) had someone been armed and ready to act it could have been stopped after the first killing. not perfect world stuff but better than multiple killings and and then suicide.
2) the guns are not the problem, murders happen with all kinds of devices and soemtimes just human hands. you cant stop murders by banning guns.
3) this guy could have killed just as many people without a gun. and also easily could obtain a gun in a country where guns are ilegal.
for the pro-gun camp this is a victory in theory and a tragedy in reality
Politically, Bat, This might be a real blow to the Pro-gun camp. It would have really been better if a CCW holder had taken the shooter out. That would have shown what an armed, responsible citizen is capable of doing-and why we need more of them. However, Since the guy used an AK clone(That's what all the news is saying, I know some of you insist it was an SKS) With a 30-round mag, What's happening now is noise from the Brady Coalition. You can read what they say here:http://www.bradycampaign.org/
I know some of you would rather pull out a molar with a pair of pliers and no anesthetic, than read anything by the Brady coalition, but it's handy to keep tabs on what these people try to do.
Many in here believe another, even more restrictive Firearms' ban is in the works' if Hillary takes office, And not just on "Assault" style rifles. You'll be lucky to keep the guns you have.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
cripes... 88 agreed with me... where did I go wrong? Am I getting old and soft?
bingalong.. what exactly is an "M2 kit"? are to make an M1 into a functional and reliable full auto with M2 parts you would need the entire trigger group and bolt. It may take 10 minutes... it may take a lot longer.
Who cares in any case.. where you gonna buy an M2 trigger group? In the case of full auto ak and sks guns... most are crude.. the guns themselves are forgiving and sloppy and will take some bad amature gunsmithing but.. they won't be very reliable.
lazs
getting?!
you've been old and soft as long as i've known you lasz.
;)
-
well... you didn't have to tell everyone.
Widewing is correct as is mav.. it is a big deal to face down a carbine carrying guy bent of murder when you have nothing but a sidearm..
My point is.. one guy, even with a j frame... firing from cover would ah... break his concentration... two guys doing it would ruin his day and.. if it happened a few times and got the publicity....
The next whackjob would wait for some other form of mayhem to imitate.
and for bingalong... yes.. you can convert any semi auto into a full auto.. in the old days... the surplus stuff was really just full auto guns converted to semi auto.. these had the correct full auto receiver and bolt with just a few changes to the trigger group... these were easy to convert to full auto. reliable full auto.
Nowdays.. they are purpose made semi autos that are nothing more than copies of the full auto versions and it is pretty much a waste of time to try to convert em. I doubt that there are more than a few every year that are butchered in such a way.
lazs
-
I think some of you watch entirely too much Chuck Norris.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
I think anyone illegally converting their semi-auto to full auto has created a serious problem for yourself, your family, and legal gun owners in the US.
Is it worth committing a felony and going to prison over? dang...
In my opinion, you guys who defend the 2nd amendment need to apply peer pressure on any of you who possess illegally owned full automatic weapons.
If you want to shoot a machine gun go to a range that lets you shoot theirs.
Imagine the field day the media and the lefties would have if this kid's uncle had converted a gun to full auto and this kid choose that one... and no doubt his uncle would go to prison for 10 years.
That alone would no doubt affect the upcoming 2nd amendment case before the supreme court.
Men who get caught pushing the envelope like that eventually hurts everyone interested in the primary reason the 2nd amendment exists in the first place.
Over the top gun obsession, like over top gambling obsession or over the top sex obsession, etc., is considered a mental problem by many reasonable people across the political spectrum; left and right.
Please act responsibly and legally about your gun hobby if you are illegally converting semi-auto to full-autos.
And, those who are responsible and legal, please pressure your illegal peers for their sake and yours or turn them in if they fail to get it for your hobby's sake and protection of the 2nd amendment from those looking for the means to abolish it.
Admittedly, I don't get it when it comes to fanatic over-the-top pre-occupation with fire arms but I get the part where the need for the 2nd amendment caused it to be written into the constitution.
TIGERESS
Absolutely!;)
-
rgr that Frode, even as a no gun owning brit i would think that if hilary tries to take all your guns away there will be a civil war.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... you didn't have to tell everyone.
and for bingalong... yes.. you can convert any semi auto into a full auto.. in the old days... the surplus stuff was really just full auto guns converted to semi auto.. these had the correct full auto receiver and bolt with just a few changes to the trigger group... these were easy to convert to full auto. reliable full auto.
lazs
Lazetta,
You would think in order to keep semi automatic weapons, some one might design one from the ground up so that it is not convertable period. Instead the other way around, auto dumbed down. you gun owners are your own worst enemies.
-
I've been following this thread for awhile and just to get things back on track with the original question........Where were all the sane, liscensed carrying gun owners in all this?
The answer is right there in the mall with the shooter, BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!.... the mall was a "Gun Free Zone" so all the law abiding sane licensed carrying gun owners were disarmed before they even got in the mall. Why??? Because the mall owners wanted to feel good about themselves by making it "gun free" so no one would come in and shoot up the place. OOPS!!!!
People will never learn. Good intentions are just fine but they tend to hurt real bad when reality smacks them in the face.
I'm personally to the point now a days that I'm going to carry my gun anywhere I damn well please within the legal statutes of the law. In Virginia that means I CANNOT carry in a court house, public school (though I CAN have it in my truck in the parking lot of a public school, new law just passed here) any establishment that sells liquor for the purpose of consumption on the property, state parks, and federal installations.
If Walmart doesn't like me carrying a firearm in their stores too damn bad. If the local malls don't like it too damn bad. They can sue me if they want but I'll never go into a gun free zone again un armed. They are about the most dangerous places in the country if your looking to get shot by some whack job.
I'm not taking any chances anymore. It's my Constitutional RIGHT as an American citizen to own a gun. I have a CCW license from my state to carry it in public. I follow the law. Just because some store has a gun free zone sign doesn't make it illegal for me to carry there. All they can do is ask me to leave. They can't have me arrested, they can't prosecute so screw em.
Now I'm off to the range. Need to unload my old hollow point ammo and re-stock with some new hydro shocks. This sheepdog has had enough.
-
I think you missed the point bingie...
The new semi autos are designed from the ground up to be difficult (nothing is impossible) to convert. You mostly just ruin a good weapon when you do so.
But.. how many converted semi autos have been a problem for you hand wringers? How many last year were killed with converted semi autos?
I am glad that you aren't pretending to be a friend of gun owners anymore tho... it is refreshing to have you out of the closet. Keep talking.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think you missed the point bingie...
The new semi autos are designed from the ground up to be difficult (nothing is impossible) to convert. You mostly just ruin a good weapon when you do so.
But.. how many converted semi autos have been a problem for you hand wringers? How many last year were killed with converted semi autos?
I am glad that you aren't pretending to be a friend of gun owners anymore tho... it is refreshing to have you out of the closet. Keep talking.
lazs
lazetti
Why would I suggest making a semi, closet man:) You know where I stand no machine guns for the population.
why would you say otherwise.... stimulation?
-
so in a gun free mall do they search you or are you supposed to own up and hand it in?
seems crazy that a gun free mall would be a place you could sneak a rifle through the doors.
honestly though...how many of you would keep your gun hidden and take it into a 'gun free' area anyhow?
I can see Lazs being asked to leave his gun at the door and telling them where to stick it before going to the local store for what he needs.
so maybe the answer is that all the sane licenced gun owners shop in places without laws that disrupt their lifestyle.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
I've been following this thread for awhile and just to get things back on track with the original question........Where were all the sane, liscensed carrying gun owners in all this?
The answer is right there in the mall with the shooter, BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!.... the mall was a "Gun Free Zone" so all the law abiding sane licensed carrying gun owners were disarmed before they even got in the mall. Why??? Because the mall owners wanted to feel good about themselves by making it "gun free" so no one would come in and shoot up the place. OOPS!!!!
People will never learn. Good intentions are just fine but they tend to hurt real bad when reality smacks them in the face.
I'm personally to the point now a days that I'm going to carry my gun anywhere I damn well please within the legal statutes of the law. In Virginia that means I CANNOT carry in a court house, public school (though I CAN have it in my truck in the parking lot of a public school, new law just passed here) any establishment that sells liquor for the purpose of consumption on the property, state parks, and federal installations.
If Walmart doesn't like me carrying a firearm in their stores too damn bad. If the local malls don't like it too damn bad. They can sue me if they want but I'll never go into a gun free zone again un armed. They are about the most dangerous places in the country if your looking to get shot by some whack job.
I'm not taking any chances anymore. It's my Constitutional RIGHT as an American citizen to own a gun. I have a CCW license from my state to carry it in public. I follow the law. Just because some store has a gun free zone sign doesn't make it illegal for me to carry there. All they can do is ask me to leave. They can't have me arrested, they can't prosecute so screw em.
Now I'm off to the range. Need to unload my old hollow point ammo and re-stock with some new hydro shocks. This sheepdog has had enough.
Great post, in my opinion, Hornet.
The victim's families... could they sue the mall because of the Gun Free Zone restriction?
That would surely open public debate and allow a public case to be made for sane licensed carrying gun owners.
TIGERESS
-
don't get angry bingie.. no one is making machine guns.. least no more than are making car bombs or pipe bombs.. all are illegal and none are a real problem... you are manufacturing a problem. But.. as I said..it is refreshing to see you out of the closet..even tho I had to practically drag you out.
Batfink... I think that the point is that if we were all allowed to carry that there would be a lot less "gun free zones" people would not shop a so called gun free mall. I wouldn't I would not try to sneak one in if the law would take away my gun rights for doing so... I would simply not shop there.
You don't really turn in the gun tho... you leave it in the car.. many people I know have gun safes in the car or they simply lock em in the trunk.
My point for wanting to be armed is not to somehow prevent every nut from killing people.. I don't think that is possible. I do want to be in control of my own defense as much as possible tho.
lazs
-
i understand totaly. i used to get kicked out of this shopping center near me because the sobs wouldnt allow skateboards. I still remember the legendary time one of us made it though from door to door about 3 times before they got him.
skateboards are awesome weapons capable of inflicting mortal damage in one swipe...
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Great post, in my opinion, Hornet.
The victim's families... could they sue the mall because of the Gun Free Zone restriction?
That would surely open public debate and allow a public case to be made for sane licensed carrying gun owners.
TIGERESS
I know I would. The way I see it, the mall owner who is a private citizen denied fellow citizens of their second ammendment right on his/her property, but that property is open to the general public and so it's his/her responsiblity to provide for their protection in lew of letting them provide their own. The owner failed to do this so he/she should have the pants sued off of him/her by the families of the victims.
I can understand if I go over to someones home and they ask me not to bring my gun into their house. I have no problem with that. It's a private dwelling that is not open to the general public. I cannot go into that home without the express consent of the owner or I would be breaking the law.
A store on the other hand is a different story. Those are open to the general public. Unless the store is going to screen every single person who walks through the door for firearms, provide active security messures, then they cannot garantee my safety so they have no right to ask me to leave my gun outside.
Like I said before, all they can do is ask me to leave, and in that case I'll take my money and go buy what I need somewhere else.
-
yep.. the real test would be to sue someone who declared a place a "gun free zone" and then failed to protect people from a gunman.
If you take away my right to protect myself and then allow others to attack me...
should you not be sued? should you not be liable? or at least.. say that entering a gun free zone... is the same as signing a waiver for your safety? In which case it should be posted that the owner(s) of said gun free zone take no responsibility for your safety.
lazs
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
I know I would. The way I see it, the mall owner who is a private citizen denied fellow citizens of their second ammendment right on his/her property, but that property is open to the general public and so it's his/her responsiblity to provide for their protection in lew of letting them provide their own. The owner failed to do this so he/she should have the pants sued off of him/her by the families of the victims.
I can understand if I go over to someones home and they ask me not to bring my gun into their house. I have no problem with that. It's a private dwelling that is not open to the general public. I cannot go into that home without the express consent of the owner or I would be breaking the law.
A store on the other hand is a different story. Those are open to the general public. Unless the store is going to screen every single person who walks through the door for firearms, provide active security messures, then they cannot garantee my safety so they have no right to ask me to leave my gun outside.
Like I said before, all they can do is ask me to leave, and in that case I'll take my money and go buy what I need somewhere else.
Then you and your local buddies could have grounds to sue right now against a big mall near you if there are no armed guards in the past thus exposing you and your family to this sort of risk, yes?
TIGERESS
-
nice rant bingie but... evasive.
What are you trying to say? that there is a dirge of converted semi autos out there causing all kinds of problems? prove it.
I don't know where you live but.. I would hazard to say that there are men and women walking the streets with you that are armed and you don't even know it.
You are not in danger of them. they may even help you some day.
As for a personal attack on me.. who cares? you wear that seatbelt now huh sissy?
that is the point.. we all evaluate our strengths and weaknesses and our options and threat level.. you really aren't gonna have your life saved by a seatbelt unless you are very unlucky but... you will have about a 1 in 200 chance every year of being the victim of a violent crime.
It matters not if I can beat your butt or you mine.. it matters not if we can defend ourselves in a fair one on one fight with an unarmed (including knives and clubs) bad guy... for one.. that is not the way of the world and.. we are not typical.. the world is full of people who can't defend themselves against an attacker without some equalizer. women.. the infirm.. you.. yep.. I am sure I could beat your butt.. I am postive I could and take whatever I wanted if I had one other guy.
Unless you are saying that young and strong shouldn't have guns but everyone else should.. then I don't get your point. You can't possibly think that everyone can take on any criminal threat with their bare hands? You can't possibly think that you could?
your thinking is dangerous and myopic for yourself but downright irresposible and tyrannical when you apply it to others.. you have no right so far as I am concerened.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Bingolong
See Rule #5
Did you mean to click on the "What is a Militia" thread?
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Then you and your local buddies could have grounds to sue right now against a big mall near you if there are no armed guards in the past thus exposing you and your family to this sort of risk, yes?
TIGERESS
I have no grounds to sue anyone since I have been lucky to this point and not had any of my family members hurt or killed in a gun free zone. I like most everyone else have turned a blind eye to the potential hazzard that a gun free zone creates and have blindly accepted that my family or myself wont get hurt going to the mall to do some shopping.
What I have decided to do on a more proactive basis is to legaly carry my gun more often and to start challenging these gun free zones whenever and wherever I find them. I imagine I'll be mailing allot of these before too long.
THE POWER OF THE PEN
TELL YOUR LOCAL
ANTI-GUN BIGOTS
WHAT YOU THINK
The following form letter was created by Virginia activist T.S. Eggleston. He encourages you to use it when you find a store or other public establishment that posts one of those extremely dangerous No-Guns-Allowed type of sign.
[Date]
[Name of Offending Establishment]
[Address of Offending Establishment]
Attn: [Manager's Name]
Dear [Manager's Name]:
An acquaintance was beaten and robbed at knifepoint in a shopping center parking lot last year. Because of this, and numerous similar crimes in the news, I must question your 'no weapons' policy -- even for people holding court issued permits -- at [Mall or Store Name].
However well intended this policy may be, the net result is that law-abiding citizens are at the mercy of the criminal element while patronizing your establishment.
Firearm permit holders have passed thorough local, state and FBI criminal background checks. They are trained in safety and the law and the responsibilities they bear prior to being issued a permit by the proper authorities. Concealed firearms permit holders are therefore among the nation's most responsible and law-abiding citizens. Since the beginning of each state's programs, permit holders prove to be among the lowest crime rate groups in the nation. Imagine these two scenarios.
Criminals Welcome
The management of this facility has made
every effort to disarm your potential victims.
Law-abiding persons in our stores and parking lots are defenseless.
or
Warning To Criminals
Some Patrons in our Mall Stores and
Parking Lots May Be Legally Armed.
To help ensure the safety of our customers,
the management of this establishment
encourages the patronage of
Trained, Police Approved, FBI Cleared
Holders of Concealed Handgun Permits.
The former scenario is the message sent by your "no legal concealed firearms" policy, and in essence, the message you are sending to criminals who would prey on your patrons.
Do you genuinely believe that violent criminals, intent on plying their trade in your establishment are going to obey your signs?
I am not suggesting that you display signs welcoming permit holders onto your property, merely that you remove the signs denying us access and squelching our civil rights. Otherwise what you are telling the public is that the only people who are armed in your stores are the criminals. That's not very reassuring.
This holiday season my family and I made a concerted effort to avoid those stores and malls that would disarm honest citizens and leave them at the mercy of those who don't obey signs, rules or laws.
I urge you to examine your policy of leaving your law-abiding patrons defenseless when on your property, while at the same time encouraging and empowering armed criminals.
Respectfully
[Signature]
[Name]
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
I know I would. The way I see it, the mall owner who is a private citizen denied fellow citizens of their second ammendment right on his/her property, but that property is open to the general public and so it's his/her responsiblity to provide for their protection in lew of letting them provide their own. The owner failed to do this so he/she should have the pants sued off of him/her by the families of the victims.
I can understand if I go over to someones home and they ask me not to bring my gun into their house. I have no problem with that. It's a private dwelling that is not open to the general public. I cannot go into that home without the express consent of the owner or I would be breaking the law.
A store on the other hand is a different story. Those are open to the general public. Unless the store is going to screen every single person who walks through the door for firearms, provide active security messures, then they cannot garantee my safety so they have no right to ask me to leave my gun outside.
Like I said before, all they can do is ask me to leave, and in that case I'll take my money and go buy what I need somewhere else.
On one hand I'd like to be able to agree with you on this post. On the other hand understanding the situation as a property owner / renter would feel about it I know that they have a perfect right to set standards for those that enter their premises.
Keep in mind, this is not public property, it's private property and they can set the rules for it. If they decide that they want a "gun free zone" they can do so and are perfectly legal in asking you to either leave the gun home or leave the premises. They are not required to provide security as that is not their responsibility, that is the communities responsibility. Then again there is no requirement that a community (read that police agency) provide security for any individual.
As far as suing the store / mall over this you are going to have to show that they were somehow more or less directly responsible for the loss. If one or more of the victims were holders of a CCW permit and then denied the use of their legal weapon to protect themselves from the shooter, I think you have a valid position as the mall / store did remove their own level of security from them.
If on the other hand if none of them, were CCW holders then there was nothing the mall / store did that infringed on their individual safety / security. They had the same security as if they were out on the street. For an individual on the street there is no expectation for rescue by any other citizen or ccw holder. One would hope that if the situation was happening in plain sight and direct view of the ccw holder that they would be taking some kind of action consistent with saving their life and the life of the victim.
Remember that a ccw does not give you a hunting license to go out looking for people doing illegal things. The ccw does not imbue the holder with the authority to go out and police the area or solve "problems". It does give them the ability to respond with deadly force to something which poses a direct deadly threat to them or someone in their immediate vicinity.
-
See Rules #2, #5
-
Originally posted by Maverick
On one hand I'd like to be able to agree with you on this post. On the other hand understanding the situation as a property owner / renter would feel about it I know that they have a perfect right to set standards for those that enter their premises.
Keep in mind, this is not public property, it's private property and they can set the rules for it. If they decide that they want a "gun free zone" they can do so and are perfectly legal in asking you to either leave the gun home or leave the premises. They are not required to provide security as that is not their responsibility, that is the communities responsibility. Then again there is no requirement that a community (read that police agency) provide security for any individual.
As far as suing the store / mall over this you are going to have to show that they were somehow more or less directly responsible for the loss. If one or more of the victims were holders of a CCW permit and then denied the use of their legal weapon to protect themselves from the shooter, I think you have a valid position as the mall / store did remove their own level of security from them.
If on the other hand if none of them, were CCW holders then there was nothing the mall / store did that infringed on their individual safety / security. They had the same security as if they were out on the street. For an individual on the street there is no expectation for rescue by any other citizen or ccw holder. One would hope that if the situation was happening in plain sight and direct view of the ccw holder that they would be taking some kind of action consistent with saving their life and the life of the victim.
Remember that a ccw does not give you a hunting license to go out looking for people doing illegal things. The ccw does not imbue the holder with the authority to go out and police the area or solve "problems". It does give them the ability to respond with deadly force to something which poses a direct deadly threat to them or someone in their immediate vicinity.
Maverick,(and other current/former LEO's in here) What kind of view do your colleagues' take of CCW holders' taking action? Do they believe in it, or do they see the danger of a form of Vigilantism starting?
P.S. Kinda off topic, but I noticed that the Omaha PD were patting themselves on the back for a quick response. 6 Min. for the first policeman to walk through the door and stand there, looking around.
Here's a link to it. http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10204466
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Did you mean to click on the "What is a Militia" thread?
Yes I did thank you.
-
Frode,
I think that for the most part, it depends on where you are from and the feelings towards guns in the general populace. In AZ. a ccw is not unusual and most of the LEO's from this area don't have any problem with them at all. If it's a good shooting most of us are more likely to comment on the group size more than anything else.
On the other hand if the leo is from some place like Mass. don't expect them to feel particularly friendly about it. They were already programmed by their environment to fear the tool.
As long as the ccw holder who is or has used their weapon to stop a situation follows commands of the responding Officer(s) it is likely to be a good thing. This is assuming you are justified in what ever action you took. Keep in mind that the responding units have far less info than you do and do not know who is the good guy / bad guy when they arrive. They will focus on securing the scene and that means taking control of all weapons in sight at that time, then investigating what was going on.
I think this pretty much sums up my feeling and that of most of the folks I worked with before I retired. That's why I posted it in a previous statement.
"One would hope that if the situation was happening in plain sight and direct view of the ccw holder that they would be taking some kind of action consistent with saving their life and the life of the victim.
Remember that a ccw does not give you a hunting license to go out looking for people doing illegal things. The ccw does not imbue the holder with the authority to go out and police the area or solve "problems". It does give them the ability to respond with deadly force to something which poses a direct deadly threat to them or someone in their immediate vicinity."
Having a CCW permit means you have been given a tool to allow you more options in times of extremis forced upon you. It is not permission to go out and LOOK for those situations so you can use the weapon. "
Does that make any sense to you? It's hard to explain just by text on the bbs.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yep.. the real test would be to sue someone who declared a place a "gun free zone" and then failed to protect people from a gunman.
If you take away my right to protect myself and then allow others to attack me...
should you not be sued? should you not be liable? or at least.. say that entering a gun free zone... is the same as signing a waiver for your safety? In which case it should be posted that the owner(s) of said gun free zone take no responsibility for your safety.
lazs
Just curious Laz, do you live in an area where you figure you will need a gun? Have you ever been in a position where you've had to pull a gun? What's gotten you to the point where you feel so strongly about carrying?
Not trying to pick a fight. I just haven't ever found myself in a spot where I felt like carrying a gun was something I needed to do.
-
An academic study in support of CCW in cases like the Omaha mass murder.
From the Social Science Research Network...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637
Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement
Abstract:
Few events obtain the same instant worldwide news coverage as multiple victim public shootings.
These crimes allow us to study the alternative methods used to kill a large number of people (e.g., shootings versus bombings), marginal deterrence and the severity of the crime, substitutability of penalties, private versus public methods of deterrence and incapacitation, and whether attacks produce copycats.
Yet, economists have not studied this phenomenon. Our results are surprising and dramatic.
While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce normal murder rates, our results find that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws.
We explain why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce both the number of shootings as well as their severity, and why other penalties like executions have differential deterrent effects depending upon the type of murder.
Download the pdf document from here --> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/99042103.pdf?abstractid=161637&mirid=2
TIGERESS
Edit: from --> http://grdurand.com/blogger/2007/12/another-gun-free-zone-shooting.html
Scott Ott envisions an alternate universe:
As Mr. Hawkins moved into the ideal sniper position on the upper deck, an unnamed middle-aged man emerging from the nearby Von Maur department store noticed his odd behavior and glimpsed the muzzle of the rifle peeking out from the sweater. Almost instinctively the man moved toward Mr. Hawkins, reaching to his belt to draw out a Springfield EMP, a small, 9mm semi-automatic handgun.
As the would-be famous mass killer raised the rifle to his shoulder, the unnamed shopper commanded him to stop. Mr. Hawkins turned the muzzle of the AK-47 toward the commanding voice, a single shot rang out and Mr. Hawkins staggered, dropped his weapon and fell against the railing.
By this time, two other shoppers were aiming their pistols at Mr. Hawkins — a young, single woman pulled a .40 caliber Glock 27 from her purse, and a retired farmer drew his 9mm Ruger SR9 (an early Christmas gift from his wife). Together with the first man they moved in to separate Mr. Hawkins from his gun, search him for other weapons and restrain him until law enforcement arrived.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Frode,
I think that for the most part, it depends on where you are from and the feelings towards guns in the general populace. In AZ. a ccw is not unusual and most of the LEO's from this area don't have any problem with them at all. If it's a good shooting most of us are more likely to comment on the group size more than anything else.
On the other hand if the leo is from some place like Mass. don't expect them to feel particularly friendly about it. They were already programmed by their environment to fear the tool.
As long as the ccw holder who is or has used their weapon to stop a situation follows commands of the responding Officer(s) it is likely to be a good thing. This is assuming you are justified in what ever action you took. Keep in mind that the responding units have far less info than you do and do not know who is the good guy / bad guy when they arrive. They will focus on securing the scene and that means taking control of all weapons in sight at that time, then investigating what was going on.
I think this pretty much sums up my feeling and that of most of the folks I worked with before I retired. That's why I posted it in a previous statement.
"One would hope that if the situation was happening in plain sight and direct view of the ccw holder that they would be taking some kind of action consistent with saving their life and the life of the victim.
Remember that a ccw does not give you a hunting license to go out looking for people doing illegal things. The ccw does not imbue the holder with the authority to go out and police the area or solve "problems". It does give them the ability to respond with deadly force to something which poses a direct deadly threat to them or someone in their immediate vicinity."
Having a CCW permit means you have been given a tool to allow you more options in times of extremis forced upon you. It is not permission to go out and LOOK for those situations so you can use the weapon. "
Does that make any sense to you? It's hard to explain just by text on the bbs.
Thanks, Mav. I know a CCW is a great responsibility, One which has to be used with the utmost consideration. I know it's not just sticking a gun in your pants, and eyeing every suspicious(to you) passerby on the street. I do a lot of work in Los Angeles, Quite a bit in places like Vernon, South Gate, Watts, and Compton. Those are the only times' I've even stuck my gun under the seat of my car. But, when I'd drive through those places, I would'nt linger, I'd just get to where I was going, and leave the trouble behind.
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by john9001
See Rule #5
Last I remember, it has been a quite a few years, you could drive down the road with a pistol loaded right on the dash.
-
Originally posted by Bingolong
Last I remember, it has been a quite a few years, you could drive down the road with a pistol loaded right on the dash.
As long as it's in a holster.
-
Originally posted by Bingolong
Last I remember, it has been a quite a few years, you could drive down the road with a pistol loaded right on the dash.
Last I recall Arizona allowed open carry but not concealed. I think concealed has proven to be a more effective deterrent.
-
Originally posted by john9001
See Rule #5
Nice of you to take it entirely out of context. I suppose you feel LEO's are not entitled to an opinion at all just because of their job. An opinion does not mean they will not follow the requirements of the law.
Be that as it may you are welcome to put me on ignore as well.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Last I recall Arizona allowed open carry but not concealed. I think concealed has proven to be a more effective deterrent.
AZ. does have a ccw permit. There is still open carry as well but there are restrictions such as a bar and pharmacy.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Be that as it may you are welcome to put me on ignore as well.
i will never put anyone on ignore.
-
why place anyone on ignore? you might miss some very comedic material if you do.
-
Originally posted by john9001
amazing, your saying most of the LEO's don't have a "problem" with people legally carrying a gun within their rights? How generous of them.
go write some parking tickets.
He was answering someones specific question and you weren't involved. Mind your own business. And one more like that and I'll surely put you on ignore cause I'm to old to suffer fools.
-
Originally posted by john9001
See Rule #5
John,
That isn't like you!
Have an issue with police officers or just feeling cranky today?
Mav is a good guy! you know that... so is Rich.
The more supportive police officers are of ccw the better, right?
TIGERESS
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Last I recall Arizona allowed open carry but not concealed. I think concealed has proven to be a more effective deterrent.
Arizona allows CCW with a permit that is quite easily acquired.
-
The comments about the mall and 'gun free' areas etc got me thinking, that and it's quiet at work today so I'm reading the boards :)
I'm a gun owner so this isn't anti-gun. I like to shoot, and have a pretty decent arsenal at home. I'm just curious if the folks believing that they should be able to conceal and carry, believe there are any places that should be gun free?
I'm married to an ER nurse. They see all kinds of crazies. Should they be allowed to carry? I work with 'troubled teens" in a shelter. Lots of them have had gun offenses. Should I be able to carry a gun? I'd be lying if I said there haven't been a few I'd like to take out back, but I've never considered that carrying a gun would be reasonable.
How about a church? I always thought it strange when they had to put up their signs outside saying guns were not permitted in them. Do you believe they should be?
I guess I'm trying to figure out where the line is, or if some folks believe there is no line and they should be able to carry a gun anywhere?
I've only ever been in one situation where someone had a gun and he never pointed it at me, but he was trying to use it to intimidate me and made sure I saw it. If I'd had a gun, it's the last thing I'd have used as I believe it would have escalated the situation. I talked my way out if it. My knees shook afterwards, but I just can't see carrying a gun. It feels way to wild west to me.
-
Yaknow its funny but much of this internet "gun crowd" always wants to hear the viewpoints of LEOs due to some fascination with the job they have. And then they almost automatically try to insult and degrade us when we actually give em our opinions.
Hmmm maybe some people ask your opinions then simply disagree?
You seem to be implying that, since you are a LEO, people are not entitled to disagree with you.
As for the insulting and degrading part... I read your last post to me. Pot, meet kettle.
FWIW I'm very much Pro-LE. I'd like to see them get the best equipment, better training, higher pay and more of them.
I think LE can be a dangerous job and their pay should be commensurate with this. I think higher pay, coupled with the kind of training that would make each LEO "elite", would be tax dollars well spent.
-
See Rule #2
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Just curious Laz, do you live in an area where you figure you will need a gun? Have you ever been in a position where you've had to pull a gun? What's gotten you to the point where you feel so strongly about carrying?
Not trying to pick a fight. I just haven't ever found myself in a spot where I felt like carrying a gun was something I needed to do.
Guppy, I know you asked this of lazs but.......I really doubt that most people in the mall felt they were in an area where they needed a gun for defense. In my opinion, it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
The comments about the mall and 'gun free' areas etc got me thinking, that and it's quiet at work today so I'm reading the boards :)
I'm a gun owner so this isn't anti-gun. I like to shoot, and have a pretty decent arsenal at home. I'm just curious if the folks believing that they should be able to conceal and carry, believe there are any places that should be gun free?
I'm married to an ER nurse. They see all kinds of crazies. Should they be allowed to carry? I work with 'troubled teens" in a shelter. Lots of them have had gun offenses. Should I be able to carry a gun? I'd be lying if I said there haven't been a few I'd like to take out back, but I've never considered that carrying a gun would be reasonable.
How about a church? I always thought it strange when they had to put up their signs outside saying guns were not permitted in them. Do you believe they should be?
I guess I'm trying to figure out where the line is, or if some folks believe there is no line and they should be able to carry a gun anywhere?
I've only ever been in one situation where someone had a gun and he never pointed it at me, but he was trying to use it to intimidate me and made sure I saw it. If I'd had a gun, it's the last thing I'd have used as I believe it would have escalated the situation. I talked my way out if it. My knees shook afterwards, but I just can't see carrying a gun. It feels way to wild west to me.
Having a weapon in a hospital doesn't make things unsafe. There are weapons there if you have armed security. I don't recommend arming Nurses or Doctors. Not because I don't think they are smart enough but because they have other jobs to concentrate on and they HAVE to work in close proximity to folks who are not trustworthy. Think drug users, drunks and just plain nut jobs. A fight over control of a gun would be a bad thing in that circumstance.
Crazies, nutjobs and other folks like that are already prohibited from possessing a weapon. The law of course does not prevent them from being armed if they work hard enough to do so. If they were inclined to follow laws they wouldn't be doing illegal things anyhow.
If you don't feel comfortable in having a gun then you shouldn't carry one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not carrying if you do not feel comfortable with it.
FWIW I have carried in a church lots of times. So far I have not been struck by lightning and the walls didn't fall down. My weapon also didn't hurt or threaten anyone.
The main point is that it's not the law abiding folks with weapons that are the problem. It's the folks who don't follow laws and carry then or use other means of hurting folks that are the problem. A gun free zone just gives them an open hunting ground in conditions that they like the best, unarmed victims to choose from. The folks inside aren't any safer from the law abiding people but they are much more at risk from the ones that want to prey on them.
I do tend to agree with a prohibition of carrying in a bar. Since alcohol diminishes inhibitions I agree with the concept that booze and guns don't mix.
-
Mav, FBBone,
What I'm trying to get my mind around is the notion of whether having the security blanket of a firearm on a person creates a freedom to use them.
I'm sure you guys have probably been around the gun boards like I have, and there is always that element that is just lying in wait for the shtf scenario so they can go 'tactical'.
I'm not disagreeing that 99% of the gunowners out there are law abiding folks. I'd consider myself one of them.
And I'm not telling you it's right or wrong. I don't know. There is just something about the notion of folks lugging their hand guns around that bothers me. Which is why I'm asking.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Mav, FBBone,
What I'm trying to get my mind around is the notion of whether having the security blanket of a firearm on a person creates a freedom to use them.
I'm sure you guys have probably been around the gun boards like I have, and there is always that element that is just lying in wait for the shtf scenario so they can go 'tactical'.
I'm not disagreeing that 99% of the gunowners out there are law abiding folks. I'd consider myself one of them.
And I'm not telling you it's right or wrong. I don't know. There is just something about the notion of folks lugging their hand guns around that bothers me. Which is why I'm asking.
There are lots of guys who like to think they are tough. They like to boast a lot about how bad they are or what they would do in a bad situation. Don't figure that those are the ones you can count on. Almost all of them are all talk and no action. Don't figure they are the ones who actually have one. The internet is a wonderful place for people to act like they are something they are not.
A CCW permit is not a testicular implant nor does it make you tough or bad ass. Most of the folks that go out and get a CCW understand that. They were taught that a gun is a last resort situation and that you cannot take back the shot you fire. It's the last thing you want to do and will only do so if there is no other option.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Mav, FBBone,
What I'm trying to get my mind around is the notion of whether having the security blanket of a firearm on a person creates a freedom to use them.
I'm sure you guys have probably been around the gun boards like I have, and there is always that element that is just lying in wait for the shtf scenario so they can go 'tactical'.
I'm not disagreeing that 99% of the gunowners out there are law abiding folks. I'd consider myself one of them.
And I'm not telling you it's right or wrong. I don't know. There is just something about the notion of folks lugging their hand guns around that bothers me. Which is why I'm asking.
I guess you really didn't mean freedom to use them as much as incentive, Dan?
And why I asked the question of vigilantism to Mav earlier. My question is, what kind of damage can a big ego do in the 'mass shooter' situation? For every success scenario, there's a complete tragedy scenario. Proper judgment would be the dividing line between the two.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
I guess you really didn't mean freedom to use them as much as incentive, Dan?
And why I asked the question of vigilantism to Mav earlier. My question is, what kind of damage can a big ego do in the 'mass shooter' situation? For every success scenario, there's a complete tragedy scenario. Proper judgment would be the dividing line between the two.
That's a better way of saying it.
Nutcase pulls out a handgun and opens fire in a store. Guy doing his conceal and carry pulls out his gun and shoots at bad guy. Bystander gets hit by 2nd guy or bad guy and 2nd guy end up blasting away at each other.
Next guy or cop comes in with gun drawn and shoots 2nd guy cause all he sees is someone shooting at someone else.
We're not talking the range here, shooting at stationary targets. We're talking a crazy situation with split second decisions needing to be made.
-
I'd like to have the right to keep a weapon at home. I'd also like the right to CCW but I'd probably never exercise it unless I knew I was going to an unfamiliar place with a very bad reputation. Something which is not very likely.
Unfortunately our Government has taken that right away from most of us.
As I have mentioned in a different thread just because you have a handgun does not mean you'll always have the advantage. The guy that confronted me with one probably had no intention of actually using it, instead he was more likely to have been carrying it for effect. Always a stupid idea but then junkies aren't necessarily known for clear thinking.
Anyway I think the point I'm trying to make is that having and using a handgun effectively are two entirely different things. If you pull one you better be damn sure you know how to use it and be prepared to back that threat up because the guy you point it at may just be quicker than you. Otherwise you may find yourself very badly off, especially if the gun ends up in the others' hands. The one time I was confronted and acted, I didn't waste time trying to get the weapon once it was dropped. I just booted it out into the yard and dealt with the immediate threat on hand. When the police recovered the pistol it turned out to be poorly manufactured and maintained and likely to have misfired. Still there is certainly no shortage of these and other more reliable makes readily available to any criminal who can put up the money.
-
guppy.. I am not sure what you are asking. I would be glad to sit down with you and give you my life story. It matters not tho.. I don't need to know your life story to know why you think a seatbelt is a good idea or a helmet on a motorcycle. Yes.. I have had to use a gun to make the situation come out well but that is not the point at all. And yes.. I have seen some real bad men.. maybe more than the average person has but that is not the point.
We all do the math and take our chances. Your chances of being a victim are high. as you age or if you go into some areas.. they increase.. I think it funny that I was talking to some cops and they were at a conference in plain clothes but they said there were areas they would not go to without a gun.
The more you see.. the more the idea of just being prepared appeals. Those of us with a strong individualist streak also do not like to be helpless and at the mercy of others needlessly.. we also do not believe that the government can, or should be involved with helping us other than chalking out the outline and running the courts.
You seem to think that carrrying concealed would cause a "wild west" feel.. I suppose that you are right.. the "wild west" was a very polite place with almost every shooting a mutual event and most people very civil.. women could walk the streets at any hour... they were treated with respect.
I would not mind going back to that when contrasted to our current inner cities.
But.. regardless of what you think can happen.. we have to look at the facts. The facts are that the CCW experiment has been a very good one.. It has solved one hell of a lot more problems than it has caused.
How can you drive down a two way road with 2 tons of death hurtling head on at you every few seconds at close to 140mph closing speed when you know that every one is in the control of (gasp) citizens!!!! murderous scum! one little twitch of the wheel and....
I trust my fellow citizens one hell of a lot more than I trust my government. When a few of them try to use force on me tho.. I want to be able to make them stop.
lazs
-
and.. I think it important to point out that with todays "equal opportunity" hiring... there are many many cops who are not only afraid of guns but are worthless with one.. most recreational shooters would rank in the top ten for marksmanship against the average cop.
I do believe a CCW holder should have a grasp of laws and be able to pass a test on same.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and.. I think it important to point out that with todays "equal opportunity" hiring... there are many many cops who are not only afraid of guns but are worthless with one.. most recreational shooters would rank in the top ten for marksmanship against the average cop.
I do believe a CCW holder should have a grasp of laws and be able to pass a test on same.
lazs
That's a good point, Lasz. I posted a link to the Omaha Mall shooting a few posts' back in this thread, and one of them was the camera showing the amount of time from when people started running out of the store(shooting started?) to the time the first policeman stepped through the door. 6 Minutes. If that kid had packed as many loaded mags as he could have on him, He could have shot off 100 or more rounds' easily in that time. Killing god-knows how many more people.
However, Dan brought up a really good point too. It might not be a bad idea if a CCW had some minimal crisis-management training (If they don't already.)
As far Marksmanship, I might point out that a cop doesn't even need to discharge his weapon if he/she shows up 5 min. after the fact. The time you need protection is now...but you suddenly fall under the same criteria as the officer does, in how you handle yourself.
-
They also don't need to use their weapon if their policy is to wait for backup... lots of backup. They have no obligation whatsoever to save anyone.
you don't need to train people in crisis management.. you just need to make sure they know the laws.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I do tend to agree with a prohibition of carrying in a bar. Since alcohol diminishes inhibitions I agree with the concept that booze and guns don't mix.
It is much much more than simply inhibitions that are affected... it's extremely well documented that alcohol seriously impacts a person's ability to make sound and good judgements and additionally gives the individual a false sense that their judgement abilities have not been corrupted.
Guns + Alcohol = Deadly Combination
I would not THINK of driving a car or carrying a weapon such as a gun if I had even so much as a single small glass of Chablis and I am simply not agressive at all. Therefore, I don't drink much or often.
When men's naturally agressive testostrone and alcohol and deadly weapons are combined... I do not want to be there.
TIGERESS
-
I didn't know American police stations had transporters FrodeMk3 that could beam the police instantly to the exact scene of the crime taking place.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
guppy.. I am not sure what you are asking. I would be glad to sit down with you and give you my life story. It matters not tho.. I don't need to know your life story to know why you think a seatbelt is a good idea or a helmet on a motorcycle. Yes.. I have had to use a gun to make the situation come out well but that is not the point at all. And yes.. I have seen some real bad men.. maybe more than the average person has but that is not the point.
lazs
That's all I was asking. Just trying to understand your perspective. Thanks for taking the time to answer.
-
guppy.. that is fine so long as you don't dismiss the real danger of bad people trying to do bad things to others simply by saying "well, lazs thinks the way he does because he has had an unusual life"
the point is that all of us have a pretty good chance of being victims of a violent crime at some point in our lives.. more so than say... that we will be saved by a seatbelt. It is risk assesment first and foremost and... individuality.. the feeling that it is not only my right but... my duty to myself and mankind to not allow the bad guys to win without a fight.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Mav, FBBone,
What I'm trying to get my mind around is the notion of whether having the security blanket of a firearm on a person creates a freedom to use them.
I'm sure you guys have probably been around the gun boards like I have, and there is always that element that is just lying in wait for the shtf scenario so they can go 'tactical'.
I'm not disagreeing that 99% of the gunowners out there are law abiding folks. I'd consider myself one of them.
And I'm not telling you it's right or wrong. I don't know. There is just something about the notion of folks lugging their hand guns around that bothers me. Which is why I'm asking.
Hi Guppy,
These are the same questions to an extent I started looking at during correspondence on the Pink Thread.
I had never considered owning a gun for real (unlike you who have guns) much less considered all the implications of carrying one with me.
Since those conversations on the Pink thread and during this thread, it has been opening my eyes wider and wider making me seriously look at this from as many angles as come to the surface.
For the first time in my life I started imagining carrying one with me and it has made me understand what removing a lifetime sense of total vulnerability would feel like. I felt exhilarated and almost like a high from being relieved of fear.
At first my thoughts went towards anger and payback for being forced into a lifetime of such a reality but that startled me as it's a reverse bully mentality... not a good thing. That shook me up some.
It has settled out a lot more since then... much more towards a sense of serious responsibility for possession of the means to make people dead if I so choose; probably not unlike what a rookie police officer feels on her first patrols.
I am now acquiring a very sober respect for the serious implications and considerations carrying a gun brings with it and systematically learning and exploring it.
FWIW, I think you are asking the right questions.
TIGERESS
Edit: In my view... No One who has an anger management problem should ever carry a gun.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
my duty to myself and mankind to not allow the bad guys to win without a fight.
lazs
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
- attributed to Edmund Burke
-
Originally posted by lazs2
To answer the one question about shootings.. fully one quarter of all school shootings were stopped by a civilian with a firearm before the police arrived.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/NROMultipleVicShootings305.htmllazs
This has stuck with me for a day or two now
Lets see:
You say 1/4 of school shootings were stopped bye gun toting civilians was that before or after the crime was commited?
This is a major list I could find it does bye no means list all school related viloent deaths.
The .pdf at the bottom The National School Safety Center's Report on
School Associated Violent Deaths does, best that I can tell. Maybe Tigress could find more.
It includes stabings hangings etc but bye far the most amount are shootings 441>331 shootings since 1992.
Major U.S. school shootings in the last 10 years:
1- Greenville, Texas. March 7, 2007. A 16-year-old male high school student fatally shot himself while in the band hallway area of the school around 7:15 a.m. No other students were injured. More than 100 parents rushed to the school to remove their students.
2- Tacoma, Wash. Jan. 3, 2007. An 18-year-old male high school student was arrested for shooting and killing a 17-year-old male student at their school. The suspect allegedly shot the victim in the face and then stood over him, firing twice more.
3- Springfield Township, Pa. Dec. 12, 2006. A 16-year-old male high school shot and killed himself with an AK-47 assault rifle in the hallway of his high school. The student, reportedly despondent over his grades, had the gun concealed in a camouflage duffle bag and fired one round in the ceiling to warn other students to get out of the way before committing suicide.
4- Katy, Texas. Oct. 17, 2006. A 16-year-old male high school sophomore committed suicide by shooting himself with a handgun in the school's cafeteria courtyard.
5- Nickel Mines Pa., Oct. 2, 2006. A truck driver walked into a one-room Amish schoolhouse with two rifles, a semi-automatic handgun, and 600 rounds of ammunition, selected all the female students, and shot them execution-style, killing five and seriously wounding six. The man then shot himself, apparently having left suicide notes beforehand.
6- Cazenovia, Wis., Sept. 29, 2006. A student walked into a rural school with a pistol and a rifle and shot the principal several times, critically injuring him.
7- Bailey, Colo. Sept. 27, 2006. A lone gunman enters a high school and holds six female students hostage, sexually assaults them, kills one of them, and then himself after a four-hour standoff.
8- Pittsburgh, Pa. Sept. 17, 2006. Five Duquesne University basketball players are wounded after a shooting on campus after a dance. One of the two shooters was allegedly upset that his date had talked to one of the athletes.
9- Hillsborough, N.C. Aug. 30, 2006. After shooting his father to death, a student open fires at his high school, injuring two students. Deputies found guns, ammunition, and homemade pipe bombs in the student's car. The student had emailed Columbine High's principal, telling him that it was "time the world remembered" the shootings at Columbine.
10- Essex, Vt. Aug. 24, 2006. A gunman shoots five people, killing two of them, in a rampage through two houses and an elementary school, before wounding himself.
11- Red Lake Indian Reservation, Minn. March 21, 2005. The worst school-related shooting incident since the Columbine shootings in April of 1999. Ten killed (shooter killed nine and then himself) and seven injured in rampage by high school student.
12- Cumberland City, Tenn. March 2, 2005. School bus driver shot and killed while driving a school bus carrying approximately 20 students by a 14 year-old student who had been reported to administrators by the driver for chewing tobacco on the bus.
13- Nine Mile Falls, Wash. Dec. 10, 2004. A 16-year-old high school junior committed suicide at the high school's entryway. A canister holding fireworks, shotgun shells, and rifle cartridges was found in a backpack belonging to the student.
14- Joyce, Wash. March 17, 2004. A 13-year-old student shot and killed himself in a school classroom where about 20 other students were present. The boy reportedly brought a .22-caliber rifle hidden in a guitar case and pulled it out during the 10 a.m. class.
15- Philadelphia, Pa. Feb. 11, 2004. A 10-year-old student was shot in the face and died after being shot outside a Philadelphia elementary school. A 56 year-old female school crossing guard was also shot in the foot as she tried to scurry children across the street as bullets were flying and children were on the playground.
-
cont.
16- Washington, D.C. Feb. 2, 2004. A 17-year-old male high school student died after being shot several times and another student was injured after shots were fired near the school's cafeteria.
17- Henderson, Nev. Jan. 21, 2004. Gunman shoots and kills a hostage in his car on school campus. The gunman was allegedly looking for his ex-girlfriend as he searched the school full of children in an after-school program.
18- Cold Spring, Minn. Sept. 24, 2003. Two students shot and killed by a 15 year-old boy at Rocori High School.
19- Red Lion, Pa. April 24, 2003. Principal of Red Lion Area Junior High is fatally shot in the chest by a 14-year-old student, who then committed suicide, as students gather in the cafeteria for breakfast.
20- New Orleans, La. April 14, 2003. One 15-year-old killed and three students wounded at John McDonough High School by gunfire from four teenagers in a gang-related shooting.
21- October 7, 2002. Bowie, Md. A 13-year-old by was shot and critically wounded by the DC-area sniper outside Benjamin Tasker Middle School.
- New York, N.Y. Jan. 15, 2002. Two students at Martin Luther King Junior High School in Manhattan were seriously wounded when an 18-year-old opened fire in the school.
22- Caro, Mich.. Nov. 12, 2001. A 17-year-old student took two hostages and the Caro Learning Center before killing himself.
23- Ennis, Texas. May 15, 2001. A 16-year-old sophomore upset over his relationship with a girl, took 17 hostages in English class, and shot and killed himself and the girl.
24- Gary, Ind. March 30, 2001. 17-year-old expelled from Lew Wallace High School kills classmate.
25- Granite Hills, Calif. March 22, 2001. One teacher and three students wounded by a student at Granite Hills school.
26- Willamsport, Pa. March 7, 2001. Classmate wounded by a 14-year-old girl, in the cafeteria of Bishop Newuman High School.
- Santee, Calif. March 5, 2001. A 15-year-old student killed two fellow students and wounded 13 others, while firing from a bathroom at Santana High School in San Diego County.
27- Baltimore, Md. Jan. 17, 2001. 17-year-old student shot and killed in front of Lake Clifton-Eastern High School.
- New Orleans, La. Sept. 26, 2000. Two students wounded in a gun fight at Woodson Middle School.
28- Lake Worth, Fla. May 26, 2000. A 13-year-old honor killed his English teacher, Barry Grunow, on the last day of classes after the teacher refused to let him talk to two girls in his classroom.
29- Mount Morris Township, Mich. Feb. 29, 2000. A 6-year-old boy shot and killed a 6-year-old girl at Buell Elementary School with a .32 caliber handgun.
30- Fort Gibson, Okla. Dec. 6, 2000. A 13-year-old boy, armed with a handgun, opened fire outside Fort Gibson Middle school, wounding four classmates.
31- Deming, N.M. Nov. 19, 1999. 12-year-old boy came to school dressed in camouflage and shoots 13-year-old girl with a .22 caliber as students were returning from lunch.
32- Conyers, Georgia. May 20, 1999. 15-year-old sophomore opens fire with a rifle and a handgun on Heritage High School students arriving for classes, injuring six.
33- Littleton, Colo. April 20, 1999. Students Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 23 before killing themselves at Columbine High School
34- Springfield, Ore. May 21, 1998. Two teenagers were killed and more than 20 people hurt when a teenage boy opened fire at a high school after killing his parents. Kip Kinkel, 17, was sentenced to nearly 112 years in prison.
35- Fayetteville, Tenn. May 19, 1998. Three days before his graduation, an honor student opened fire at a high school, killing a classmate who was dating his ex-girlfriend. Jacob Davis, 18, was sentenced to life in prison.
36- Jonesboro, Ark. March 24, 1998. Two boys, ages 11 and 13, fired on their middle school from nearby woods, killing four girls and a teacher and wounding 10 others. Both boys were later convicted of murder and can be held until age 21.
37- West Paducah, Ky. Dec. 1, 1997. Three students were killed and five wounded at a high school. Michael Carneal, then 14, later pleaded guilty but mentally ill to murder and is serving life in prison.
38- Pearl, Miss. Oct. 1, 1997. Sixteen-year-old Luke Woodham of fatally shot two students and wounded seven others after stabbing his mother to death. He was sentenced the following year to three life sentences.
Most of this was during the ban?
So if we take away a 1/4 = 28.5 you say maybe more 1/3 25.4 is 25 an exceptable amount?
Now put in with the chart below 331 school related shootings .
Now thats extremely low percentage granted but just what is exceptable? 1, 25, 50, 200?
http://www.schoolsafety.us/pubfiles/savd.pdf
These are the schools..... just the schools! I think its disgusting that any happen!
Additionally, I hope all the states in the union adopt this technology.
In October 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed a first-of-its-kind microstamping law in Californa, AB 1471.
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/local/california.shtml
and I dont care if shooting gets more expensive at this point it is just a hobby.
-
Originally posted by Bingolong
Additionally, I hope all the states in the union adopt this technology.
In October 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed a first-of-its-kind microstamping law in Californa, AB 1471.
and I dont care if shooting gets more expensive at this point it is just a hobby.
This is for ID of spent shells.
I don't have a problem with it, I just wonder which shooting in your list would have been prevented with a microstamping?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
This is for ID of spent shells.
I don't have a problem with it, I just wonder which shooting in your list would have been prevented with a microstamping?
None, it might deter some crimes in the future and is a good tool to help with crimes that are committed. I suppose anything can be tampered with
but only law abiding citizens can bye guns of this type. So the tampering should be kept to a minimal, right? If the gun gets stolen it would be reported bye a law abiding person as well, right? It does not work on revolvers.
-
bingie...How would it deter crime at all? we had a program that made everyone sign for ammo for 20 years... in that time... Not one... nada.. crime was solved using this "sensible" law.
The micro stamping is no sweat off me.. I reload and I have revolvers. What would stop me from leaving brass from 6 different guns at a crime scene.. all micro stamped.. let the police do the expensive tail chasing... I am afraid that it is an expensive idea that makes no sense. the only sense it makes is what they really want.. to make guns more expensive.. to keep em out of the hands of the poor... poor people don't need guns like the rest of us I guess huh?
I don't know what your point is on the school shootings. If fully one quarter were stopped.... that would mean... no further shooting.. This was accomplished by civilians with guns.. imagine if the civilians were actually allowed to have guns. You trust these saint like teachers to shield the kids with their body and soak up bullets but you don't trust em to have a firearm?
Your list proves one thing.. "gun free zones" is not working. It was a bad idea... time to try something else.
lazs
-
and before you answer.. be aware that most ranges have brass an inch deep everywhere.. the bad guys just need to pick it up. All nicely "microstamped" and regestered to dentists and lawyers and cops and little old ladies and maybe a construction worker or two.
It is a really dumb idea. I will be shocked if it ever solves a crime... I will be shocked if it doesn't make law enforcements job harder and lead to a lot of tail chasing.
lazs
-
Seems to me, microstamping goes back to fundamental paranoia of guns in the hands of law abiding people instead of bad guys bent on committing violent crimes who will go to the trouble of getting around serial numbers and microstamping.
The shooter in Omaha could have cared less about microstamping... he wanted people to know who he was.
Non-mass murdering run of the mill bad guys will use stolen guns so why should they care either?
I think the only real deterrence to violent crime is to give the bad guys, who are mostly bullying cowards anyway, a quite serious reason to be paranoid... that being take downs of bad guys in the act of violent crime by ccw civilians defending themselves and others.
Bout time the bad guys got serious doses of justifiable paranoia.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and.. I think it important to point out that with todays "equal opportunity" hiring... there are many many cops who are not only afraid of guns but are worthless with one.. most recreational shooters would rank in the top ten for marksmanship against the average cop.
I do believe a CCW holder should have a grasp of laws and be able to pass a test on same.
lazs
I dont think I ever met one who was "worthless" with one. And Ive known thousands. But, I guess I aint the expert some are.
Get yourself in a real shootout and you'll see how useful splitting those "X"'s at a nice safe range really is. I know because Ive been a very good range and competition shooter most of life and have the trophies to prove it.
Shooting pretty little groups in a range is actually way down on the list of factors that ensure survival in a gunfight.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
I think the only real deterrence to violent crime is to give the bad guys, who are mostly bullying cowards anyway, a quite serious reason to be paranoid... that being take downs of bad guys in the act of violent crime by ccw civilians defending themselves and others.
Bout time the bad guys got serious doses of justifiable paranoia.
TIGERESS
That's damn sexy Tigress...:D
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
I think the only real deterrence to violent crime is to give the bad guys, who are mostly bullying cowards anyway, a quite serious reason to be paranoid... that being take downs of bad guys in the act of violent crime by ccw civilians defending themselves and others.
Wow just when I thought I'd read it all. You really think 'civilians' should be dishing out justice on the streets? (there are a few hints in this thread as to why this would fail miserably by the way).
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Wow just when I thought I'd read it all. You really think 'civilians' should be dishing out justice on the streets? (there are a few hints in this thread as to why this would fail miserably by the way).
Vulcan,
I am not talking about vigilantism whatsoever.
I am not talking about patrolling the streets looking for crimes in progress nor passing judgment based on evident in a court nor handing out punishment.
Citizens can justifiably and legally defend themselves; we are not required by law, nor by our own human nature, to be victims.
Perhaps your concept of the word civilians is the problem you are having.
What is you concept of "civilians"?
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
That's damn sexy Tigress...:D
Thanks, dear. :) But that was the last thing on my mind when I wrote it.
TIGERESS
-
Tigeress,
This should fit the bill.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ci·vil·ian /sɪˈvɪlyən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[si-vil-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
2. Informal. anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging; nonprofessional; outsider: We need a producer to run the movie studio, not some civilian from the business world.
3. a person versed in or studying Roman or civil law.
–adjective 4. of, pertaining to, formed by, or administered by civilians.
-
Microstamping is just another something-is-being-done scheme to pacify the non-discerning.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
I didn't know American police stations had transporters FrodeMk3 that could beam the police instantly to the exact scene of the crime taking place.
Milo, I'm sorry if I offended you, or anyone else in Law Enforcement, but it's true; Very rarely are you guys' there at the scene of the crime as it goes down.
They patted themselves' on the back for the 6 minute response time, too.
-
6 minute response time is excellent IMO.
We had an invasion robbery a few doors down a little while ago. The Police station is right across the road.
They took something close to an hour to respond:huh
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Milo, I'm sorry if I offended you, or anyone else in Law Enforcement, but it's true; Very rarely are you guys' there at the scene of the crime as it goes down.
They patted themselves' on the back for the 6 minute response time, too.
6 Mins is not bad response time.
Im not offended by your remark at all however I would be very interested in any ideas you have that could lower response times for police to incidents.
I would also be curious to see if you have any ideas you may that would put police at the scene of crimes the minute they take place.
I would definately say if you can come up with real ideas that may work you could make quite a lucrative living as a consultant to law enforcement agencies throughout the world.
Good luck.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Milo, I'm sorry if I offended you, or anyone else in Law Enforcement, but it's true; Very rarely are you guys' there at the scene of the crime as it goes down.
They patted themselves' on the back for the 6 minute response time, too.
Not offended but I think you are out of touch with reality. How far away was the closest LEO? How much time did it take to drive to the location and this includes a busy parking lot? How long did it take the LEO from leaving his car to run through the mall to get to the scene? Was he checking the crowd for the shooter?
Maybe one of the LEOs can tell what the average response time to a bank robbery is.
What is the response time for fire trucks to get to a fire? (just for perspective)
Btw, the news this AM had another shooting at 2 churches in Colorado. A security guard killed the shooter.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Milo, I'm sorry if I offended you, or anyone else in Law Enforcement, but it's true; Very rarely are you guys' there at the scene of the crime as it goes down.
They patted themselves' on the back for the 6 minute response time, too.
Depends on the Jurisdiction. County or state Dept.s can often be, as we call it, "A long ways off", due to the nature of the size of area they have to patrol. Even some cities are also spread pretty thin.
On the other hand I couldnt begin to count the times Ive been driving down the street and seen a robbery going down, a gang fight, a fire, or been 1 or 2 blocks from a scene when the call comes out. Ive even rolled by right when people start shooting at each other.
When you call the police the dispatch aint instantaneous anyway. Theres a lag of one or 2 minutes from when the call taker first picks up the call and from when a car is contacted and dispatched.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Milo, I'm sorry if I offended you, or anyone else in Law Enforcement, but it's true; Very rarely are you guys' there at the scene of the crime as it goes down.
They patted themselves' on the back for the 6 minute response time, too.
in a free and open society the police are going to perform in a reactionary function. it is impossible for law enforcement to act until there is a violation. it is incumbent upon the individual citizen to act responsibly. it is the responsibility of the family to to bring their individual members up in such a manner so as to conform to the mores of that society. what we see today in acts such as the one being discussed in this thread is the result of the breakdown of the family unit and the social consequences of that breakdown.
furthermore if every citizen took responsibilty for their own safety as well as their own behavior you would see far fewer of these sociopathic members of our society successfully committing these acts of mass murder. I'm sure that if I were caught up in an assault of that nature my reponse would be to throw down and send some copper jacketed hollow points in his direction even from a 3" revolver which is what I carry on my person.
I promise you that unless that person has been shot at before it will certainly break his rythym and perhaps that might allow another responsible member of our society to engage the shooter.
while a response time of six minutes is commendable, as we have seen an awful lot of tragedy may be administered in that long period of time.
-
rich46yo... no.. I do not know thousands of cops like you do.
I do know and talk to about a dozen instructors from 6 different departments tho.. the range is at the facility I work at since we have about 500 acres. I have watched hundreds.. maybe thousands of new and older cops shoot.
I am going by what I am seeing and what they are telling me... maybe it is just a northern kalifornia thing. I have never seen one thing they train at that I couldn't do a better job at than 90% of em
I don't do ranges much. most of the guys I know grew up shooting pistols at jacks and ground squirrels at all different ranges..at targets at the dump... rats and those lovely bottles.. unknown ranges... if you weren't fast... If you didn't take your time in a hurry... you would not get to be the one who got the shot.
Granted... those days are gone...as are the days of cops who loved their guns and shot .357 mag revolvers with pride.. they shot exactly as I did... shot with em all the time... their gunfights lasted 1.7 rounds.. the new guys spray the entire neighborhood...
I have talked to the rangemasters about this and they agree that the training is not that great... that most of these guys are shooting at 3 yards because.. that is about all they can be taught to do... not because that is the only fight they will ever be in.
Don't get me wrong.. I have a good time talking to the cops I meet.. we get along fine...we joke around and I shoot some of their weapons and they mine. when they were testing handguns I lent the group my then new Kimber.
I like and respect most of em... I also realize that they can't be everywhere and that I am better off not counting on them saving my butt.
I am going by what the instructors tell me. I am medium slow but accurate. I have never failed to ace any course they have set up including a bunch of garage doors we helped em set up to be "houses" with shoot/no shoot walls.
Most of it has a very unrealistic feel to it all.
If I really thought that the only gunfight anyone would ever be in would be at 7 feet and the first one to hit the other guy won... I would carry a single action colt in a fast draw rig.
lazs
lazs
-
Laz you seem like a pretty good guy so I aint saying this in an insulting manner. One of the trademarks of the "Internet Copoholic" is that they can always "shoot better then us", among other things they can do better then us.
The thing is tho, we are actually doing it and your not. And not just that but you probably never have and never will. Should you feel different Police Depts across the country are hiring.
And one big reason I dont hang around ranges or cops anymore is that many of them dont have much good to say about a lot of people they work with. Some dont have much good to say about anything.
I know a female team that have probably killed 4 or 5 Bgs. One look at them and you'd laugh, "and probably say some Internet copoholic thing". They dont shoot that well, aint nowhere in my class. But if they are put in a position of "me or you" they will kill you deader then fried chicken and not lose any sleep doing it.
The biggest mistakes Ive seen armed GGs make is they rush to fast, or they dont keep their distance from the BG, or they get tunnel vision, or they dont wait for backup, or they hesitate, or they dont breath right.....printing pretty groups on a range is far down on the list.
Want realistic training? Drive 5 blocks in a car hearing a brother screaming for help on a radio. Then run up 8 flights of a housing project. Then run thru total pandemonium where everyone passing you could be the offender. Then find out you cant get to the other guys cause theres a sniper pinning everyone down with a rifle.
You get my drift? Range shooting is fine and better then nothing. But if its not realistic shoot dont shoot where both you and the target are moving then its of very limited use. Even then you can be an "ace" on that and useless on the street.
So show a little humilty gunslinger.
-
uhmm.. I'm not talking about civilian range instructors here... I am talking about range instructors who are all cops who get paid extra to run their departments training.
The "range" is a police only range and is not set up like a civilian range at all.
It was a lot of fun when they had the cars and stuff. The courses I go through with them are the standard training that the cops do here.
While I have the greatest respect for the police for the most part..... I might remind you that almost none of you will ever be involved in a shootout.
I admit that I am a little slower than about half of em but I seem to be more accurate and I point shoot better... I used to shoot about 2,000 rounds a month for years.. I shoot about 500 a month now just to stay in practice.
I don't know how rusty I would have to get to fail one of the police fire courses but it would be pretty rusty indeed.
I have been shot at. I know how I reacted. I make no gurantees on how I would react the next time or the time after but I am not all shook up about it.
My point was not to badmouth cops.. only that they are not supermen and are often not very good shots. A civilian who takes some time to learn firearms can be every bit as effective as the average cop is all I was saying.
with that in mind... I know that it is highly unlikely that a cop will be there when he is needed. I would like to know that a few of the people around me who were good guys... cops or civilians.. were armed.
lazs
-
Lazs, give it up. Tell Rich that all cops are supermen and every one of us civilians couldn't possibly take care of ourselves because we aren't cops. This will end the argument. Your personal life experience, personality, and knowledge do not count because you aren't a cop, you big silly. :aok
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Not offended but I think you are out of touch with reality. How far away was the closest LEO? How much time did it take to drive to the location and this includes a busy parking lot? How long did it take the LEO from leaving his car to run through the mall to get to the scene? Was he checking the crowd for the shooter?
Maybe one of the LEOs can tell what the average response time to a bank robbery is.
What is the response time for fire trucks to get to a fire? (just for perspective)
Btw, the news this AM had another shooting at 2 churches in Colorado. A security guard killed the shooter.
The point I was trying to make, Milo, was that safety and protection are compromised whenever a policeman is not around. It does not take 6 min. for a gunman to kill you; It only takes a few milliseconds.
With this in mind, what do you suppose is more effective? A gun in a holster on you, or the one in the Policeman's holster 4 and a half blocks' away?
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
The biggest mistakes Ive seen armed GGs make is they rush to fast, or they dont keep their distance from the BG, or they get tunnel vision, or they dont wait for backup,
Waiting for backup would have been a really smart thing to do in yesterday's church incident in Colorado.
Law enforcement simply cannot be everywhere all the time. In the county where I live here in Oregon, there are many rural folks who would have to wait a very long time to receive any help.
But I see that ABC News tonight now reports that the female hero in Colorado did have a background in Law Enforcement. So that no doubt explains why she was able to so effectively deal with the situation there.
SIG 220
-
Laz,
What Rich was trying to convey and what Steve also cannot grasp, is that there is more to winning a tactical situation than being able to shoot well. Having the training to allow you to move and use the cover / concealment while getting into a position to shoot can be more important than making small holes in a target on a secure range. Coordinating movement and using the available reinforcement from like trained people enhances your chances for success. Merely running blind into a shooters area of interest just adds more targets for the shooter. Individuals going high diddle diddle up the middle just makes for a shooting gallery for the suspect under conditions that favor the bad guy far far more than the good guy. This gets even more complicated when there is a large building filled with lots of folks and when the good guys have no idea of the suspects location or what they look like.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Lazs, give it up. Tell Rich that all cops are supermen and every one of us civilians couldn't possibly take care of ourselves because we aren't cops. This will end the argument. Your personal life experience, personality, and knowledge do not count because you aren't a cop, you big silly. :aok
Steve your babbleing. And nobody was talking to you. You seem to have a propensity to babble nonsense so Im going to put you on ignore.
-
Rich,
Don't waste the effort. It seems Steve has a real problem with Police. He probably got a ticket or something and isn't adult enough to move on after getting his hand spanked.
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
And nobody was talking to you.
sorry, if you want a private conversation there are ways to do that, but when you post on a open forum you are talking to everyone that can access that forum and the reason you do post on a open forum is so you can tell everyone your view point.
in summery, you cannot post on a open forum and then tell someone " i wasn't talking to you", you are talking to all of us.
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Steve your babbleing. And nobody was talking to you. You seem to have a propensity to babble nonsense so Im going to put you on ignore.
Looks like my point his dead on. Not bad for a civilian, huh?
-
Although I don't believe it is anyone's intention to talk down to anyone on the thread, there may be those who perceive it like that.
We are all on the same side, after all, right?
All you guys are men, after all, regardless of training and experience.
Some of you have tactical training and some don't but you all have things on your side regardless.
I am interested in hearing what the professionals have to say as well as the non-professionals.
A movie I saw once spoke of some things Rich and Mav have been talking about... keeping a cool head and calmly doing what needs to be done when the bullets start flying and why people become ineffective when stressed and/or untrained.
That movie was Unforgiven. It struck me in many ways I didn't expect and was very powerful.
TIGERESS
-
Oh... I believe that the more you use cover and the better your tactics are the better your chance for success but.. that woman.. she charged a carbine with a revolver and won. she hit the guy. My guess is that she seen that he wasn't aware of her.
I think that I understand cover and flanking as well as any cop.. I would love to see the out of shape fat women that pass for cops here and can't hit anything not 3 yards away... I would love to see a team of them go against a team of teens in a paintball match.
I am aware that I am getting older... not as fast.. I went against some kids in paintball.. it is difficult. If they don't see you.. you get em. if you can get cover and a defensible position.. they don't get you as quick... they are quicker than you tho... better eyes too...
I am glad that the woman CCW civilian did not wait for backup. I am glad she did not believe that a revolver was useless against a semi auto carbine and I am glad that she was accurate.
In EVERY gunfight I have read about.. the training may have been touted but it was always the character of the man that won the fight. If you must be absolutely safe.. you will be worthless.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Rich,
Don't waste the effort. It seems Steve has a real problem with Police. He probably got a ticket or something and isn't adult enough to move on after getting his hand spanked.
Naw, I put him on ignore. Which is a useful feature when you think about it. One click and the person stops existing.
Laz nobody is more Pro-CCW then I am, or pro gun. You are misconstruing my words here. As to the lady who charged the BG? I dont know a thing about it but Ive seen a lot of brave people in my day so it wouldnt surprise me. I myself have to drive or run to the sound of gunfire all the time. When Police get a call of "shots fired" its not like we drive the other way.
Paintball?? C'mon Laz.
And while I hate to disagree here but people with low character win gunfights all the time. Training and tactics is everything.
-
Laz,
She fit the description of the situation I was talking about in the mall shooting and tried to get across to steve. She was in a position that she was able to fire outside of the prime tactical position of the shooter. In other words she was close enough and in position to hose the BG without just having to hunt for him, He came into her deadly zone rather than the other way around.
-
mav.. she fit the description I said about the mall too and what I would have done... she had a revolver... she got into a position to fire. I am sure that if she had failed she would have tried something else... Like get cover.
rich.. yep.. tactics are everything.. scum bags can be brave too tho and they can have "character" least the kind that wins gunfights.. happens all the time.. they take a risk and they win.
I am sure that you have studied gunfights from real life. no matter what the "tactics" you don't win without some risk.. not unless you mean.. run and hide and wait for enough backup that you can't lose... I really hope you are not saying that.
paintball is bad but police training is good? one is realistic and the other is not? hell... I don't know.. I seen a lot of police training but never one with even the tiniest little chance that the guy would be shot at or even injured.
What training is gonna make em brave? give em the character to do the right thing? What training will make em not fall apart when real bullets fly? Hell.. at least with paintball you get stung a little.
My point with tactics and CCW is that cop or not.. concealled is an advantage.. a tactical one. you take out the uniform first. You identify him as a threat no matter what. you shoot him and then you head shoot him cause of the body armor.
The cop or civilian with a CCW is not so easy... which one of the 100 people around you is a CCW? is that guy just hiding behind the statue or looking for cover to take the shot? Is that a cell phone or a gun..
In my opinion.. the more CCW the worse for the bad guy.. a uniformed cop is not so good. he is a neon sign.
The woman proved my point. I know you have read about gunfights enough to know that in almost every case.. the training and tactics pretty much went out the window after the shooting started.
Look at the LA shootout.. all them cops.. the bad guys just standing there. not one cop could get a simple headshot from 25 to 50 yards away.
You might have wanted some "paper puncher" with an antique revolver there eh? least the instructors I talked to admitted that.
I have seen the fat ladies and losers they run through the courses and call cops these days... they are far from supermen... I wouldn't trust em to pull me out of a wrecked car much less take out a bad guy...
Admit it.. the people they accept these days should never have been allowed to be cops. not all but.. too many.
lazs
-
Hi Lazs,
Regardless of how it is sliced... Jeanne Assam killed that bastard and didn't wait for backup even though it put her at a disadvantage.
This woman, by her act of bringing down this mass-murderer, brought the power and need for ccw to the forefront of the nation.
I have read criticism that she was a criminal in the minds of some for bringing a gun to church.
I think some men (not speaking of you nor the other men here) can not accept a woman shooting and killing a man even when the playing field was uneven against her.
I have read praise that she is a true hero and had the guts, the means, and the calm presence of mind, to take down that shooter who was wearing body armor and had vastly superior fire power.
Jeanne Assam, you kicked bellybutton dear...
TIGERESS
-
and.. facts are facts. the cops did not stop any of these shootings. they never do.. the cops get their and get "set up" with "tactics" way too late to do anyone any good...
The best you can say is that when the bad guy...after killing a couple of dozen... sees that he is surrounded by armor covered cops everywhere... you guys force him to shoot himself before he kills any more.
That may be too harsh..it was not meant to be. my only point is that a well trained cop who is the best gunfighter that modern training and tactics can provide is useless if he is 6 minutes away...
a civilian with a revolver who has the guts to do what is right and is on the scene.. is what I would rather see.
The cops can sort it all out later.
I have to say.. as I have pointed out.. cops are a neon target... uniform.. being in bad situations with bad guys... they absolutely need different training and equipment than a civilian CCW.
The fact that they are obvious changes everything.
lazs
-
Let me ask you this Laz, and be honest. Have you ever been in a shooting situation? A real life one? And Im not asking this to demean you in any way.
Who here, besides the LEOs, ever have?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and.. facts are facts. the cops did not stop any of these shootings. they never do.. the cops get their and get "set up" with "tactics" way too late to do anyone any good...
The best you can say is that when the bad guy...after killing a couple of dozen... sees that he is surrounded by armor covered cops everywhere... you guys force him to shoot himself before he kills any more.
That may be too harsh..it was not meant to be. my only point is that a well trained cop who is the best gunfighter that modern training and tactics can provide is useless if he is 6 minutes away...
a civilian with a revolver who has the guts to do what is right and is on the scene.. is what I would rather see.
The cops can sort it all out later.
I have to say.. as I have pointed out.. cops are a neon target... uniform.. being in bad situations with bad guys... they absolutely need different training and equipment than a civilian CCW.
The fact that they are obvious changes everything.
lazs
The police obviously act as they are trained and directed to act, and to live to fight another day regardless of the outcome.
I also believe there is a seperation between police and non-police in violent crime situations. If it's happening to their own family or friends or fellow LEOs, LEOs will risk more to attempt to stop it.
A cop-shooter is in greater danger from the police, is what I am saying.
That is not intended whatsoever to offend the LEO's here or elsewhere... its just human nature to defend you own with less regard for your own safety.
I believe a ccw civilian amongst a crowd of victims during a mass-murder spree feels the same as a cop seeing someone murdering defenseless cops because they are cops.
It brought me to tears watching video of the scenes outside Virginia Tech while the massacre was in progress... I could hear shots being fired inside the building with police outside, obviously on orders, not acting to stop the carnage at that point, even though I understood it.
A ccw civilian in the midst of ongoing carnage around them have no reason to wait for back up.
They ARE the on scene back-up for victims around them who have no means of defending themselves, and if they are anything like Jeanne Assem, will wade in to shoot or be shot to save lives to the best of their common sense, training and ability.
There is power in that, in my mind. The police must do as they are trained and thus are predictable to a mass-murdering gunman in the planning stages and during the scenario.
The wild-card is the ccw civilian who is in the right place at the right time.
Future perpetrators of this kind of crime are watching and observing and I just hope Jeanne and her ccw license and gun is sending a clear message to them:
"You have more to deal with than you think you do, you coward, and likely as not, out of the crowd of sheep comes an armed defender, male or female, with a bead on you and you won't see it coming."
This is EXACTLY the serious dose of justifiable paranoia I spoke of earlier...
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have been shot at. I know how I reacted. I make no gurantees on how I would react the next time or the time after but I am not all shook up about it.
lazs
-
Laz your babbling nonsense. You got this "cop thing" going so im going to bow out of this thread.
Ive been some kind of Policeman since I was 18 yo and signed up for the War corp. Im sorry, but when it comes to Police stuff you dont know if your tail end is punched or drilled. I would hazard that your also lieing about getting shot at and having a gun pulled on you.
Maybe we'll find our stride on another thread that has nothing to do with cop obsessions. That is if you post in any other kind.
Until then....goodby.
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Laz your babbling nonsense. You got this "cop thing" going so im going to bow out of this thread.
Ive been some kind of Policeman since I was 18 yo and signed up for the War corp. Im sorry, but when it comes to Police stuff you dont know if your tail end is punched or drilled. I would hazard that your also lieing about getting shot at and having a gun pulled on you.
Maybe we'll find our stride on another thread that has nothing to do with cop obsessions. That is if you post in any other kind.
Until then....goodby.
:lol Lazs wins. Rich just couldn't get him to admit that cops are supermen and all civilans are sheep. Lazs 1, supercop 0.
I have to admit, Rich is the only cop I've ever had a conversation with who felt he was on some kind of pedestal compared to the public, well except Xmarine. Those two have changed my mind on one thing: I used to say that I have a lot of respect for cops. Now I'll have to say I have a lot of respect for most cops.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
:lol Lazs wins. Rich just couldn't get him to admit that cops are supermen and all civilans are sheep. Lazs 1, supercop 0.
I have to admit, Rich is the only cop I've ever had a conversation with who felt he was on some kind of pedestal compared to the public, well except Xmarine. Those two have changed my mind on one thing: I used to say that I have a lot of respect for cops. Now I'll have to say I have a lot of respect for most cops.
I have to agree with you steve
-
rich.. have you been shot at? have you been in the same room when someone was shot?
I am sorry that you think I am a liar. I can only tell you that I am not. I seen a guy get shot in the head right next to me. I have been shot at while in a house.. both times the situation was over before I had to shoot anyone.
But let me ask you this.. do you think that there may be some slight difference in tactics needed for say... a uniformed policeman and a civilian dressed person with a concealed weapon in a mall where a shooter is loose and people are running every which way?
Do you think that the shooter may react differently to a uniformed officer than to just one more civilian?
What is your "tactic" in such a situation? you are 50 yards away.. he sees you.. you have a glock in .40 and he has an ar15 or .308
your body armor is not gonna stop those rounds. you are gonna instantly be the most important thing in his life. he will be ignoring the others.
What does your training tell you to do?
I have found when talking to cops that some are easy going and reasonable and some are so wrapped up in themselves that they can take no criticism at all..
I am in no way trying to insult cops in general but the standards are lower every year. Not all of em are good with or even like firearms. I can believe you or I can believe the police instructors I talk to.
lazs
-
And.. I don't really blame rich for defending his fellow officers and for having faith in his training.
I respect that as I respect anyone who has to do such a job. I freely admit that I could not do his job no matter how much training... I haven't the temperment or patientce to do so.
I really do see how bad it must be to put yourself in harms way with a big target painted on you.. to stop cars in the middle of the night never knowing who is really in the car.. to break up fights.. all sorts of things.. the action for a cop has to happen really fast and they have to react quickly and correctly..
They not only have to win but they have to be right... I do not envy them their job and thank you rich for your service.
I do not want this to be about cop bashing or me an rich. I would be thankful to see him show up in a bad situation.
I am just saying that he can't be everywhere and even when he is... he has some limitiations that we have put on him.
I also knew a lot of guys who hated cops. I really never did even tho I was on the other side for a few decades. I know two guys who had no respect for cops at all and both were killed in shootouts. neither will be missed much. neither was half as good as they thought they were. rich.. one was named pulley and he shot it out on the main drag in the 80's if you want to look it up. Never liked that guy. he pulled a gun on me once.
I believe that I was out of line talking about police training and will admit that for the situations they most encounter.. it is good. I don't say that it works in every situation for civilians is all.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Laz your babbling nonsense. You got this "cop thing" going so im going to bow out of this thread.
Ive been some kind of Policeman since I was 18 yo and signed up for the War corp. Im sorry, but when it comes to Police stuff you dont know if your tail end is punched or drilled. I would hazard that your also lieing about getting shot at and having a gun pulled on you.
Maybe we'll find our stride on another thread that has nothing to do with cop obsessions. That is if you post in any other kind.
Until then....goodby.
cop out
get it?:D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and.. facts are facts. the cops did not stop any of these shootings. they never do.. the cops get their and get "set up" with "tactics" way too late to do anyone any good...
lazs
makes alot of sense doesnt it?
-
This is not the way I want this to go.. I do believe that cops have a really rough job and I am constantly impressed by their dedication and courage and patience.
I believe that they are trained well for the situations that they encounter. I believe that they do the best they can. I do not think I could do their job better than they can and would love to see em around when bad things happen.
Problem is.. they can't be everywhere all the time. I also think that they are at somewhat of a disadvantage.. I would not want to be a uniformed target. I believe that CCW holders have it easy by comparison. In something like a shooting at a mall.. the real targets are gonna be the unlucky and any cop who is there.
lazs
-
Rich has a lot of good points and I hope he chooses to overlook the overlookable.
If this conversation amongst you all were going on say... over at Steve's house over a few beers it would be easier... there is no way for people to see the real personalities in play in print here without a lot of time invested.
I am sure you didn't mean to run him off Lazs...
TIGERESS
-
I'm not so sure, Tigress. To me, Rich has an elitist attitude where he seems to think cops are the only people capable of dealing with stressful, violent situations. My view may be incorrect, but it's the conclusion I drew based on his thoughts in this thread. I couldn't stomach his arrogance for any length of time. He has insulted both Lazs and I, calling us both liars. Somehow, he seems to think that only cops have been in dangerous situations where there was either deadly violence or the potential for it.
If I somehow misinterpreted his repeated remarks that support his apparent views, I'd love to hear about it. I'd be perfectly happy if Rich were a great guy who respected those he is sworn to protect and serve. I just don't see any evidence of that. All I see is a guy who was given a badge and seems to think it entitles him to look upon the masses as unable to fend for themselves.
To know just how wrong Richh is about this, he could look up hundreds, if not thousands of instances where normal citizens, without police training, put down the bad guy. He could try with a simple google seach. Heck, look up Northfield Minnesota.
-
I just like to see people bury the hachet. We all have more things in common than not.
It's up to him... but he left the door open.
You once helped me, Steve. If you know what I mean.
I wont forget it... hugs
TIGERESS
-
I don't know.. I think that I was the one who started it. I went on about the standards for cops these days and how I felt that so many were not good shots or even liked guns.
I made a generalization that is obviously not true for the guys he knows and he got defensive and I don't blame him. I will only say that what I was saying was true for the instructors in my area.. which is, admittedly a small sample.
I am just glad to see that a woman with a ccw stopped the slaughter at the church.. I think in light of what happened it does vindicate us both.. seems that one ccw guy froze but.. another guy who didn't have a gun asked him to give it to him.. he did what I would have done.. he was behind a column and, although he didn't get the gun and get the chance to take the long shot.. he at least did shout and break the gunmans "rythmn" and allow the woman to get the shot.
Anyone can freeze and anyone can be a hero. I don't really like to be called a liar but.. serves me right.. shoulda kept my mouth shut. weird stuff happened back then.. it would really sound outlandish if I told you the guy next to me got shot in the head with a 38 and it... pretty much bounced off.. all this was at arms reach... the flash was right in my face it seemed.. the guy who got shot was reaching for a 30-30 and managed to grab it after he got shot and break it over the shooters face. I managed to draw and the friend just put up his hands... I didn't shoot anyone. There were 3 other people in the room.. everyone acted differently. The guy who got shot. it didn't even look too bad. We took him to emergency and told em we were cutting up a car with a torch and a piece of metal sprung out and caught him in the head. the other guys took their partner off.. he didn't look too good.. heard later he was fine..concussion and a bunch of stitches.
Another time... same guy.. I grew up with him.. pres of the banshees.. him and another guy were at his house.. I was on the porch.. the other guy had hit his girlfriend around and was walking out of the front door. I heard her scream and the words "shoot you" just as he started running.. Pop pop pop... one round hit the railing I was leaning on and then he was flying over the rail..more pops.. and I seen her arm with this tiny little baby .25 .. I grabbed her arm but noticed the slide was locked back with some brass stovepiped and she just dropped the thing anyway.
Not a big deal.... neither one a mall shooting.. but... hell.. I call it shooting. was damn scary enough for me. My hands were shaking afterwards.. but they shake after I lose it in the Healey sometimes too. I wasn't gonna shoot a guy with his hands up and I sure as hell wasn't going to shoot some woman with a jammed .25.
These things happened 30 years ago.. maybe now I would run screaming from the room... don't see the percentage in it tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
It's up to him... but he left the door open.
TIGERESS
Nah, Rich put me on ignore... that's pretty much a closed door.
I don't mind though. A week after this thread dies, if I remember it at all, I'll simply chalk it up to just us guys voicing things we were passionate about and blow it off. This attitude has bitten me in the arse a time or two though as others hold grudges longer.
To me it was a spirited debate and not much more. The exception being Maverick of course. I muted him not because I dislike the guy; that's simply not the case. I harbor no ill will towards him beyond the passion of our discussion. I muted him simply because I was unable to communicate with him and I wish to avoid future frustration.
-
Now that was a fine example of pot and kettle. :lol
-
Tigeress, the peacemaker. ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bingie...How would it deter crime at all? we had a program that made everyone sign for ammo for 20 years... in that time... Not one... nada.. crime was solved using this "sensible" law.
The micro stamping is no sweat off me.. I reload and I have revolvers. What would stop me from leaving brass from 6 different guns at a crime scene.. all micro stamped.. let the police do the expensive tail chasing... I am afraid that it is an expensive idea that makes no sense. the only sense it makes is what they really want.. to make guns more expensive.. to keep em out of the hands of the poor... poor people don't need guns like the rest of us I guess huh?
I don't know what your point is on the school shootings. If fully one quarter were stopped.... that would mean... no further shooting.. This was accomplished by civilians with guns.. imagine if the civilians were actually allowed to have guns. You trust these saint like teachers to shield the kids with their body and soak up bullets but you don't trust em to have a firearm?
Your list proves one thing.. "gun free zones" is not working. It was a bad idea... time to try something else.
lazs
How many are acceptable?
It's illegal for them to have guns period.
I hope it goes too semi-auto rifles too :) and Laz I don't trust the teachers to teach let alone have guns. Why don't you ask the Teachers if thats what they want? .
Each generation the gun gets more and more distant most kids are not taught by their fathers anymore. There shown bye gang members or other friends. The gangs don't buy the guns from a store.
Everyone on my block as a kid had a BB gun of some type. Don't see that much any more. Toy guns sale have dropped to almost nothing. My father was so proud when he gave me my 1st .22 I thought we was the coolest dad. I think I was 10. I had fired the .30 carbine all ready, but this was "mine" my 1st real "gun". I was 31 when all 3 were stolen. Now'a'days it is easier not to own one, for me any way, I don't worry about the kids finding it, don't have to clean it, don't have to worry about it getting stolen. If its in the safe what good is it? It's less expense, I have better things to do and spend my money on, but still laz I don't worry if you own one or ten as long as you do good buy them.
-
Jut how did you have those firearms stolen? Where were they?
-
I think you hit on it... why indeed do we not "ask the teachers"? better yet.. why don't we just let them decide for themselves? You seem to have a deep distrust for your fellow citizens. I really don't. If it is accidents you are worried about.. they are rare these days. more likely a child will drown in the backyard.
Another point you hit is very important and explains why I fight to keep guns easy for citizens to own and enjoy.. as you correctly pointed out.. more of us had them as young adults.. it was normal and very easy to do. there was no stigma and we all became proficient and enjoyed the shooting sports.
As more and more of these "sensible" regulations and restrictions are put on the owning of firearms and the shooting sports and defense.. less and less people are able to own and/or pass down the guns and the skills.. I believe that is the agenda of the anti gun groups.. to just make it such a hassle and so unfun that only criminals will bother since they don't have to go through all the red tape.
As for the "semi auto" thing.. I have no idea what you are talking about unless you mean that you want to ban semi auto firearms? why would you do that?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Jut how did you have those firearms stolen? Where were they?
Its in this post.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think you hit on it... why indeed do we not "ask the teachers"? better yet.. why don't we just let them decide for themselves? You seem to have a deep distrust for your fellow citizens. I really don't. If it is accidents you are worried about.. they are rare these days. more likely a child will drown in the backyard.
Another point you hit is very important and explains why I fight to keep guns easy for citizens to own and enjoy.. as you correctly pointed out.. more of us had them as young adults.. it was normal and very easy to do. there was no stigma and we all became proficient and enjoyed the shooting sports.
As more and more of these "sensible" regulations and restrictions are put on the owning of firearms and the shooting sports and defense.. less and less people are able to own and/or pass down the guns and the skills.. I believe that is the agenda of the anti gun groups.. to just make it such a hassle and so unfun that only criminals will bother since they don't have to go through all the red tape.
As for the "semi auto" thing.. I have no idea what you are talking about unless you mean that you want to ban semi auto firearms? why would you do that?
lazs
They are our children, Laz, is the point no matter how many you save.
I just want you to answer whats a good percentage of kids that get shot?
you keep skirting the issue.
I far as I know the microstamping only applys to semi-auto pistols
I would also like to see this tech married to fingerprint tech. So fingerprint to fire and microstamped when it does. I think thats a good combination and will leave your rights in tact.
-
What post bing.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
What post bing.
okay mav
there were in a safe attached to the floor it was removed through the wall.
And laz I kinda of resent the fact the you said "1400 dollar street value" they ment much more to me they were parts of my life. AND people keep other things in their safes as well. Not just "guns" Laz. Family documents, pink slips, notes, bonds, pictures, even cash, remember cash? etc....
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Gixer
See Rule #5
Yeah, but the thing is, that since it involves one of our amendments' in our Bill of Rights, one of the basic building blocks of our constitution, It has become a large subject, Gixer.
If our gov't. circumvents' the 2nd amendment for any reason, what does that say about what they can do with the rest of our constitution? What does it say about what kind of gov't. could take control of the U.S. economy? Of the U.S. War Machine? Could you imagine someone like Adolph Hitler in The U.S., a dictator with unlimited power?
You can make fun of your fellow posters' all you want, But they are simply illustrating another facet of our Bill of Rights, the freedom of speech.
-
See Rule #5
-
How old were you Gixer when the Port Arthur shootings happened?
Do you remember when John Howard decided to pass legislation that effectively took away most of the weapons in the civilian population and placed nigh impossible restrictions on those that could be owned?
I certainly do.
It has long been my position that responsible law abiding adults should have the right to own firearms and furthermore once they have demonstrated proficiency and civic responsibility be permitted, with appropriate licensing, to carry a handgun on their person. I'm not saying that we should all want to, but I firmly believe we should have the right to do so if we choose.
At the moment, it is only law enforcement and certain security companies that are permitted to carry weapons in public.
Criminals have no qualms about committing armed crimes with even the most rudimentary of weapons because they know damn well unless they get VERY unlucky, nobody will be equipped to stop them. Sure a lot of them end up getting caught, but usually well after the damage is done.
I know first hand how easy it is to get a handgun on the black market here in Australia, and if I still ran in those circles today I'd probably have a few. Fortunately I came to my senses some 5 years ago and thanks largely to my wife of 4 of those years I've turned myself around and now strive to abide by even the most dumbfounded laws that govern our country.
-
See Rule #2
-
What surprises me about these threads is not the folks posting about their rights, but those who feel they have the privilege to deride those rights and belittle others who choose to live differently than they do. Gixer, you are welcome to live as you do, no one is telling you that you have to own a firearm. Yet you feel privileged to mock others. Rather petty of you.
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #2
-
bingalong.. I am sorry if I haven't answered your questions to your satisfaction.. I honestly can't understand what you are asking tho. Are you saying that if we allow teachers and/or citizens to carry at schools and that it only eliminates most of the shootings it is a bad thing?
I am saying if the next 5 school shooters or mall shooters get shot by an armed citizen and end up in a pool of blood in their own excrement (soiling their ninja outfit) before they even get started on their "dark avenger" BS....
That the shootings fad will simply end... like skyjacking ended when concealed firearms entered the picture.
The semi auto thing.. bad idea... simply grab a bunch of brass at the range and throw it around the crime scene.. make the cops chase their tails.. after a month of that.. the criminal is about home free.
"fingerprint"? I assume that you mean fingerprint reading or some sort of personal reading trigger.. cops don't use em.. good reason why.. they don't work well.. they can get you killed when they don't work when you need em.. and what about all the older and historic and valuable guns? you want to melt them all down or butcher em?
I will be glad to speak to any question you have but you have to be clear as to what that question is.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bingalong.. I am sorry if I haven't answered your questions to your satisfaction.. I honestly can't understand what you are asking tho. Are you saying that if we allow teachers and/or citizens to carry at schools and that it only eliminates most of the shootings it is a bad thing?
I am saying if the next 5 school shooters or mall shooters get shot by an armed citizen and end up in a pool of blood in their own excrement (soiling their ninja outfit) before they even get started on their "dark avenger" BS....
That the shootings fad will simply end... like skyjacking ended when concealed firearms entered the picture.
The semi auto thing.. bad idea... simply grab a bunch of brass at the range and throw it around the crime scene.. make the cops chase their tails.. after a month of that.. the criminal is about home free.
"fingerprint"? I assume that you mean fingerprint reading or some sort of personal reading trigger.. cops don't use em.. good reason why.. they don't work well.. they can get you killed when they don't work when you need em.. and what about all the older and historic and valuable guns? you want to melt them all down or butcher em?
I will be glad to speak to any question you have but you have to be clear as to what that question is.
lazs
Know what your saying is "it's okay for me and others to own guns that get stolen and end up in the hands of gang members and sucidal kids that kill them selfs so I can keep my rights" " If more people carried guns less kids would get shot" and "I dont want any saftey anything for guns..guns arnt safe you know."
You dont look ahead you dont care about others it all about you laz. Guns kill people. A police officer got shot last night...bye who, a gang member with a stolen gun. You say I dont trust my fellow human beings? while your the one walking around with a gun. Thats laughable:rofl
-
what makes you think that all guns used for crime are stolen? Some may have been "imported" and sold out of a car trunk.
BTW, i have never had a gun stolen, ever.
-
Originally posted by john9001
what makes you think that all guns used for crime are stolen? Some may have been "imported" and sold out of a car trunk.
BTW, i have never had a gun stolen, ever.
Knock on wood!
-
bingie... are you saying now that if you made it illegal for the rest of us to have guns that the 250,000,000 guns or more that are floating around would all of a sudden just dry up and go away?
That is beyond silly. even in england it is nothing for crooks to get guns if they want em.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/18838/Fear-of-gun-crime-in-many-areas-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6363713.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6937457.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article310182.ece
There are 4,000,000 firearms floating around in england.. crooks are still using them even tho there is a 5 year prison sentence attached to even touching one... This in a country that never really cared about firearms in any case and was always lilly white and non violent (except when abroad).
lazs
-
Originally posted by Maverick Omaha does have a concealed carry but not allowed in public buildings like the mall.
I don't know about where you live Tigress but I have seen several malls that list themselves as gun free zones, just like schools. If, and I have to say if since I don't know, Nebraska does not have a CCW permit and if the mall is listed as gun free then there wouldn't be anyone there carrying outside of Mall security if they are even armed. There are too many unknowns to be able to say if it is even possible (legally) for anyone to have been able to stop this nut job.
-
For those who fell for the microstamping red herring, preferring the semblance of doing something over the actual fact that it does nothing.
National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action
Micro-stamping has repeatedly failed in tests. In 2006, a study by forensic experts and researchers at the University of California (Davis) concluded, “At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology in all semiautomatic handguns in the state of California be made.”2 Results of the study were consistent with earlier peer-reviewed tests published by the Association of Firearms and Toolmarks Examiners.3 Firearms examiner George Krivosta, of the Suffolk County, N.Y., crime lab, found that the “vast majority” of micro-stamped characters in the alphanumeric serial number couldn’t be read on “any of the expended cartridge cases generated and examined.”
Micro-stampings are easily removed. In the tests noted above, firing pins were removed in minutes, and serial numbers were obliterated in less than a minute, with household tools.
Most gun crimes cannot be solved by micro-stamping, or do not require micro-stamping to be solved. Most gun crimes do not involve shots being fired, thus there are no cartridge cases left at crime scenes for police to recover. Also, a large percentage of crimes involving guns, involve guns that don’t eject fired cartridge cases. Notwithstanding TV shows that portray crime-solving as impossible without high-technology, most crimes can be solved by traditional means. For example, of murders in which the victim-offender relationship is known, 77% involve family members, friends and other acquaintences. Only 23% involve strangers.4
Most criminals who use guns, get them through unregulated channels. According to the BATFE, 88% of of crime guns are acquired through unregulated channels, and the median time between a crime gun’s acquisition and its use in crime is 6.6 years.5 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, most criminals get guns via theft or the black market.6
Micro-stamping may increase gun thefts, home invasions and other burglaries, and expand the black market in guns. Criminals will be further encouraged to get guns illegally, if they believe that guns bought legally will be linked to them in a computerized database.
Most guns do not automatically eject fired cartridge cases. Revolvers can fire five or more rounds without any fired cases being ejected. Pump-action, bolt-action, lever-action and other types of guns eject fired cases only if the user manually operates the gun’s unloading mechanism. If a fired case is not ejected at a crime scene, it cannot be recovered for examination.
Only a small percentage of guns will be micro-stamped. There are about 250 million guns in the U.S. already.7 New guns sold annually account for only 2% of that total, new semi-automatic pistols less than 0.5%,8 and guns to which AB1471 applies will account for a tiny fraction, at most.
Most violent crimes are committed without guns. According to the FBI, ¾ of violent crimes, including 1/3 of murders and 3/5 of robberies, are committed without guns.9
Micro-stamping wastes money, including that which is better spent on traditional crime-fighting and crime-solving efforts. It will require a costly computerized database to track micro-stamped handguns, costs that will be passed along to all consumers, including law enforcement agencies. It will require a redesign of the handgun manufacturing process, and could require payment of licensing fees to the sole-source micro-stamping patent holder.
Problems for law enforcement. Micro-stamping exposes police departments to lawsuits if officers fire “unsafe handguns” at suspects. Departments will have to spend money destroying all cases fired in training, to prevent cases from being reused at crime scenes. Criminals can obtain fired cases from practice ranges, and use them to “seed” crime scenes, to confuse investigators.
-
the first rockets thought about space :D
-
bingie... this is yet another example of where you think that "the end justifies the means"
The means are very restrictive and unfair at this point.. the "end" is nothing but a concept.. just like signing for ammo purchases never worked... the means was restrictive and expensive and.. the end... after 20 years was.. no crooks got arrested. No crimes got solved.
just like welfare.. the means is expensive and unconstitutional and the end... is that we have more poor people created than before..
Any way of identifying anything can be destroyed or tampered with. crooks get caught because they are lazy or someone turns em in. You can (lots of times) tell which bullet was fired from which gun.. everyone knows this.
Any crook who cares gets around this in dozens of ways.. all simple.. the ones who get caught this way will get caught no matter how strict or lax the way to identify is.. the ones who don't... same thing.. they will not get caught by some gimmick.
lazs
-
The gun phobic left cannot just simply take away everyone's guns as they most earnestly want to do. They are therefore whittling away at our second amendment right by teaching fear and loathing of guns in our publicly funded schools and making it more troublesome to both sell and own guns. If they are not fervently resisted in this, they will win, just a matter of time.