Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: RedTop on December 19, 2012, 07:11:08 PM
-
I was at Academy earlier today...There were at least 25 guys back at the gun counter buying guns...felt sorry for the guy working the gun counter as he was the only one there and doinig a great job trying to keep people organised and orderly.
As I was looking for a rod to replace a broken one I was listening to a couple of conversations....a couple of obvious anti gun folks making comments about look at the craies buying up these automatic guns...I just laughed....Hear the gun buyers wanting more and more ammo and clips for thier new AR15's....
I'm a card toting member of the NRA...and not trying to pass judgment , but just for my own wonder , why do people need multiple clips (not a couple) I mean like 6 or 7 or 10....?
If the AR is for home defense , isn't there a better choice out there to defend your castle?
If it's for hunting , are you shooting a HERD all at once? Or limiting out in 10 minutes? and if so what's left to eat after the massacre?
If it's for fun to just take to the range and blow off a buncha rounds , what is the cost of that? How many rounds do people shoot?
I been hunting alot of my life....I own guns....one for home invasion issues and the others for hunting....An AR15 to hunt with might be all well and good...I have a 223 that I hunt with some....but pulling the trigger more than once hasn't really presented itself to me in all my years of hunting deer...If I missed the deer was usually gone so fast that spraying and prayinig wouldn't be a good idea.
Just wondering some thoughts ...
SKUZZY...If this is a bad topic just trash it sir....Merry Christmas to!!!
-
So that when 'it' goes down, the UAV blows them up surrounded by 300 rounds of ammunition instead of just 30
-
Because when I decide to spend an entire day target shooting for fun I don't want to have to reload my mags over and over.
Because when I practice for shooting tournaments I don't want to reload those mags.
Plus it's just nice to have. Do people have to have a reason to buy a car that has working A/C and power windows? You don't NEED it.
-
Man, I'd love to respond with a total rant. Alas, I shall not do such a thing because I do respect the rules of the forum.
I will say this... Pass the ammo!!!!
-
The only issue i have will be the person who comes in here, and starts to make the thread into a 'gun control' thread. That is strictly political and so that person will get suspended from the board, send me a threatening email, terminate his account and send me another threatening email and then we will have lost a customer, because of me. Yes, it will be my fault.
I am tempted to lock it just to prevent the above from happening.
-
Good on you Red.
-
The only issue i have will be the person who comes in here, and starts to make the thread into a 'gun control' thread. That is strictly political and so that person will get suspended from the board, send me a threatening email, terminate his account and send me another threatening email and then we will have lost a customer, because of me. Yes, it will be my fault.
I am tempted to lock it just to prevent the above from happening.
Hiya Suzz...tis ok if ya do sir...it is yalls board and it could get nasty...Just wondering is all...I see your point tho...touchy subject thses days especially.
Your Call Sir...<S>
-
Edit... Too goofy.
-
Just in case..
(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/18/inbeforethelock3zd.jpg)
-
It can save time at the range. You are shooting rather than reloading. Plus they can sort of wear out after awhile and if there is some sort of future restriction you want to have enough replacements for the future. They are fun to shoot sometimes but I've never had a desire to own one because the novelty would wear off shortly. I prefer bolt action rifles for target shooting and hunting.
-
one reason only FREEMEN.....
and because I choose to...it makes me happy......if I were to do that kinda thing...me I am into swords but the guy who loves his Guns....more power to him...I want all citizens to be carrying guns.......
-
I do hear alot of "What does someone NEED that for?" If you don't commit crimes with it, why should you have to justify buying
one? No one needs to justify buying an expensive car by having to explain the NEED for it.
I'm kind of stuck here. I've wanted an AR since the mid 80s, my timing is very bad. Just tonight looking through the net, trying to
find a 30 round mag is incredibly difficult. Everyone I checked, about 12 vendors before I gave up was sold out. No bans, just alot of
interest in high caps.
I have the money, but I just dropped a grand on .22s for myself and my father. I would really like to wait a bit before the prices go
through the roof again.
I picked up my guns about 2 Saturdays ago at Hyatt Coin and Gun. My brother and I went in and there must have been 50 customers
in there at 1000. Both John and I noticed very few window shoppers and ALOT of buyers. I asked one of the clerks if this was normal or
holiday shopping. He said this was regular business. No wonder they keep 7000 guns in stock.
So I guess I'm not the only guy in the market :D
-
Hey Rino, my neighbor is a licensed dealer, and does alot of AR business. Would you like me to check with him?
-
Let me restate...I have no issues with whatever people buy...20 clips and 10 AR's...your own lil war cablnet....responsible people owning all they want is cool with me...no issues at all....my whole wonder is really just why do people have all the clips and what purpose the AR is for...home defense...cutting trees down...drilling holes in the sides of dirt mounds or cliffs....just wondering is all...
Interesting replies so far...
-
I want to comment more....but cant.... :(
-
my whole wonder is really just why do people have all the clips and what purpose the AR is for
A lot of people I know just like to collect all sorts of firearm related stuff. Many cycle through shooting their firearms as well. A lot of people like to pig hunt here in Texas with them. Plus you could burn through 10 clips easy at the range. It's more fun to reload the clips at home watching TV rather than at the range. Like I said before they also wear out over time.
-
Let me restate...I have no issues with whatever people buy...20 clips and 10 AR's...your own lil war cablnet....responsible people owning all they want is cool with me...no issues at all....my whole wonder is really just why do people have all the clips and what purpose the AR is for...home defense...cutting trees down...drilling holes in the sides of dirt mounds or cliffs....just wondering is all...
Interesting replies so far...
Some people love recreational shooting. In that respect, AR/SKS type rifles are great. I truly enjoy a day at my dad's place popping away with the SKS. Having a couple of 30 rd mags makes it very convenient when it comes to reloading.
-
I havn't bought a gun in a number of years, but just bought a Ruger P95. This is the first pistol I have owned in years. I sold the other I had years ago.
I was thinking of getting another clip and a large clip or 2 or 3 for my Ruger 22. This is so I don't have to keep reloading for target practice.
When I gun hunted ( I havn't now in about 4 years) I used a 20 gauge Ithica deerslayer. By many peoples standard the 20 guage does not have the knock down power as I have heard. 12 guage is the best, so I have heard. I shot many, many deer with my 20 gauge and hardly have ever shot twice. I have always hunted in the woods so using a rifle to me to much hassle. I have hardly ever shot over 50 yards.
So to the OP, I think its a matter of personal preference.Some may be collecters,shooters, or maybe they are doomsdayers getting ready for the end of the world.
I wouldn't mine owning a ar 15 or a .223 centerfire rifle for shooting. Not in the cards for me, wife and I will be shooting the 22 and p95 for some target practice this summer.
-
They're magazines not clips! :furious
And stay away from Cheaper Than Dirt, they've always been a rip off but they've gone full scumbag overnight.
-
I do the same. I keep 6 mags full for my pistol. That way if the urge strikes to hit the range I am good to go.
-
I'm a card toting member of the NRA...and not trying to pass judgment , but just for my own wonder , why do people need multiple clips (not a couple) I mean like 6 or 7 or 10....?
For fun. Tactical shooting courses require multiple magazines/reloads to complete the course. Not everyone drills 1 hole groups from a bench, some like more practical type shooting.
-
Hmmm...well guess its kind of along the lines of my Bass fishing....
1 Rod for Cranks...1 rod for frogs...1 rod for spinners and buzz baits....1 for plastics....on and on...
makes sense...
-
If the AR owners here are going to be honest, and I'm one of them, they'll tell you that part of it fills that little kid GI Joe fantasy we all had. They look cool and they are fun to shoot. They serve no other purpose.
All you have to do is read the AR forums and you'll see the guys who deck out their AR15s with all kinds of junk to make them look 'tactical'. Laser sights, red dots, flashlights, mock grenade launchers, tactical slings, bayonets, double magazines. You name it, the SHTF guys are prepared.
If you are a serious shooter, you'd not do that, but get 20 inch custom barrel as the target shooters do. But most of us have 16 inch barrels with collapsible stocks.
This speaks to the real reason :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Beaufighters/AR15BarbieDollforGuys.jpg)
I haven't succumbed to that disease
Mine is pretty bare bones the way I like it.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Beaufighters/DPMS.jpg)
-
Let me restate...I have no issues with whatever people buy...20 clips and 10 AR's...your own lil war cablnet....responsible people owning all they want is cool with me...no issues at all....my whole wonder is really just why do people have all the clips and what purpose the AR is for...home defense...cutting trees down...drilling holes in the sides of dirt mounds or cliffs....just wondering is all...
Interesting replies so far...
I use mine in IPSC 3 gun comps.
-
I'm a card toting member of the NRA...and not trying to pass judgment , but just for my own wonder , why do people need multiple clips (not a couple) I mean like 6 or 7 or 10....?
(http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h113/rcmtdriver/IMG_0390-1_zps4a29ab40.jpg)
Wanted to shoot but didn't want to pay a lot for ammo so went with 7.62X39. Looked at ak47's and they all looked alike and dated. Wanted something different and a little unique. Found the mini30 and a Sparta stock. Got a bunch of 30 and 20 round mags for it. I usually load mags the night before going to the range so I can give everything a good wipe down of excess oil and make sure everything will function the right way before driving south for a few hours so I can shoot a good distance. Keeps me from having to load repeatedly by having multi magazines and also if I have a problem with one I can use it for spare parts and still wont ruin a shooting day that took a while to drive to.
-
Here it is from someone from the front lines.....
I just spent the past three days selling AR-15's.
Monday we sold 25 long guns (mostly AR's) and a few handguns.
Tuesday we sold 27 long guns (again mostly AR's) and about 7 handguns.
Wednesday we sold 36 long guns (almost exclusively AR's) and 9 handguns. Almost 48 grand in the Hunting/Gun department :eek:
I am dog tired. I think we have 3 AR's left in stock for the whole store (work at a semi-local sports shop).
As for why do you need 6-10 mags, I think that's been handled fairly well. :aok
-
I'm a card toting member of the NRA...and not trying to pass judgment , but just for my own wonder , why do people need multiple clips (not a couple) I mean like 6 or 7 or 10....?
As a card toting member of the NRA you should know the difference between a clip and a magazine. :old:
Just saying.... it's kind of one of my pet peeves.
-
23 guns went out the door today at my store, 16 of them being AR-style weapons.
For hunting, the only reason to get a .223/5.56 would be for small game...coyote...varmint etc. We have some ARs in .308, those sold too.
-
I have a DPMS Panther Arms .223 AR-15 with a Nikon scope. Picked it up from a pawnshop last year, but I've had serious problems sighting it in (got to get it to a local pro). Got it mainly for shooting predators and wild hogs, but that caliber can definitely take down a deer if hit properly.
We're one of those "crazies" that jumped on the rifle bandwagon this week. My Dad has pretty much signed off on picking up a .308 AR with a 20" barrel for $1800 I believe.
-
I have a DPMS Panther Arms .223 AR-15 with a Nikon scope. Picked it up from a pawnshop last year, but I've had serious problems sighting it in (got to get it to a local pro). Got it mainly for shooting predators and wild hogs, but that caliber can definitely take down a deer if hit properly.
We're one of those "crazies" that jumped on the rifle bandwagon this week. My Dad has pretty much signed off on picking up a .308 AR with a 20" barrel for $1800 I believe.
That is a crazy price it seems. I like DPMS, always had good luck. Sure a 223 could take down a deer, just seems like a bigger caliber would be more worthwhile.
-
(http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h113/rcmtdriver/IMG_0390-1_zps4a29ab40.jpg)
Wanted to shoot but didn't want to pay a lot for ammo so went with 7.62X39. Looked at ak47's and they all looked alike and dated. Wanted something different and a little unique. Found the mini30 and a Sparta stock. Got a bunch of 30 and 20 round mags for it. I usually load mags the night before going to the range so I can give everything a good wipe down of excess oil and make sure everything will function the right way before driving south for a few hours so I can shoot a good distance. Keeps me from having to load repeatedly by having multi magazines and also if I have a problem with one I can use it for spare parts and still wont ruin a shooting day that took a while to drive to.
Sweet Mini 30. That would be a nice hog rifle no doubt.
-
The main problem here in my opinion goes wider than gun restriction :old:
Once these pressure groups and the powers that be have got their ideas and views installed they do not just go back to where they have come from.
These pressure group moves on to another sector of people's lives and try to install their views on that.
For example in the UK they banned fox hunting, these pressure group are now trying to ban fishing because that's cruel as well.
These groups and select powers that be wish and do instilled their benevolent views on me regardless of my own views.
I don't give a cuss about foxes or fox hunting, you can still shoot them by the way, chasing them with hounds seems a better sporting chance for the fox in my opinion.
I know one thing these self serving liberal elites will have sore eyes looking for my money when my time comes, I am going to spend it all on mucky chicks :old:
-
Until you have felt what it is like to actually go through 100 rounds you just cant understand why its cool unless you just accept that it is. I have been to the gun range many times with machineguns and with assault rifles and long guns too and not one of them has ever tried to kill me. I did have a .30-06 dud round that just barely spit the bullet out of the barrel when it was fired but I dont think that qualifies.
Just for Ink:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiZgSXfN-BA
-
The OPs question is simple. Why do we need multile 30 RD mags? To answer this question you have to look at the wording of the second admedment. "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." We as Americans have the unique right to form a army used to fight against a hypothetical tyrannical government. To become a well regulated militia, you first need to become regular with your weapon. This includes types of training that become next to impossible with lowcap mags. We have the right to own weapons of war because without them we wouldn't be the free country we are today.
I hope that clears it up a little - SunFan
-
Personally, I'm not panicing. I don't believe the government is "going to come after me" and I'm not a Doomsday Prepper. I can do just fine hunting and defending myself with the guns I have. If semi-autos are outlawed it will only affect 1 pistol I own and I can replace that easily. Nobody needs a semi-automatic gun with a 30 round magazine unless they are in the military. Anyone else that thinks they do are certifiably nuts.
-
The OPs question is simple. Why do we need multile 30 RD mags? To answer this question you have to look at the wording of the second admedment. "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." We as Americans have the unique right to form a army used to fight against a hypothetical tyrannical government. To become a well regulated militia, you first need to become regular with your weapon. This includes types of training that become next to impossible with lowcap mags. We have the right to own weapons of war because without them we wouldn't be the free country we are today.
I hope that clears it up a little - SunFan
I know someone that went to the trouble of reading the militia's orders for the WOI. In doing so they read that each member had to have enough powder and ball for at least six volleys and suggested that no one be allowed more than that today. hehe
-
Going to the pawn shop today and stock up . All tho I have boxes and boxes full of ammo but never know .
-
The OPs question is simple. Why do we need multile 30 RD mags? To answer this question you have to look at the wording of the second admedment. "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." We as Americans have the unique right to form a army used to fight against a hypothetical tyrannical government. To become a well regulated militia, you first need to become regular with your weapon. This includes types of training that become next to impossible with lowcap mags. We have the right to own weapons of war because without them we wouldn't be the free country we are today.
I hope that clears it up a little - SunFan
See what I am saying? Even after a blatant warning, people cannot stop themselves. By the way, propagating these posts is no less of an infraction. Why is it I have to say these things?
-
Until you have felt what it is like to actually go through 100 rounds you just cant understand why its cool unless you just accept that it is. I have been to the gun range many times with machineguns and with assault rifles and long guns too and not one of them has ever tried to kill me. I did have a .30-06 dud round that just barely spit the bullet out of the barrel when it was fired but I dont think that qualifies.
Just for Ink:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiZgSXfN-BA
just saw this.....FPS is funny as heck.......that is a badass shotgun.....but then I saw the sword :rock
-
....., but just for my own wonder , why do people need multiple clips (not a couple) I mean like 6 or 7 or 10....?
....
First off, they are called Magazines..... Not Clips!.....
Second, those in the know will buy more than one or two Magazines since they will go bad over time, wear and tear from reloads, dropping them, denting them, etc.
:aok
-
Well y'know, I'm an infantry soldier. I've fired machineguns, mortars, heavy anti-tank weapons, pistols, most types of assault rifles, sniper rifles, grenade launchers - pretty much if you can lift it by yourself, I've pulled the trigger on it. I'm a qualified marksman, qualified CQB, and was provincial champion as a teenager. So I'm pretty comfortable with weapons.
I still vividly recall the first time I went down to the gun show to buy something to target shoot with. I got a beautiful 1919 Mauser made by Carl Gustav, mint condition. It was a true work of craftmanship, they simply don't make them like that anymore. Every single part had the serial number and the Carl Gustav crown stamped on it, by hand, to signify that it had passed Carl Gustav standards. I mean, the sight slider had the serial number and crown. The little lever that releases the sight slider had the serial number and crown, the firing pin, the sling attachments, even the screws had the crown (they were too small for the serial number). It was beautifully accurate too. I once bet a friend I could hit a paintball at 100 metres, and won. I loved it. So again, I'm pretty comfortable with weapons.
And yet - I also still vividly recall looking at some of the people at that gun show, looking at the stuff they were buying, up to and including belt fed machine-guns. (And this is Canada we're talking about. Despite what you may have heard, gun laws here are no obstacle to owning whatever firepower happens to turn you on). I saw a guy showing off photos of his high-tech arsenal the way most guys show off pictures of their kids. "This thing is better than porno," he said, referring to one of the eight (yes, eight) hunting knives he had strapped to himself at the time.
Why did he want this stuff? I dunno why, but as he was just about the weasliest, greasiest, ineffectual wannabe I've seen in my life, even before he pulled out his slide-show, so I'd guess some form of compensation for his total lack of effective masculinity was a key factor. I'd have handed my beautiful Mauser over to be melted down in an instant if it meant this guy had to hand his stuff over too. I would be totally unsurprised to read in the news one morning that he'd taken out twenty random innocents in his last pathetic attempt to get noticed. Or that he'd been caught molesting little girls in the playground. Or... well, pretty much anything. He was seriously creepy.
Of course Canada hasn't had a school-shooting incident in twenty years, so presumably he's still down in his mom's basement, masturbating over the latest issue of Soldier of Fortune and harming no-one, yet another upstanding example of the responsible gun owner. I've met a few others like him since then, and none of them have gone postal either. That doesn't make me comfy with the knowledge that they're out there oiling their glocks. Not one bit.
I'm not here to weigh in on the US gun control issue on either side - it's not my nation. I don't have a way to prevent the next school shooting. I do know some people want weapons for the wrong reasons.
-
My answer to the OP's question.
They were fun to shoot in the army, they are fun to shoot, now.
Reloading magazines at the range is about as fun as watching paint dry. I go there to shoot, not reload magazines.
That is really all the explanation that I should have to give.
-
Sweet Mini 30. That would be a nice hog rifle no doubt.
One of thes days I do want to take it a few more states south and go on a hog hunt. Just not the kind of hunt that the hog buys breakfast the next morning. :x :bolt:
-
With all due respect to Skuzzy, sunfan’s post was far from the most political post in this thread; I see it as an honest answer to RedTop’s original line of inquiry; although RedTop was primarily asking about multiple clips, he implicitly asked, “why the AR?” I happen to concur on sunfan’s reading of the Constitution, but I digress. To answer, in my most apolitical fashion, RedTops specific questions…
The AR as a home defense weapon –
There are, in my opinion, better choices, but who am I to say? I’d think a pump-action shotgun or pistol would be a better choice, but it comes down to what you’re comfortable with. Regardless, if you keep a magazine-fed weapon of any kind for home defense, it needs to have at least one magazine filled (most proponents of “firearms for home defense” would recommend at least two) and ready for use at all times (no time to load a mag if someone’s breaking in the door). However, keeping a magazine filled for extended periods of time will cause undue stress on the spring; this could result in a higher risk of failure to feed when your life might depend on it. So, the idea is to rotate them periodically, unloading the one(s) not kept ready for use. In my opinion, more is better when it comes to the magazine capacity for your home defense weapon, within reason: you can buy 100-round AR magazines, but they tend to be less reliable than the 10, 20, or even 30 round magazines. Personally, I’d rather have multiple but very reliable 10-round magazines than a 100-round mag that’s likely to miss-feed in a crisis.
The AR for hunting –
The AR comes in both .223 and .308, with both long and short barrels, so depending on what you’re hunting, both variants are viable for hunting. However, the main thrust of RedTop’s questions are in regards to multiple, high-capacity (i.e. +10 rounds) magazines, I’d have to say these are not optimal for hunting. You’re rarely going to need or get more than one shot at a time. Plus, they add excess weight (might not seem like much on the hike in, but when you’re hiking back out with 50-60 lbs of meat on your back, that extra couple pounds of mag and ammo can really dig into the shoulders). But again, that’s the hunter’s choice (and should be).
At the range –
At the range I frequent, you’re not allowed to handle weapons or magazines during cease-fires, and I wouldn’t want to waste live-fire time on reloading. So, having multiple magazines makes sense. How many rounds, and at what cost? The answer? As many as I want, and can afford, of course. The .223 is, next to the .22LR and 7.62x39 (in that order) is the cheapest rifle ammo out there. I’ve fired all three. The .22LR loses energy (and thus, accuracy) at relatively short range; the 7.62 is a bit punishing on the shoulder after a while, and your stock AK-47 is not particularly accurate. You can shoot the .223 all day without fatigue, and most are pretty accurate at 100 yds.
That’s my take on it. I apologize to Skuzzy in advance if anything I’ve said crosses his line.
-
With all due respect to Skuzzy, sunfan’s post was far from the most political post in this thread; I see it as an honest answer to RedTop’s original line of inquiry; although RedTop was primarily asking about multiple clips, he implicitly asked, “why the AR?” I happen to concur on sunfan’s reading of the Constitution, but I digress. To answer, in my most apolitical fashion, RedTops specific questions…<snip>
Sigh. It was an example. Honest or not, it was against the forum posting rules. The rules do not include, "It is okay to violate the rules if you are honest" clause. You also violated rule #5.
It is not "my line". It is the forum posting rules one should be concerned with.
-
Because this kind of stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u-P0c8HJf8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcNajSEwmx8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29evY77S13M
Is fun. :D
And, yes. Bump-Fire stocks are perfectly legal.
-
I'm a card toting member of the NRA...and not trying to pass judgment , but just for my own wonder , why do people need multiple clips (not a couple) I mean like 6 or 7 or 10....?
If the AR is for home defense , isn't there a better choice out there to defend your castle?
If it's for hunting , are you shooting a HERD all at once? Or limiting out in 10 minutes? and if so what's left to eat after the massacre?
If it's for fun to just take to the range and blow off a buncha rounds , what is the cost of that? How many rounds do people shoot?
I been hunting alot of my life....I own guns....one for home invasion issues and the others for hunting....An AR15 to hunt with might be all well and good...I have a 223 that I hunt with some....but pulling the trigger more than once hasn't really presented itself to me in all my years of hunting deer...If I missed the deer was usually gone so fast that spraying and prayinig wouldn't be a good idea.
Personally, I think its a good idea to have a weapon that you can essentially turn into your personal battle-rifle, incase something goes down. Not for protection against "de guvmint :noid", but primarily incase some calamity happens that causes looting and what not. That way, you can fight your way out of the trouble if you absolutely have to.
-
Personally, I think its a good idea to have a weapon that you can essentially turn into your personal battle-rifle, incase something goes down. Not for protection against "de guvmint :noid", but primarily incase some calamity happens that causes looting and what not. That way, you can fight your way out of the trouble if you absolutely have to.
I really do not subscribe to any particular doomsday scenarios, but I have always believed that civil unrest from some type of disaster or another is a very real situation that could arise.
Leave a large number of people without power, fuel or other resources and folks start to lose their minds and civility...
-
Sigh. It was an example. Honest or not, it was against the forum posting rules. The rules do not include, "It is okay to violate the rules if you are honest" clause. You also violated rule #5.
It is not "my line". It is the forum posting rules one should be concerned with.
Peace, Skuzzy. It was not my intention to push the boundaries or otherwise violate the forum rules. My apologies, if I caused offense.
-
I really do not subscribe to any particular doomsday scenarios, but I have always believed that civil unrest from some type of disaster or another is a very real situation that could arise.
Leave a large number of people without power, fuel or other resources and folks start to lose their minds and civility...
"Human beings turn feral in less than 24hr's...." is a common quote to that very situation Von, and I agree.
-
Well , the pawn shop in town was sold out of all most all there hand gun's . Had a few junk gun's left and that was it and every one was buying handgun ammo like mad . I had to stand in line and after 30 years of buying from them that was the first time I had to wait .
-
Well y'know, I'm an infantry soldier. I've fired machineguns, mortars, heavy anti-tank weapons, pistols, most types of assault rifles, sniper rifles, grenade launchers - pretty much if you can lift it by yourself, I've pulled the trigger on it. I'm a qualified marksman, qualified CQB, and was provincial champion as a teenager. So I'm pretty comfortable with weapons.
I still vividly recall the first time I went down to the gun show to buy something to target shoot with. I got a beautiful 1919 Mauser made by Carl Gustav, mint condition. It was a true work of craftmanship, they simply don't make them like that anymore. Every single part had the serial number and the Carl Gustav crown stamped on it, by hand, to signify that it had passed Carl Gustav standards. I mean, the sight slider had the serial number and crown. The little lever that releases the sight slider had the serial number and crown, the firing pin, the sling attachments, even the screws had the crown (they were too small for the serial number). It was beautifully accurate too. I once bet a friend I could hit a paintball at 100 metres, and won. I loved it. So again, I'm pretty comfortable with weapons.
And yet - I also still vividly recall looking at some of the people at that gun show, looking at the stuff they were buying, up to and including belt fed machine-guns. (And this is Canada we're talking about. Despite what you may have heard, gun laws here are no obstacle to owning whatever firepower happens to turn you on). I saw a guy showing off photos of his high-tech arsenal the way most guys show off pictures of their kids. "This thing is better than porno," he said, referring to one of the eight (yes, eight) hunting knives he had strapped to himself at the time.
Why did he want this stuff? I dunno why, but as he was just about the weasliest, greasiest, ineffectual wannabe I've seen in my life, even before he pulled out his slide-show, so I'd guess some form of compensation for his total lack of effective masculinity was a key factor. I'd have handed my beautiful Mauser over to be melted down in an instant if it meant this guy had to hand his stuff over too. I would be totally unsurprised to read in the news one morning that he'd taken out twenty random innocents in his last pathetic attempt to get noticed. Or that he'd been caught molesting little girls in the playground. Or... well, pretty much anything. He was seriously creepy.
Of course Canada hasn't had a school-shooting incident in twenty years, so presumably he's still down in his mom's basement, masturbating over the latest issue of Soldier of Fortune and harming no-one, yet another upstanding example of the responsible gun owner. I've met a few others like him since then, and none of them have gone postal either. That doesn't make me comfy with the knowledge that they're out there oiling their glocks. Not one bit.
I'm not here to weigh in on the US gun control issue on either side - it's not my nation. I don't have a way to prevent the next school shooting. I do know some people want weapons for the wrong reasons.
You and I sir, are not only from the same Nation, but of the same mind. I've worked in firearms training since I was in my teens, and I've always held to the joke (it's almost not a joke any longer) that 50 percent of the Canadians I see using firearms are either completely unaware of how unsafe and unskilled they are, OR complete goofballs like the guy in your story, who live in moms basement with their SKS and other crappy Chinese made stuff available here with goofy folding stocks and fifty dollar red dot sights, and pride themselves on how switched on they are. Trying to balance business and vetting potentially "goofball" types from the training courses we offered at SigArms Academy isn't always easy. There are background checks done for certain courses, and some of them you can only take if you are military/police, or in some cases private security after being checked out.
You mentioned you competed in shooting as a kid - in what discipline? I was c-carded for the junior olympics shooting team for trap shooting back in the 80's when I was young, it was the first serious shooting training I received and participated in, and then I trained with Biathlon Alberta as well. Were you by chance into either of those?
Also, I agree with VonMessa 100%. I know everyone likes to break out the "tin foil hat" accusations whenever anyone talks about some sort of calamity, but I've worked in Africa, the Mid-east, and visited the Balkans after the troubles there, and worked with many guys who were present in Sarajevo during the first sieges there. I bet a year or two in any of these countries, before they were having to defend their family, drinking water, and food with rifles they may have made jokes about paranoid people too. It can't be overstated that when all of a sudden ATM cards don't work, the power is off, and the shelves are cleaned out at every store, how quickly people turn to thievery and banditry in order to secure the supplies they need in order to survive. Personally, I'd prefer to be prepared, and that requires having multiple high capacity magazines for every firearm you intend to use. The reasons given for ease of range use in terms of pre loading, as well as training/stoppage drills and the like are all extremely valid as well, but as anyone on this BBS who has witnessed or participated in armed conflict, having ready to hand magazines in quantity is just a given. Of course, you can debate for hours on the number, be it 4, 6, 8, 16, whatever - but the fact that more then 2 or 3 is required is generally agreed upon among armed professionals, at least with the primary rifle. Even a secondary weapon like a pistol, at least 2 extra high capacity magazines for emergency/tac/whatever reloads and malfunction drills are required. So, as to the OP question, the Ar-15 is primarily a close to mid range defensive tool, a very popular and effective one, and in order for it to be employed properly in a situation where one may face multiple armed threats at various ranges in various cover, with who knows what for armor and protection, a large amount of ammunition carried in high capacity magazines is absolutely essential.
This certainly isn't some new wave in the firearms world either. Look at how many extra magazines Bonnie and Clyde were found with, just for the Browning BAR semi auto rifles they had, a weapon of similar capability to the "Ar15", semi auto and magazine fed, and popular in the civilian world of that day. Yes they were criminals, but it doesn't change the fact that they were expecting to be in combat with their firearms, and were prepared accordingly for it.
-
Peace, Skuzzy. It was not my intention to push the boundaries or otherwise violate the forum rules. My apologies, if I caused offense.
I do not get offended, ever. At times I do get frustrated, but never offended. No apology needed.
-
23 guns went out the door today at my store, 16 of them being AR-style weapons.
For hunting, the only reason to get a .223/5.56 would be for small game...coyote...varmint etc. We have some ARs in .308, those sold too.
See, I don't get the logic within the last couple of years and with the .223 AR-15s popularity in the private/civi market... it has to be for "style" - either you like it or fear not being able to get it at some point in the future... now a .308 or 7.62, that I can actualy USE for hunting or defense AND make some nice holes in cans/targets all day without breaking the bank.
This is an interesting discussion, I hope so long as people keep the strength and restraint up it won't get locked.
A lot here seem to have a first-hand, I'm more curious about handgun sales as a whole this week - are they up, who's buying, are they looking for information/education and/or purely aquirement?
-
It's next to impossible to address this question without violating forum rules. A big :salute to Skuzzy for even allowing us to try.
Aside from those unmentionable reasons, the most obvious and practical is more trigger time when you're actually at the range. Training with, handling, and shooting your weapon is the only way to become proficient - and proficiency is the only way to be as safe as you can be said weapon.
-
Personally, I'm not panicing. I don't believe the government is "going to come after me" and I'm not a Doomsday Prepper. I can do just fine hunting and defending myself with the guns I have. If semi-autos are outlawed it will only affect 1 pistol I own and I can replace that easily. Nobody needs a semi-automatic gun with a 30 round magazine unless they are in the military. Anyone else that thinks they do are certifiably nuts.
May want to steal clear of me. I'm nine kinds of crazy.
-
Nobody needs a semi-automatic gun with a 30 round magazine unless they are in the military. Anyone else that thinks they do are certifiably nuts.
I encourage you to explore what a "need" is before passing judgement on the mental status of people you've never met. :aok
-
The AR as a home defense weapon –
There are, in my opinion, better choices, but who am I to say? I’d think a pump-action shotgun or pistol would be a better choice, but it comes down to what you’re comfortable with.
The AR is a terrible home defense weapon. Your instincts to go with a shotgun or pistol are closer to what people need. In the country where I live anything goes because a two-mile shot is not likely to hit anyone. Neighborhood living and especially apartment living is a place where AR defense weapons should be illegal and especially AK defense weapons and I think you can pick up on why. In defending your home in those environments the high power rounds will punch right through walls and kill your neighbors. The shotgun is a much better choice.
-
See, I don't get the logic within the last couple of years and with the .223 AR-15s popularity in the private/civi market... it has to be for "style" - either you like it or fear not being able to get it at some point in the future... now a .308 or 7.62, that I can actualy USE for hunting or defense AND make some nice holes in cans/targets all day without breaking the bank.
The AR-15 is often associated with high accuracy for a semi-auto, and pretty high accuracy period, isn't it? If I had to guess, its mostly ignorant people thinking that a cheap-built AR style rifle will be more accurate than a well-made rifle of some other type, just because its AR style.
-
The AR is a terrible home defense weapon. Your instincts to go with a shotgun or pistol are closer to what people need. In the country where I live anything goes because a two-mile shot is not likely to hit anyone. Neighborhood living and especially apartment living is a place where AR defense weapons should be illegal and especially AK defense weapons and I think you can pick up on why. In defending your home in those environments the high power rounds will punch right through walls and kill your neighbors. The shotgun is a much better choice.
Agreed, Chalenge. Frangible rounds are one way to mitigate that of course. I don't have any experience with them, but understand what they are and are supposed to do. I don't know if something like drywall would stop them (i.e. prevent next-room-over collateral injury/death), but would I think avoid killing anyone accidentally in the house next door or across the street.
-
I just don't like any long gun for home defense. Part of that is because I have been rather heavily trained in handgun usage both by the Army and the PD I worked at. Long guns are great, don't get me wrong, I just don't like them for real close quarters and enclosed spaces.
I'd like an AR in either 5.56 as well as 308 just to be able to shoot them. I had a chance to fire more than a couple M16's as well as other items like the old M3 and M3A1 grease gun. It was still issue for tanks way back when. I like a heavier round for most things but with the right bullet a 5.56 would be OK for most hog hunting. The 308 may be a tad overkill but it gets the job done in my experience.
I like shooting a variety of things from wheel guns to semi's to single shots and even black powder. They each have their good points and bad points. To me it's a challenge to shoot well with each and I look to make the smallest group possible when I can.
I made my living with a gun and had to depend on one more than once. I do not want to be without the option, especially now that I'm older and less able to go hand to hand like I used to.
-
Interesting replies folks...thanks for the input...Just curious as to peoples thoughts....
Hey!!! Ya'll have a great and Merry Christmas....
Redtop
-
Frangible ammo isn't all it is cracked up to be in terms of not penetrating barriers that it is suppose to break up upon striking. My business in Canada was the national distributor for the largest manufacturer of "Frangible" ammo, and I've tested it in a lot of different ways. Example, the 75 gr 9mm ++P ammo, the bullet that was "frangible" would in fact penetrate a lot of soft stuff like drywall and even wood framing etc easily, and would blow through a cheap level 2 or 2a vest, both panels. It would break up on REALLY hard stuff, but I wouldn't trust it indoors to perform as advertised, and I certainly wouldn't trust the rifle calibers like .223/5.56 indoors. The Air Marshals aren't using it, if that gives you any indications of how well it works, they are using another type of load/bullet. I can talk more about this if you're interested by PM, with some videos and pics as well.
What others have said here is sound, a handgun or shotgun, preferably with lower velocity rounds, or in the case of the shotgun, something NOT heavy buckshot or slug is the best solution inside the home or even indoors at other locations. I prefer teaching the shotgun, as it is a better weapon in terms of gross motor skill functions, and ease of training, as the handgun is a little harder to become really proficient with due to the loss of fine motor skills during a gun fight. It is also cheaper, and more lethal, and being shoulder supported will get more hits in a fight than a pistol with an average skilled shooter. It is also versatile, buy combat loading slugs or other rounds, you can have all the penetrating power you will likely ever need if it is required quickly if your "indoor" load isn't sufficient for a threat, or a situation with a threat changing.
Off topic: Maverick, when you were in Armor, did you ever have occasion to see or fire those little M16 shorty things that were in the early Bradleys? The were full auto only short barrel no stock things in a ball swivel mount as I recall, and used to spraying infantry off of wingman Bradleys and the like I think. Those always interested me, but you don't see them anymore.
-
The OPs question is simple. Why do we need multile 30 RD mags? To answer this question you have to look at the wording of the second admedment. "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." We as Americans have the unique right to form a army used to fight against a hypothetical tyrannical government. To become a well regulated militia, you first need to become regular with your weapon. This includes types of training that become next to impossible with lowcap mags. We have the right to own weapons of war because without them we wouldn't be the free country we are today.
I hope that clears it up a little - SunFan
Suns that's a stretch. How the well regulated militia is organized and trained is also included. It has nothing to do with individuals training themselves. It has everything to do with states training their militia with a federally designed program so that in emergency the country can call on the state militias if needed.
You could better argue that the state should provide the gun to those willing to serve the state militia and submit to state provided regulation and training.
-
I do not think a new "AWB" will take effect. The first one was a farce and it did nothing. The worst thing about the '94 to '04 "Assault Weapons Ban" was the inability to buy magazines of more than 10 rounds. We could still buy Ar15's, AK variants, etc, but certain cosmetic features were not allowed. Basically, the US public could buy an AR15 but it could not have a telescoping stock or a detachable muzzle device of any sort (the "flash suppressor").
I guess I'm lucky in the fact that I have all the rifles I want (or "need"), all the high capacity semi-auto pistols I want (or need), and all the high capacity magazines I need (or want), that I do not have to rush out and buy in this panic. I was just in Cabelas in Mitchell, SD, today and they have sold completely out of AR15's and any other "fun gun". Oh, and not a high capacity AR15 magazine was found, either. One of the clerks told me that management had doubled and tripled the prices on certain items and they still sold out.
A person could buy new and still in the wrap USGI 30rd magazines for the M4/AR15 2 weeks ago for about $9 shipped per mag. Now, they are going for $30-40 a mag shipped. Amazing. I'll admit that I did buy an AR15 receiver online yesterday for $80, but the vendor is now sold out. I only did so because the price had not been jacked up just yet, most websites are selling AR15 receivers for near $300 now.
Cabela's was out of rifles and hi-cap rifle magazines, and had very few hi-cap pistol mags left on the shelves. Oh, the ammo... the already over inflated ammo was almost gone too. When 5.56 NATO ammo is almost 50 cents a round you know someone is making a boat load of profit somewhere. They've just jacked up the price again thanks to the panic buying. It was over 60 cents a round. Thankfully I reload and can do 5.56 NATO for less than 18 cents a round.
I cant wait for the panic to settle down. Wowza. :bhead
-
I have them because they are fun to shoot, great for hunting, great for home defense, and the best for competition shooting. I have four ar15s (one legion and three s&w m&ps) and 2 of the Draco ak47s :) :salute
-
Suns that's a stretch. How the well regulated militia is organized and trained is also included. It has nothing to do with individuals training themselves. It has everything to do with states training their militia with a federally designed program so that in emergency the country can call on the state militias if needed.
You could better argue that the state should provide the gun to those willing to serve the state militia and submit to state provided regulation and training.
Guppy, you are by far the most honest person here.
If the AR owners here are going to be honest, and I'm one of them, they'll tell you that part of it fills that little kid GI Joe fantasy we all had. They look cool and they are fun to shoot. They serve no other purpose.
And there is no shame in it either...
:salute
-
every gun store is selling out everywhere in America....even in Connecticut.........
I used to have 2...... I believe they were Romanian made Mac 90's....same thing as the AK47 7.62 I had 8 30 round mags and 2 75 rd drums...at the same time I had a Chinese SKS and a pistol on pistol grip pump shotgun with the extended tube and heat shield.......plus a 9 mm P Beretta(dont remember who made the 9 or shotgun)
man I tell ya it was a blast going through all those mags and the drums.....
thats when I didn't have kids and didn't care about anything, I was not "allowed" to own them due to something I did at 17 yrs old.....but I still had them.......I did get rid of all the firearms once the wife and I started having kids, not because I didn't want to raise my kids around them, I didn't want loose my kids due to having them.
they are fun.....but also very serious.....
oh and whoever said "Chinese crap" I liked my SKS quite a bit...very good gun.....mine was extremely accurate.
-
I do not think a new "AWB" will take effect. The first one was a farce and it did nothing. The worst thing about the '94 to '04 "Assault Weapons Ban" was the inability to buy magazines of more than 10 rounds. We could still buy Ar15's, AK variants, etc, but certain cosmetic features were not allowed. Basically, the US public could buy an AR15 but it could not have a telescoping stock or a detachable muzzle device of any sort (the "flash suppressor").
I guess I'm lucky in the fact that I have all the rifles I want (or "need"), all the high capacity semi-auto pistols I want (or need), and all the high capacity magazines I need (or want), that I do not have to rush out and buy in this panic. I was just in Cabelas in Mitchell, SD, today and they have sold completely out of AR15's and any other "fun gun". Oh, and not a high capacity AR15 magazine was found, either. One of the clerks told me that management had doubled and tripled the prices on certain items and they still sold out.
A person could buy new and still in the wrap USGI 30rd magazines for the M4/AR15 2 weeks ago for about $9 shipped per mag. Now, they are going for $30-40 a mag shipped. Amazing. I'll admit that I did buy an AR15 receiver online yesterday for $80, but the vendor is now sold out. I only did so because the price had not been jacked up just yet, most websites are selling AR15 receivers for near $300 now.
Cabela's was out of rifles and hi-cap rifle magazines, and had very few hi-cap pistol mags left on the shelves. Oh, the ammo... the already over inflated ammo was almost gone too. When 5.56 NATO ammo is almost 50 cents a round you know someone is making a boat load of profit somewhere. They've just jacked up the price again thanks to the panic buying. It was over 60 cents a round. Thankfully I reload and can do 5.56 NATO for less than 18 cents a round.
I cant wait for the panic to settle down. Wowza. :bhead
Ironic isn't it that the only ones who are really going to benefit from this are the gun makers. Panic buying, prices going through the roof etc. Capitalism at its best and worst I guess.
As for the first 'ban'. You are right. It was purely window dressing. You could buy used 30 round mags during the ban no problem. They just weren't producing new ones for sale.
Photo of the two ARs I had. I sold the bottom one but still have the top. Top is a 'Ban' gun made during that time. No flash suppressor, no bayonet lug, and the stock is pinned so it won't telescope. That made it not an assault rifle.
Bottom one has a flash suppressor, bayonet lug and telescoping stock. That made it an assault rifle.
Both shoot the same round at the same rate. Both handle 30 round magazines. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. That was the difference. And you could still buy 'pre-ban' rifles that were already in circulation. In the end, as I said the folks who benefited most were the guys selling and making the guns. Prices for everything went up. The anti-gun folks could claim they'd gotten something done, and the NRA could point to it and say 'they're coming after your guns!" when in fact neither group was telling the truth.
In the end my guess is they'll reinstate the 'ban' and both sides will get the same thing they got last time with no one really benefiting beyond those selling the guns
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/IMG_1787-1.jpg)
This was my son' ban gun. He wanted an M4 clone. Sure looks the part doesn't it. You'd have to try and close the stock or look at the mock 'suppressor' to see the difference.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Beaufighters/DrewM4Clone.jpg)
-
A lot of conversation about this at work today. Just as an FYI, I own paintball guns and nerf guns, but I don't own any actual guns, and don't feel the need to either. At work people were saying its like an investment. They figure there's a good chance things will soon be outlawed. Things like the AR-15 itself, and large magazines. So those 30-round AR-15 mags, even if you pay a jacked-up price now, will be worth far more than that in 10 years after they've been outlawed for 9 years.
Anyways, that was the reasoning I heard.
Makes me wish I was selling something everyone though was going to be banned.
-
If you really want to be mad at anything, it's those taking advantage of the incident to raise prices on AR-15s.
If you really want one, you can get one. It might take a bit longer and cost you more, but you'll always be able to get an AR15. I paid 400 bucks in 1980 for my first. Sold it when I got married. Still regret that....Bought one again when my son was old enough. He saved his money and I bought one for me. Think we spent about 1000 bucks each at that point. Both were ban guns. Pre-ban guns were going for 1500 or more then. The same exact gun I'd paid 400 for in 1980 was a minimum 1500 then. prices fell off when the 'ban' ended and I bought one more for 800. That was about 2006. Now a bare bones AR is going for 1200 again and more. Prices jumped 300 bucks from Friday to Tuesday.
-
every gun store is selling out everywhere in America....even in Connecticut.........
I used to have 2...... I believe they were Romanian made Mac 90's....same thing as the AK47 7.62 I had 8 30 round mags and 2 75 rd drums...at the same time I had a Chinese SKS and a pistol on pistol grip pump shotgun with the extended tube and heat shield.......plus a 9 mm P Beretta(dont remember who made the 9 or shotgun)
man I tell ya it was a blast going through all those mags and the drums.....
thats when I didn't have kids and didn't care about anything, I was not "allowed" to own them due to something I did at 17 yrs old.....but I still had them.......I did get rid of all the firearms once the wife and I started having kids, not because I didn't want to raise my kids around them, I didn't want loose my kids due to having them.
they are fun.....but also very serious.....
oh and whoever said "Chinese crap" I liked my SKS quite a bit...very good gun.....mine was extremely accurate.
If your AK variant was Romanian, it was not an "MAK 90". Those were Chinese made by a company called "Norinco", the "MAK 90" was their shelf name for their semi-auto AKM. The BATF-E prohibited the Chinese from importing any more AK variant firearms when by pure luck a boat full of full auto MAK 90's were found off the coast of CA heading for the civilian market. The Chinese didn't make junk AK's as some may suggest, but they did like many others trying to make a profit: they changed some dimensions of a few things so that only Norinco brand mags and parts would fit in an otherwise standardized platform. I used to own an unfired Norinco NHM-91 (heavy barrel AK w/ bi-pod, sort of the SAW variant of the AK's), but sold it for a nice profit. Norinco makes a good product, but they are sort of like HK: they cant standardize jack and they refuse (or cant) be like anyone else.
Regarding your Chinese SKS you used to own, here is an interesting ti-bit: Back in 1992 or 1993 I went to a gun show in Sioux City, Iowa, and a dealer was selling Chinese SKS's. I think her had 3 or 4 of those 35 gallon cardboard barrels full of Chinese SKS's with many of them having the fixed 20rd magazine (yes, 20rd fixed mag not the typical 10rd) and he was selling them for 1 for $90, 2 for $160, or 3 for $225. They all looked like they had been through the Vietnam War and then drug across the ocean floor on their way to the US, but they still worked. A friend of mine bought one and still has it to this day. I waited and bought a pristine Russian SKS for $130 circa 1996. :D
In regards to owning/not owning firearms with kids around, I understand fully both sides of the coin. I have a 10 yo son and a 7 yo girl and guess what, they both know the importance of gun safety. They both know guns are not toys, and they both know to leave a place ASAP if a gun comes out by someone other than an adult. Also, both of my kids know, if need be, to unload most firearms. Ditto for my wife. I have a 900 lb gun safe that has all of my firearms in it (save for 1 locked up next to my bed), and no one has access (the combination) to the firearms in this house other than me, my wife, my father, and a close friend of the family. To me, it is more important to expose children early and teach them the rights and wrongs of firearms, the importance of gun safety, and the responsibility of having a gun in your hands. My kids get a bit edgy when the neighbor kids start pointing their realistic toy guns around at anything and anyone. However, I understand the angle of shielding children as well, although I disagree with it. To each his own.
FWIW, I'm not made at any dealer or person who is selling their "assault" rifles, magazines, etc, for inflated prices. I understand the concept but I hope it is all for naught. I was lucky enough over the years to buy here and there so when the SHTF in CT this past week and the media, the anti's, and other "anointed" people started talking about a new AWB, etc, I didn't have a hint of panic. I have plenty of everything for me and to pass down when the time comes. If it does happen, the value of SKS's are going to skyrocket, too. :lol
Also, someone said that AR15's are good for nothing other than acting out a young boy's GI Joe dream, I beg to differ. I'll forgo the political side of things for obvious reasons, but FWIW I used my full sized Colt AR15 HBAR (heavy barrel) with great effect vs prairie dogs back in the mid 1990's, and I still use it today to hunt coyotes (I call them in, no redneck truck hunting by me). For prairie dogs I would load up the 20rd mags, lay on top of a prairie dog mound, and lay waste to everything inside 200 yards on a consistent basis. I reload ammo and fine tune it to the rifle, and I had the trigger smoothed out by a gunsmith. I could keep up with most bolt guns. So good for nothing??? Nah, I'll argue against that all day long. :aok
As most of us know, an "assault rifle" is select fire meaning it can select semi-auto or full auto/burst. In order to have a true assault rifle in the US, first you have to live in a State that allows them. Second, you must go through a major back ground check including the reach around from Fat Bastard. Thirdly, pay a major tax to own one and the BATF-E knows you have it, too. Oh, did I mention the actual cost of buying one usually reaches 5 digits? The only difference between an AR15, Browning BAR (hunting rifle, not the WWII BAR squad support MG), and a Ruger Mini-14, is the appearance. That is it. Hopefully, people will come to terms with that real quickly.
-
That was me Smokinloon. I said it in regards to the guys with 16 inch barrel ARs. I'm an AR owner. Just saying it like it is. They look cool, sound cool, and are fun to shoot. They serve no great purpose though. I'm any thing but anti AR-15s. I've owned a number of them and still do.
The real shooters get the full length guns with barrels meant for accuracy. They don't need 30 round or Beta C mags for hunting prairie dogs
I bet you didn't add all kinds of things to your 20 inch AR to make it more ready for you to 'go tactical' :)
-
If your AK variant was Romanian, it was not an "MAK 90". Those were Chinese made by a company called "Norinco", the "MAK 90" was their shelf name for their semi-auto AKM. The BATF-E prohibited the Chinese from importing any more AK variant firearms when by pure luck a boat full of full auto MAK 90's were found off the coast of CA heading for the civilian market. The Chinese didn't make junk AK's as some may suggest, but they did like many others trying to make a profit: they changed some dimensions of a few things so that only Norinco brand mags and parts would fit in an otherwise standardized platform. I used to own an unfired Norinco NHM-91 (heavy barrel AK w/ bi-pod, sort of the SAW variant of the AK's), but sold it for a nice profit. Norinco makes a good product, but they are sort of like HK: they cant standardize jack and they refuse (or cant) be like anyone else.
Regarding your Chinese SKS you used to own, here is an interesting ti-bit: Back in 1992 or 1993 I went to a gun show in Sioux City, Iowa, and a dealer was selling Chinese SKS's. I think her had 3 or 4 of those 35 gallon cardboard barrels full of Chinese SKS's with many of them having the fixed 20rd magazine (yes, 20rd fixed mag not the typical 10rd) and he was selling them for 1 for $90, 2 for $160, or 3 for $225. They all looked like they had been through the Vietnam War and then drug across the ocean floor on their way to the US, but they still worked. A friend of mine bought one and still has it to this day. I waited and bought a pristine Russian SKS for $130 circa 1996. :D
In regards to owning/not owning firearms with kids around, I understand fully both sides of the coin. I have a 10 yo son and a 7 yo girl and guess what, they both know the importance of gun safety. They both know guns are not toys, and they both know to leave a place ASAP if a gun comes out by someone other than an adult. Also, both of my kids know, if need be, to unload most firearms. Ditto for my wife. I have a 900 lb gun safe that has all of my firearms in it (save for 1 locked up next to my bed), and no one has access (the combination) to the firearms in this house other than me, my wife, my father, and a close friend of the family. To me, it is more important to expose children early and teach them the rights and wrongs of firearms, the importance of gun safety, and the responsibility of having a gun in your hands. My kids get a bit edgy when the neighbor kids start pointing their realistic toy guns around at anything and anyone. However, I understand the angle of shielding children as well, although I disagree with it. To each his own.
FWIW, I'm not made at any dealer or person who is selling their "assault" rifles, magazines, etc, for inflated prices. I understand the concept but I hope it is all for naught. I was lucky enough over the years to buy here and there so when the SHTF in CT this past week and the media, the anti's, and other "anointed" people started talking about a new AWB, etc, I didn't have a hint of panic. I have plenty of everything for me and to pass down when the time comes. If it does happen, the value of SKS's are going to skyrocket, too. :lol
Also, someone said that AR15's are good for nothing other than acting out a young boy's GI Joe dream, I beg to differ. I'll forgo the political side of things for obvious reasons, but FWIW I used my full sized Colt AR15 HBAR (heavy barrel) with great effect vs prairie dogs back in the mid 1990's, and I still use it today to hunt coyotes (I call them in, no redneck truck hunting by me). For prairie dogs I would load up the 20rd mags, lay on top of a prairie dog mound, and lay waste to everything inside 200 yards on a consistent basis. I reload ammo and fine tune it to the rifle, and I had the trigger smoothed out by a gunsmith. I could keep up with most bolt guns. So good for nothing??? Nah, I'll argue against that all day long. :aok
As most of us know, an "assault rifle" is select fire meaning it can select semi-auto or full auto/burst. In order to have a true assault rifle in the US, first you have to live in a State that allows them. Second, you must go through a major back ground check including the reach around from Fat Bastard. Thirdly, pay a major tax to own one and the BATF-E knows you have it, too. Oh, did I mention the actual cost of buying one usually reaches 5 digits? The only difference between an AR15, Browning BAR (hunting rifle, not the WWII BAR squad support MG), and a Ruger Mini-14, is the appearance. That is it. Hopefully, people will come to terms with that real quickly.
this was many years ago....I am no gun expert by any means so I could be wrong....I know for sure they were 7.62...were not fully auto....I was told they were "mac 90's" they looked like AK's to me haha...but I thought for sure I saw "made in Romania" (or something along those lines)
and both of those with all mags and drums were givin to me as a gift :D I did a tat for the SKS and shotgun.
and ya as far as kids they most certainly should be taught about guns, especially if in the same house....its keeping them secret where some accidents happen.
-
That was me Smokinloon. I said it in regards to the guys with 16 inch barrel ARs. I'm an AR owner. Just saying it like it is. They look cool, sound cool, and are fun to shoot. They serve no great purpose though. I'm any thing but anti AR-15s. I've owned a number of them and still do.
The real shooters get the full length guns with barrels meant for accuracy. They don't need 30 round or Beta C mags for hunting prairie dogs
I bet you didn't add all kinds of things to your 20 inch AR to make it more ready for you to 'go tactical' :)
Nope. I have not done any of the tacti-coolio BS many guys do to make themselves feel "high speed", not then and not now. For clarification, I sold my first Colt AR15 in 1998 for double what I paid for it back in 1993, then built a carbine (CAR-15) and used that until 2004 when I bought the current pride of the gun safe, my Colt AR15 Model "MT6700". The MT6700 was made in 1998 during the AWB and it did not have the flash suppressor on it and it was a heavy barrel, so when I bought it I sent the upper down to a gunsmith in FL who turned the barrel down to the M16A4 profile and threaded the end of the barrel for a FS. I also bought a ACOG TA31 and mounted that on top, so essentially I have an AR15"A4". That is it, no tacti-coolio BS for me, don't need it. It shoots like a dream and I'm sure I could sell it for double or maybe even triple what I have in to it, but I wont. As far as mags go, I have 40+ USGI/STANAG 30rd mags with 20 of them being new in the wrapper, another 13 USGI 20rd mags, 7 Lancer 20rd mags, and a couple of Colt 8 rd mags. Oh, and I have a single black Pmag I got in another deal. Like I said I did order another receiver for $80 last night ($94 shipped), but I have no idea what I will be doing with it. My Sig 226 and Browning Hi-Power each have 6+ factory hi-caps. Two weeks ago AR15 30rd USGI/STANAG mags could be had for about $9 shipped.... now??? :eek:
-
I have a 900 lb gun safe that has all of my firearms in it (save for 1 locked up next to my bed), and no one has access (the combination) to the firearms in this house other than me, my wife, my father, and a close friend of the family. To me, it is more important to expose children early and teach them the rights and wrongs of firearms, the importance of gun safety, and the responsibility of having a gun in your hands.
So Important!!! IF the mother of the recent shooter had done this, he wouldn't not have had access to the weapons.
As most of us know, an "assault rifle" is select fire meaning it can select semi-auto or full auto/burst. In order to have a true assault rifle in the US, first you have to live in a State that allows them. Second, you must go through a major back ground check including the reach around from Fat Bastard. Thirdly, pay a major tax to own one and the BATF-E knows you have it, too. Oh, did I mention the actual cost of buying one usually reaches 5 digits? The only difference between an AR15, Browning BAR (hunting rifle, not the WWII BAR squad support MG), and a Ruger Mini-14, is the appearance. That is it. Hopefully, people will come to terms with that real quickly.
I was always under the impression that one could easily convert many 'semi-auto' guns to 'auto' (sometimes as simple as filing down the firing pin). Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that one can even own the parts to an automatic weapon as long as it is not assembled. Maybe the gun laws shouldn't be focused on magazine size but on making it more difficult to convert weapons to auto.
-
If your AK variant was Romanian, it was not an "MAK 90". Those were Chinese made by a company called "Norinco", the "MAK 90" was their shelf name for their semi-auto AKM. The BATF-E prohibited the Chinese from importing any more AK variant firearms when by pure luck a boat full of full auto MAK 90's were found off the coast of CA heading for the civilian market. The Chinese didn't make junk AK's as some may suggest, but they did like many others trying to make a profit: they changed some dimensions of a few things so that only Norinco brand mags and parts would fit in an otherwise standardized platform. I used to own an unfired Norinco NHM-91 (heavy barrel AK w/ bi-pod, sort of the SAW variant of the AK's), but sold it for a nice profit. Norinco makes a good product, but they are sort of like HK: they cant standardize jack and they refuse (or cant) be like anyone else.
PolyTech's were also called MAK-90s. Got mine for $175, the guy assumed it was Chinese crap. I still smile thinking about that. :D
-
I was always under the impression that one could easily convert many 'semi-auto' guns to 'auto' (sometimes as simple as filing down the firing pin). Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that one can even own the parts to an automatic weapon as long as it is not assembled. Maybe the gun laws shouldn't be focused on magazine size but on making it more difficult to convert weapons to auto.
Depends on what you think is "easy". You can go turn a few screws in the garage and make your AR or AK a machine gun. You could buy drop in auto sears for ARs for awhile but I thought you had to have a rifle that would accept them or there was quite a bit of gunsmithing involved. And there are laws about full auto weapons. Tons of paperwork with the ATF not to mention full autos are now rich boy toys. Collectors spend tens of thousands of dollars to own them not mention how much it costs for ammo to go play.
-
I guessing you mean?
You can't go turn a few screws in the garage and make your AR or AK a machine gun.
Well, someone could change a gun to full auto and 'fail' to comply with the law. Granted it would be illegal but so are mass shootings. If the parts were not available, then it would not be an option for people who may be inclined to do so. For some reason I vaguely remember there being a gun where it was as simple as filing the firing pin down...hmmm :headscratch:
-
Search 'Bump Fire" some time Ardy. Folks make em shoot that fast without doing anything illegal. Not very accurate but they spray.
This is my late son's AK built on a Polish PKMS kit. It was built during the 'ban'. Absolutely nothing about it is not assault weapon. All the builder had to do was pin the underfolding stock so it wouldn't fold, and add a bead weld on the bayonet lug. AK magazines were and are plentiful. Looks mean doesn't it. The day the ban ended, the pin got taken out and the bead weld knocked off.
As mentioned, not much of a ban but it made some folks feel better.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Beaufighters/PKMS.jpg)
-
I guessing you mean?
Well, someone could change a gun to full auto and 'fail' to comply with the law. Granted it would be illegal but so are mass shootings. If the parts were not available, then it would not be an option for people who may be inclined to do so. For some reason I vaguely remember there being a gun where it was as simple as filing the firing pin down...hmmm :headscratch:
You file down the firing pin and now you have a gun that won't shoot. People so inclined to break the law are going to continue to do so no matter how many laws you make. If someone is hell bent on being bank robber a desires to aquire dynamite and full auto illegal AK to pull it off, guess what he's going to go out and get?
-
It is nearly impossible to convert an AR15 to a full auto rifle. Here is why- since at least 1988 most if not all of the AR15 receivers have been made with a wee bit less milling done to the receiver right where the auto sear would "drop in". Also, the receivers need another hole drilled for the full auto pin to added to the receiver even IF there was room to "drop in" the full auto sear. Having the exact plans, a precision CAD mill, and the chemicals to anodize the receiver is not only very costly but having the knowledge to do that work is mind numbing. So no, it is not easy in the least bit. A person is better off paying the tax and spending $10,000-$20,000 on a registered full auto firearm.
The same goes for the AK variants we see on the market today. A person has to first get the receiver plans, get a mill, find a machinist, get the proper parts, and install them properly. It is no easy task and in many ways the AK's are more finicky when being tinkered with because the timing is even more important for the gas system of an AK to get correct and if the job is done by a shade tree gunsmith the odds of the AK being destroyed increases 10 fold. I'm not a gunsmith but I do know there is a timing issue that is present in the AK's that is not an issue in the AR's.
Either way it is HIGHLY complex and not worth it.
As far as "filing the firing pin down" legend goes, the only thing I am aware of is the old SKS trick and that is something I've seen in person (and it was done not on purpose). First, it has to be a Chinese SKS because all other countries that used the SKS's have "firing pin return springs" in their models. The firing pin in a Chinese SKS can get stuck in the forward position once a groove has been worn in to the pin where it penetrates through the bolt face and in to the chamber. This is cause by thousands and thousands of rounds being fired and the firing pin being of a harder/softer metal than the bolt. The firing pin gets wedged in the forward position. Essentially, the firing pin is always "active" and as soon as the bolt slams home a cartridge in the chamber the round is fired, no trigger pull is needed since the hammer does not need to be dropped. My friend who bought the Chinese SKS back in 92 or 93 has had this happen to him a couple of times, luckily he is prepared and when it fires on full auto there is usually only 4-5 rounds left in the rifle, he just holds on for the ride and lets the magazine empty out, after all we're talking about 1-2 seconds. :D I've offered to repair it for him but he oddly declines. :headscratch: ;)
In short, there are lots of BS out there about firearms that lives on in urban legends. I just read where the shooter in CT "maximized" his rifle to do the most damage. He taped together 2 mags "jungle style" so he could change mags very quickly (only idiots do that to AR mags), and the ammo he used was "deep penetrating frangible ammo".... yeah, you read right. I did a :bhead after I read that. Folks, frangible ammo is designed to come apart upon impact and NOT penetrate deeply. An FMJ would penetrate far more deeper than frangible ammo. Either way a person shot at point blank range is going to be badly hurt or even killed (btw, not that it matters but does everyone know that the 5.56 NATO penetrates best at 200 yards and not point blank?). Again, this is what we get when "journalist" who know nothing about a subject report and in issue with an intent on creating drama. Anyone remember the Wincherster Black Talon pistol ammo "buzz saw effect" from about 15 years ago??? :bhead :bhead :bhead
-
See, I don't get the logic within the last couple of years and with the .223 AR-15s popularity in the private/civi market... it has to be for "style" - either you like it or fear not being able to get it at some point in the future... now a .308 or 7.62, that I can actualy USE for hunting or defense AND make some nice holes in cans/targets all day without breaking the bank.
This is an interesting discussion, I hope so long as people keep the strength and restraint up it won't get locked.
A lot here seem to have a first-hand, I'm more curious about handgun sales as a whole this week - are they up, who's buying, are they looking for information/education and/or purely aquirement?
Among the many in our local group, we have a term for guys enamored with the AR-15 and clones.. Tacticool. They like the tacticool look. The market is now loaded with .22 caliber rifles that are knockoffs of the AR-15, AKs, H&Ks and Sigs. There's a huge aftermarket to create tacticool Ruger 10/22s as well. Yet, everyone of those is less accurate than my .22 cal Henry lever gun. Simple blow back actions don't lock up tight. They rely on a recoil spring to keep the bolt snug up against the cartridge base. Lever guns lock up tight. Bolt guns lock up tighter still. The guys who buy these things remind me of the 40-something lawyers dressed in leather riding their Hogs on the weekend. It's all about image. Self image and that projected. Still others are preparing for some mysterious SHTF event and watching the Walking Dead like it was the history channel... If they are really into Prepping, they would be better served by an ultra-reliable AK type and a simple bolt or lever gun of sufficient caliber to take game big enough to feed the family. I know one guy who has stockpiled over 80,000 round of 5.56mm ammo. I can think of a better use for that amount of money (at 30 cents per round, do the math).
Here in New York State, there's been a ban on new magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds (excluding fixed, tubular magazines) since 1994. You can use pre-ban magazines in post-ban guns, so everyone looks to buy older mags.
As for me, I have several of the evil, so called "assault weapons", and have owned them for over 20 years. It's very rare that I even take them out of the safe, much less shoot them. I've sold some of them because I just don't use them. Frankly, I would not feel under-gunned with one of my Enfields or Mausers. My various lever rifles are more than adequate for any need I can foretell. My 12 gauge pump security shotgun is more than enough to keep the criminals out of the house. The tacticool guns are not something I need, nor want to spend a fortune on loading them down with the latest tactical add-ons and optics.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that shooting the tacticool guns isn't fun. I'm saying that it's no more entertaining than shooting almost anything else. Keep in mind that I get to shoot just about every small arm in the DOD's inventory, and most of the LRIP stuff not yet approved or issued.
-
Search 'Bump Fire" some time Ardy. Folks make em shoot that fast without doing anything illegal. Not very accurate but they spray.
This is my late son's AK built on a Polish PKMS kit. It was built during the 'ban'. Absolutely nothing about it is not assault weapon. All the builder had to do was pin the underfolding stock so it wouldn't fold, and add a bead weld on the bayonet lug. AK magazines were and are plentiful. Looks mean doesn't it. The day the ban ended, the pin got taken out and the bead weld knocked off.
As mentioned, not much of a ban but it made some folks feel better.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Beaufighters/PKMS.jpg)
Nice looking PKM/MS. :)
I had a VERY nice Polish PMK/MS (AKMS, or an AK w/ and underfolder stock for you newbs :D ), built on a NDS receiver than had matching serial numbers. I had it built in 2007, I even had a number of the highly coveted 30rd Polish polymer mags as well, It was a beautiful carbine, I would fold the stock and put it on the shelf of my gun safe, that thing was compact once folded! Anyways, I sold it and invested the funds in to a Triumph motorcycle. I got out of AK's altogether and went with AR's and Sig 556's. :aok
-
PolyTech's were also called MAK-90s. Got mine for $175, the guy assumed it was Chinese crap. I still smile thinking about that. :D
I have a MAK-90, circa 1992.... Changed out the thumbhole stock shortly after I got it....
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/10968_1291743179047_7409864_n.jpg)
A similarly stocked SKS...
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/487097_10200120953131955_844866589_n.jpg)
I haven't fired either in 15 years...
-
Anyone remember the Wincherster Black Talon pistol ammo "buzz saw effect" from about 15 years ago??? :bhead :bhead :bhead
Just talking about that a few days ago with a buddy when I found my box of 9mm Black Talons I held on to.
(http://ttag.zippykidcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/MP15-22-courtesy-smith-wesson.com_.jpg)
Got the daughter this S&W .22 for Christmas WW. Thought about just getting her a 10/22 but she really wants a AR so I think this will make her day.
Yeah, I was very happy to get rid of that lousy thumbhole stock. Man I hated that thing.
-
Tacticool. LOL I like that description Widewing.
These guys kinda scare me
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Beaufighters/ar15.jpg)
-
Nice looking PKM/MS. :)
I had a VERY nice Polish PMK/MS (AKMS, or an AK w/ and underfolder stock for you newbs :D ), built on a NDS receiver than had matching serial numbers. I had it built in 2007, I even had a number of the highly coveted 30rd Polish polymer mags as well, It was a beautiful carbine, I would fold the stock and put it on the shelf of my gun safe, that thing was compact once folded! Anyways, I sold it and invested the funds in to a Triumph motorcycle. I got out of AK's altogether and went with AR's and Sig 556's. :aok
well now ya tell me, here ive been looking to get another AK, wouldnt mind an SKS if you ever get sick of the one you were talking about earlier
i just think its ridicules, i was in a pawn shop yesterday and saw a nice lever action .30-30, almost traded in my ruger .22 for it even, but the guy told me he couldnt sell it because he couldn't call in, apparently they had been trying all day, said they didnt even get the "elevator music" that you normally get, it was basically just "call back later"
-
So Important!!! IF the mother of the recent shooter had done this, he wouldn't not have had access to the weapons.
I was always under the impression that one could easily convert many 'semi-auto' guns to 'auto' (sometimes as simple as filing down the firing pin). Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that one can even own the parts to an automatic weapon as long as it is not assembled. Maybe the gun laws shouldn't be focused on magazine size but on making it more difficult to convert weapons to auto.
Ardy,
Not to start a arguement, but to make a point.
The guns could have been locked up. No one really knows except the investigators. I have a metal gun safe or locker. It could be broken into if someone really wanted to. The purpose of it is to keep children out or away from the guns. Ammunition is stored in a different place. But if someone had some tools and time on thier hands, well.
I guess I have seen so many comments about this tragic event, so many assumptions.
-
If it's for fun to just take to the range and blow off a buncha rounds , what is the cost of that? How many rounds do people shoot?
Honestly, who are you to tell people how to spend their money? I haven't seen anyone ask why you pay for AH II every month. Doesn't that cost a bit over the years including computers, upgrades, sticks, internet, etc...? I don't think you need it, then again, maybe you do. How much have you spent or wasted on that? How about we decide how you spend your money or decide what is ethical or moral or needed for you? Hunting is in no way cheap and I hazard much more expensive than plinking a few hours away. Do you need that much meat at one time? I can't eat that much before it would be freezer burned. Oh, perhaps you are the humanitarian who is conserving wildlife herds and habitats by shooting animals or you donate the meat to feed the needy. Good for you. In my opinion the vast majority of hunters are in reality harvesters who sit and lure the animal with feed plots or use cameras to pattern them, etc... etc.... If you track and stalk your kills then I consider you a hunter, but who am I to label you? Nobody, that's who. I personally do not think it is your or anyone elses business why or how I legally spend money just as I do not care why or how you decide to hunt or play Aces High or anything else you decide is right for you. Hiding behind the thinly veiled premise of "just curious" is so passive aggressive as to be absurd and demonstrates a very cheap character in my personal opinion. Will it be okay if I buy the Expendables DVD this weekend? I don't need it and it has a lot of gratuitous violence. Do you think I will be safe to watch it without becoming mentally or criminally unstable? Please let me know soon before I make a mistake since I could just rent it or not watch it altogether. How very presumptuous of you sir. I do not think you are curious, I think you are judgmental and reproachful. You have your opinion, perhaps you should have kept it to yourself though. Just my opinion.
-
Honestly, who are you to tell people how to spend their money? I haven't seen anyone ask why you pay for AH II every month. Doesn't that cost a bit over the years including computers, upgrades, sticks, internet, etc...? I don't think you need it, then again, maybe you do. How much have you spent or wasted on that? How about we decide how you spend your money or decide what is ethical or moral or needed for you? Hunting is in no way cheap and I hazard much more expensive than plinking a few hours away. Do you need that much meat at one time? I can't eat that much before it would be freezer burned. Oh, perhaps you are the humanitarian who is conserving wildlife herds and habitats by shooting animals or you donate the meat to feed the needy. Good for you. In my opinion the vast majority of hunters are in reality harvesters who sit and lure the animal with feed plots or use cameras to pattern them, etc... etc.... If you track and stalk your kills then I consider you a hunter, but who am I to label you? Nobody, that's who. I personally do not think it is your or anyone elses business why or how I legally spend money just as I do not care why or how you decide to hunt or play Aces High or anything else you decide is right for you. Hiding behind the thinly veiled premise of "just curious" is so passive aggressive as to be absurd and demonstrates a very cheap character in my personal opinion. Will it be okay if I buy the Expendables DVD this weekend? I don't need it and it has a lot of gratuitous violence. Do you think I will be safe to watch it without becoming mentally or criminally unstable? Please let me know soon before I make a mistake since I could just rent it or not watch it altogether. How very presumptuous of you sir. I do not think you are curious, I think you are judgmental and reproachful. You have your opinion, perhaps you should have kept it to yourself though. Just my opinion.
well some are blaming video games for this latest shooting :rolleyes:
all kinds of people are trying to get violent games made illegal........ same with violent movies....
-
well some are blaming video games for this latest shooting :rolleyes:
all kinds of people are trying to get violent games made illegal........ same with violent movies....
i personally dont see the connection, IMO its the media, lets face it people know the names of the people responsible for all the violence then the victims or even key figures in today's world, its all about being remembered, its the same idea with suicides, if someone commits suicide and gets in the paper for it then youre inviting others to do the same. it happened a number of years ago in a community just north of my, its the same basic principle and its all about ratings or pushing some agenda. personally i dont watch the news anymore i quit maybe five years ago, i read the paper every so often but thats about the extent of it. i may be wrong about all this but i really believe if we stop televising things like this there is a good chance we could see stuff like this drop off
-
well some are blaming video games for this latest shooting :rolleyes:
all kinds of people are trying to get violent games made illegal........ same with violent movies....
Like Aces High? Or maybe worse, Aces High BBS...?
It is a complicated issue for sure, but my point was not violence in society, but others telling people what to think, believe, or do; especially when they attempt to disguise their intentions. Stating an opinion about the issue is one thing, this post went beyond that.
-
Like Aces High? Or maybe worse, Aces High BBS...?
It is a complicated issue for sure, but my point was not violence in society, but others telling people what to think, believe, or do; especially when they attempt to disguise their intentions. Stating an opinion about the issue is one thing, this post went beyond that.
I don't think video games had anything to do with it.. but the shooter had a history of mental troubles and was on mood correcting medication. The real question was why was this kid ever given access to weapons???? (or even in the proximity of them)...
-
Like Aces High? Or maybe worse, Aces High BBS...?
It is a complicated issue for sure, but my point was not violence in society, but others telling people what to think, believe, or do; especially when they attempt to disguise their intentions. Stating an opinion about the issue is one thing, this post went beyond that.
:headscratch:
I spoke what I was reading about...that is all...I certainly don't agree with what they are saying.....my :rolleyes: didn't clue you in?
maybe I just misunderstand what you are saying.
-
For my home I take my shotgun over anything else . Most of your shoots are going to be close range anyway so a shotgun is the way to go . With a rifle after you shoot a few rounds through it , it's going to get hot and start shooting off anyway .
-
I don't think video games had anything to do with it.. but the shooter had a history of mental troubles and was on mood correcting medication. The real question was why was this kid ever given access to weapons???? (or even in the proximity of them)...
That was exactly my thought. I live in a small 2 bedroom apartment with my girlfriend. I keep a .40 S&W pistol in my bedside drawer God forbid I ever have to use it, but it is there if the situation presents itself. Now on the other hand, all my long guns, and other pistols are stored in a secure safe at my moms house since I have no need for them here. She frequently has small children around that are at that perfect age where they like to play with everything in sight. My gun safe is outside the actual house in the garage where I store all my other hunting equipment. There is no way anybody but me could get access to a firearm at that house. Not even my mom knows the combination. All it takes to prevent these shootings is a little responsibility on the part of the gun owner.
-
With a rifle after you shoot a few rounds through it , it's going to get hot and start shooting off anyway .
Um.... What?...
-
Tacticool. LOL I like that description Widewing.
These guys kinda scare me
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Beaufighters/ar15.jpg)
For everyone's information, that photo was put together to make fun of the guys who get in to that kind of stuff. No one in their right mind would even consider putting %90 of the stuff shown in the picture on their own rifle, especially all at once. The optics and electronic sights do not even match up for a co-witness (co-witness = able to use multiple sights at once). The weight alone of all that stuff has to triple the weight of the rifle, and ultimately does not make it any better. Think of it as buying a Shelby Cobra Mustang and not knowing how to actually use it on the track. The only thing I have ever had my rifle/carbine that was an "add-on", other than an optic was a light mounted to the front hand guard, and that was while I was working for the sheriff's office. Most of us carried a M4 carbine (semi-auto) with a light because in many cases we had to have a hand free for radio work, handcuffs, etc, and having a light on the rifle killed to birds with one stone. I also had a light on my Sig 226R handgun for the same reason.
Some guys go way too far, they buy all this gear, etc, and they do not know how to use it and/or they never really train with it to get to know the gear in the first place. Even without all my law enforcement training, I still have a very good base of knowledge regarding tactics and training to pull from. I spent 10 days down at Thunder Ranch down in TX back in 1998 while taking rifle and handgun courses, and I've been shooting and 'smithing AR15's since 1993. Plus, when I have the range to myself I will do all the running, jumping, rolling, Rambo somersaulting, Samurai war shouts, and rifle-katana attacks on the targets to keep my skills honed. :aok Actually, I do work on the tactics I've learned over the years such as using different firing positions, moving and shooting, and engaging multiple targets. When I get a chance while on the wide open steppes of Wyoming, I'll run the gauntlet which means to set up targets in increments of 25-50 yards in zig-zag pattern 20-30 yards apart for 300 yards length wise and start at the point blank firing 5-8 shots at the target then falling back to the next target (jogging/running), then engaging again the target I just left behind. This simulates a retreat/falling back while keeping the pursuers at bay in an urban setting. The trick is to keep moving from cover to cover, creating space between you and the perps, and keeping their heads down. Once at the end of the gauntlet you'll be very short of breath, have a hot rifle, and have spent 30-50 rounds downrange at the target(s). It is fun, but very trying. There are other drills that I/we do as well, just sitting at a bench shooting at static targets sets the base mechanics for using the rifle and for learning proper shooting skills, but applying them while in a 'zone is a different thing altogether.
Someone else mentioned the cost of shooting ammo at the range. For most people it costs around 40-50 cents a round when speaking of .223/5.56 NATO or the 7.62x39 Soviet (AK and SKS) ammo. In contrast, 50 rounds of 9mm Luger still runs about 20 cents a shot. For those of us who reload our own ammo, the cost is 1/4th to 1/3rd of what the "off the shelf" buyers purchase. For 5.56 NATO, we can re-use brass as many as 5-6 times (many of us get brass for free), primers are 3 cents a piece, powder charges are about 5 cents a piece, bullets are about 10 cents a piece. We had to make an initial investment of $300-400 (or more) for all the reloading equipment, but that is usually paid off within the first 800 to 1000 rounds or so. I dont keep track officially, but between all my firearms I've fired somewhere between 1000 and 15 rounds this year with most of it going out the 9mm Sig 226 and 5.56 Colt AR15. I reload for 15 different calibers.
-
Um.... What?...
I think he's referring to the typical accuracy degradation most rifles see once the barrel heats up and begins contacting other parts of the gun... which usually isn't much of an issue with an AR because most setups are "free float" barrels.
-
I think he's referring to the typical accuracy degradation most rifles see once the barrel heats up and begins contacting other parts of the gun... which usually isn't much of an issue with an AR because most setups are "free float" barrels.
I'm slightly worried, having put several hundred rounds through one of my rifles (AR) in a short amount of time, there was no noticeable drop in accuracy.
:headscratch:
-
I'm slightly worried, having put several hundred rounds through one of my rifles (AR) in a short amount of time, there was no noticeable drop in accuracy.
:headscratch:
Me thinks the author of that fallacy id not well versed in firearms. For a round to "cook off", there needs to be thousands and thousands of rounds fired without hesitation so the heat is so hot that it ignites the powder in the cases. A quick search on the matter and people will see that modern day powders, modern day steel quality, and modern day cooling effects have all but eliminated that once upon a time very rare occurrence of that happening.
Accuracy will degrade once a barrel gets hot, but were talking about an increase of a golf ball grouping to a racquetball grouping at 100 yards once the barrel gets real hot. The chances of a semi-auto rifle getting that hot is slim and none because of mag changes, lack of enough ammo on the firer's person (8-12 30rd mags typically on an infantryman/rifleman), and fatigue of the trigger finger. ;) Seriously.
-
I'm slightly worried, having put several hundred rounds through one of my rifles (AR) in a short amount of time, there was no noticeable drop in accuracy.
:headscratch:
Right. Without a stock or handgaurd to rub against, the barrel harmonics should be unaltered. In my limited sample size though, a hot barrel rubbing a stock does throw accuracy off, but it wouldn't matter inside of 50 yards. You're still going to hit the target, just not exactly where you were intending.
-
Off topic: Maverick, when you were in Armor, did you ever have occasion to see or fire those little M16 shorty things that were in the early Bradleys? The were full auto only short barrel no stock things in a ball swivel mount as I recall, and used to spraying infantry off of wingman Bradleys and the like I think. Those always interested me, but you don't see them anymore.
We had some in our mech infantry unit armory. They are basically a m16 pistol with a screw lock mount for the sides and ramp of the old m2a1 series Bradleys. The M2A2 series had a mount in the ramp as well. They were full auto only at ~1200 rounds per minute rate. They were a cool idea but basically useless. When mounted in the vehicle, the recoil would be pretty reasonable but trying to hold one pulling the trigger was entertaining. A lot of people who have not spent time with full auto really don't understand how ineffective it generally is. For example, these things would empty a full 30 rd mag in about 1.5 seconds. Count that out. You pull the trigger and count one thousand one, one thous.. your empty. Time to change the mag. You spend more time changing mags that you do actually firing the weapon. You would be much better off with semi or a much lower cyclic rate as by time you got control it would be locked back with an empty mag. Full auto has it's uses in the right platform for specific tasks but those who just see movies and pass judgement based on fantasized depictions are in for a reality check.
As far as the "my gun is fine but there is no use for EBR's" arrogance. Well, a tool is a tool and the AR series is so popular because you can build very capable and accurate weapons from the hundreds of options out there. They are popular for a lot of very good reasons and belittling others because you made other choices is a function of your weakness not theirs.
-
Um.... What?...
Despite what you might think, putting a straight bore all the way through a barrel while keeping the barrel thickness on every side the same from start to finish is actually pretty hard, and in fact a lot of barrels will be a few thousandths off in some places. Now this isn't a problem with your typical hunting rifle or such but for something you'll be shooting a lot it will effect accuracy slightly in that when the barrel heats up, it will start to bend towards wherever there is less thickness.
Example about 3" from the muzzle my barrel is 7 thousandths thinner on one side than the other, when the barrel heats up it will bend towards the thin side of the barrel.
A great demo of this is chucking up a barrel in a lathe and heating it up with a torch for a second or two and watch as it bends on the lathe towards the thin side. Even better throw up a dial beside it (not too close to the torch!) and watch the dial go mad when the barrel is heated.
-
For my home I take my shotgun over anything else . Most of your shoots are going to be close range anyway so a shotgun is the way to go . With a rifle after you shoot a few rounds through it , it's going to get hot and start shooting off anyway .
The closer the range the more accurate you have to be with a shotgun, same as a pistol or rifle.
-
:headscratch:
I spoke what I was reading about...that is all...I certainly don't agree with what they are saying.....my :rolleyes: didn't clue you in?
maybe I just misunderstand what you are saying.
I took it the way you meant, I was being facetious, perhaps I should have used an emoticon instead of ...
There is much more to it than any one influence, I agree with others opinions about access and media attention (just look at all the attention whures we have in here and in game) have more influence than video games and movies. By that logic we should all (or a larger percentage anyway) be perpetrating violent criminal activity.
-
Despite what you might think, putting a straight bore all the way through a barrel while keeping the barrel thickness on every side the same from start to finish is actually pretty hard, and in fact a lot of barrels will be a few thousandths off in some places. Now this isn't a problem with your typical hunting rifle or such but for something you'll be shooting a lot it will effect accuracy slightly in that when the barrel heats up, it will start to bend towards wherever there is less thickness.
Example about 3" from the muzzle my barrel is 7 thousandths thinner on one side than the other, when the barrel heats up it will bend towards the thin side of the barrel.
A great demo of this is chucking up a barrel in a lathe and heating it up with a torch for a second or two and watch as it bends on the lathe towards the thin side. Even better throw up a dial beside it (not too close to the torch!) and watch the dial go mad when the barrel is heated.
We've checked a new Henry barrel for runout relative to the bore at room temperature. Checked at 6 locations between chamber and muzzle. Worst case was .0019" runout. This surprised me. It was a sample of one, but it does indicate that Henry has outstanding tooling.
-
We've checked a new Henry barrel for runout relative to the bore at room temperature. Checked at 6 locations between chamber and muzzle. Worst case was .0019" runout. This surprised me. It was a sample of one, but it does indicate that Henry has outstanding tooling.
Wow :O
That IS some fairly outstanding tooling. Out of curiosity, what material is the barrel made from and is there any kind of heat treatment, normalizing or stress relieving done to the material before boring or rifling?
-
Frankly its nobody's business what or how much I want to buy. Without getting into the dreaded gun control issue, I recently was told by someone that when the 2nd was written, we all had muskets, so its outdated. I replied yes we did, but so did our potential enemies. What do they have today, and what should we have?
-
Frankly its nobody's business what or how much I want to buy. Without getting into the dreaded gun control issue, I recently was told by someone that when the 2nd was written, we all had muskets, so its outdated. I replied yes we did, but so did our potential enemies. What do they have today, and what should we have?
Stones. Sharp pointy ones.
-
Stones. Sharp pointy ones.
Can the be propelled at high velocities :noid?
-
well some are blaming video games for this latest shooting :rolleyes:
all kinds of people are trying to get violent games made illegal........ same with violent movies....
The media has to point a finger and blame someone. As if there was any rational thought, or reason to the latest tragedy.
I got me a shotgun, rifle, and 4WD, and country boy can survive! LOL ole Hank Williams jr. :aok
-
Without violating rule #14. I feel that all I can do is try to add some perspective.
Children killed by a crazed gunman illicit a very emotional type response, which leads to kneejerk reactions from all sides. I was shocked as everyone is, but once I stepped back and calmed my emotions, rational thought can then resume.
Here is just one rational thought (most others would violate posting rules)
Thousands of children (and tens of thousands of adults) are killed every year by drunk drivers. The odds are much, much higher you're child will be killed by a drunk driver then in a school shooting. Yet where is the national outcry to "do something"to save our children from drunk drivers, and regulate alcohol more strictly?
Drunk drivers is just one example. There are many events/people/diseases/accidents that have much greater odds of killing your child then a crazed gunman at school.
It's no solace to the victims of the latest tragedy I know, but is the loss felt by a parent who lost a child to an auto accident, or a terminal cancer, or anything else, any less bitter?
-
Absolutely saggs, your spot on. Look at this same example of Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909 from 2009.. you don't hear much about the thousands that take their life each year.... THOUSANDS!!
Some are using this tragedy of a mad man as a vessel for their own agenda rather than address the mental illness issues that are prevalent in our society and coming up with a solid solution to address that problem.
-
Without violating rule #14. I feel that all I can do is try to add some perspective.
Children killed by a crazed gunman illicit a very emotional type response, which leads to kneejerk reactions from all sides. I was shocked as everyone is, but once I stepped back and calmed my emotions, rational thought can then resume.
Here is just one rational thought (most others would violate posting rules)
Thousands of children (and tens of thousands of adults) are killed every year by drunk drivers. The odds are much, much higher you're child will be killed by a drunk driver then in a school shooting. Yet where is the national outcry to "do something"to save our children from drunk drivers, and regulate alcohol more strictly?
Drunk drivers is just one example. There are many events/people/diseases/accidents that have much greater odds of killing your child then a crazed gunman at school.
It's no solace to the victims of the latest tragedy I know, but is the loss felt by a parent who lost a child to an auto accident, or a terminal cancer, or anything else, any less bitter?
Murder may as well be legal since everyone dies anyway
-
Can't wait for the president of the National Beer Association to hold a press conference explaining how since some already drive drunk, the roads would be safer if everybody would drive drunk!
-
Can't wait for the president of the National Beer Association to hold a press conference explaining how since some already drive drunk, the roads would be safer if everybody would drive drunk!
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Can't wait for the president of the National Beer Association to hold a press conference explaining how since some already drive drunk, the roads would be safer if everybody would drive drunk!
So you are saying that since felons currently misuse guns then everyone else should commit crimes with them too? Sorry, I don't get your logic.
-
So you are saying that since felons currently misuse guns then everyone else should commit crimes with them too? Sorry, I don't get your logic.
Lighten up old bean! :old:
-
I don't get your logic.
You're not the only one. Actually, when I read it I thought it was the dumbest analogy I have read in a long time.
-
Can't wait for the president of the National Beer Association to hold a press conference explaining how since some already drive drunk, the roads would be safer if everybody would drive drunk!
well isn't that just witty
-
Well considering that Pierre of the NRA thinks it was fine that my kids were exposed to guns, but I clearly screwed up playing video games with them, I'm not sure logic is in real high supply right now.
Remember "X-Boxs don't kill people, people do!"
-
So its fine if kids are sensatized to violence to a certian extent, just as long as we take away weapons because a few people abuse them.
I don't blame xbox, or video games, or guns. I don't think theres nessecarilly anything to blame. Yeah, I guess you could blame the kid, but its a tad late for that to do much.
You could blame guns I guess, but thats the same stupid, bass-ackward logic that lead to prohibition.
Fact is that if someone wants to go kill people, they're gonna do it. Hell, the materials to make chlorine gas aren't too terribly hard to get. Would it have been better if the guy had gassed those people instead of shooting them? Or would people be freaking out and demanding we ban bleach?
-
Well considering that Pierre of the NRA thinks it was fine that my kids were exposed to guns, but I clearly screwed up playing video games with them, I'm not sure logic is in real high supply right now.
Remember "X-Boxs don't kill people, people do!"
Exposing kids to guns and teaching them the responsibility of owning or handling a firearm will do them far more good than bad. Shield them from firearms and see what happens not if but when they come in contact with one: the odds of them totally and completely disrespecting that responsibility will be lost.
Exposing them to the glorification of any violence as we see on CoD, BFx, or any other FPS and not taking the time to explain the ramifications of being able to "re-spawn" after getting killed (or killing) in a video game vs what reality is something not to be taken lightly.
If you or anyone else thinks that guns are able to pick themselves up and do evil then I'd like to know how so I can watch it sometime. None of the firearms in my gun safe have ever killed anyone (safe for perhaps a very well worn Japanese Arisaka chambered in 6.5mm Jap built in 1932). The fact that there are fewer guns per population and per household now than there were in 1900, the fact that there are far more laws restricting gun ownership now than there were 20 years ago, and the fact that it is harder to obtain a firearm today than it has ever been thanks to a NRA devised background check tells me one overlaying theme: it isn't the guns. The bad guys, the psychos, the religious zealots, and anyone else who wants to harm the masses will get the job done with or without the use of firearms (anyone remember a certain Tim McVeigh? Anyone?). The best thing we can do is to stop them before they get their first shot off and that is done with secured entrances, security cameras, and the ability to stop the threat by equal means and if that means allowing the admin, the teachers, staff, or any other volunteer to arm themselves then so be it.
FWIW, back in 1991 when I was a jr in high school we had a project for speech class that entailed a "teaching how to" in front of the class. Guess what I did??? I took a shotgun to school, with permission, and taught the class how to clean a shotgun. Per the principle's request, I had to remove the firing pin and not bring any ammunition to school. No problem. The Remington Mod 11 (Browning Auto-5) stayed in the Mr. Hannah's office until class time and he brought it down to the classroom it the case. He walked in, handed it to me, then walked out. I did my presentation (I earned a B), then walked the cased shotgun back down to his office. Why was it different THEN than NOW? What has changed? The root cause of our problems do not sit with an inanimate object.
-
Can't wait for the president of the National Beer Association to hold a press conference explaining how since some already drive drunk, the roads would be safer if everybody would drive drunk!
Ah, but you're assuming that all gun owners are shooting their firearms all the time at everyone else by using that analogy. Not very accurate, nice try. Back to the blackboard you go, and don't forget the chalk. :aok
Owning a car is owning a firearm. Driving drunk is using the firearm in an illegal manner. Keep it real, homey.
-
what I find funny (in a sarcastic kind of way) is how some call for teaching kids the proper responsible way to handle guns while at the same time post videos of you guys blowing up gas tanks or some other stupid non-sense. I call it being a hypocrite but whatever :bolt:.
as for the original post, I think the op was wondering why people panic and run to the store to stock up on ammo/guns as if they they had just stopped production, which only seems to increase the price, not like the ammo/guns wont be there a month from now when everybody forgot why they rushed to the store.
midway
-
It's Christmas guys, let's give Skuzzy a break on this one.
After christmas we can have a nice non-political thread where everyone can show off their range toys.
-
Ironic isn't it that the only ones who are really going to benefit from this are the gun makers. Panic buying, prices going through the roof etc. Capitalism at its best and worst I guess.
So we have this evil shifty eyed "Gun maker" wearing those green spectacles sitting on a big pile of money? He spends the day in this great big office filled with 100 dollar bill counters and fly's around the country to all his store in a Lear jet. Probably has a yacht and a pool and all that? i mean there are no craftsmen or clerks or engineers or other laborer like us getting anything out of this? come on.
Do you see that saying its capitalism at its worst demeans us? That the people earning a living at this - might be "kind of" insulted by that. The ones who aren't on the dole don't yah know.
I don't see anything ironic here. Nor do the people that are frantically trying to acquire what is constitutionally their right to own. what sad and ironic is there is a panic, who is causing it, and the tactics they use to get their way.
Infidelz
-
For my home I take my shotgun over anything else . Most of your shoots are going to be close range anyway so a shotgun is the way to go . With a rifle after you shoot a few rounds through it , it's going to get hot and start shooting off anyway .
Do you have a rifle?
-
Frankly its nobody's business what or how much I want to buy. Without getting into the dreaded gun control issue, I recently was told by someone that when the 2nd was written, we all had muskets, so its outdated. I replied yes we did, but so did our potential enemies. What do they have today, and what should we have?
Excellent counter point! :cheers:
-
Can't wait for the president of the National Beer Association to hold a press conference explaining how since some already drive drunk, the roads would be safer if everybody would drive drunk!
i don't see it. We had a tragedy its not humorous or something to make light of.
-
Well considering that Pierre of the NRA thinks it was fine that my kids were exposed to guns, but I clearly screwed up playing video games with them, I'm not sure logic is in real high supply right now.
Remember "X-Boxs don't kill people, people do!"
:bhead :bhead His point was and you know it, is that schools are gun free zones. Perfect for the cowards who do mass shootings. He is saying that we need to value our children above the wrong headed politics of gun control and do something about it. In Israel the terrorist originally targeted schools. Israel rightly decided not to ban guns in schools, Israel armed their teachers. they aren't the easy targets they once were.
Everywhere that guns are banned is a potential shooting gallery for the sicko's and terrorists. The Aurora movie wack-job chose the 1 in 5 theater that banned CCWs in that area. Why wouldn't he? Going to one that allowed CCW would be like walking into a police station and opening fire. go chew on that.
-
Rule of Law - not always AVAILABLE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkCU_-0v4OY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkCU_-0v4OY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs)
-
i don't see it. We had a tragedy its not humorous or something to make light of.
I agree, however it is worth pointing out how absurd some of the responses to it have been. you could do this using reasoned arguments, or maybe with an angry rant ... I chose parody.
-
I agree, however it is worth pointing out how absurd some of the responses to it have been. you could do this using reasoned arguments, or maybe with an angry rant ... I chose parody.
Just me pointing out how worthless your choice was. (my opinion of course)
-
the analogy isnt as tortured as it first seems, but out of consideration to a couple of our forum members I wont pursue it any further.
-
I agree, however it is worth pointing out how absurd some of the responses to it have been. you could do this using reasoned arguments, or maybe with an angry rant ... I chose parody.
:aok
Because just yesterday, I read of a drunk driver who smashed his car headlong into another drunk driver to prevent that drunk from killing innocent people. :salute
-
going to buy a PA-63 right now :aok
-
CZ-82 same caliber for about 200.
-
Just got home from Ocala gun show,purchased a new JR carbine in 9mm.
They opened at 9.00 am and the line was out the door to get in,shoulder to shoulder the whole way through.
-
I purchased a .40 Glock 27 gen 4 yesterday, busy in there. I hope I made a wise purchase. I was thinking keltec 9, but my brother, who is a cop, insisted on a larger round. He said mortal wounds have been inflicted with a 9 and the attacker kept coming.
Hopefully this fulfills my pistol needs and I am done looking at pistols. But, next will be a nice shotgun (12g) and a deer rifle (06 or 270).
I am not the most gun savy individual, so I'll ask for opinions.
-
Exposing kids to guns and teaching them the responsibility of owning or handling a firearm will do them far more good than bad. Shield them from firearms and see what happens not if but when they come in contact with one: the odds of them totally and completely disrespecting that responsibility will be lost.
Exposing them to the glorification of any violence as we see on CoD, BFx, or any other FPS and not taking the time to explain the ramifications of being able to "re-spawn" after getting killed (or killing) in a video game vs what reality is something not to be taken lightly.
Well put sir. Probably better expresses those ideas than a lot of what the politicians and experts could do.
+100000
If you or anyone else thinks that guns are able to pick themselves up and do evil then I'd like to know how so I can watch it sometime. None of the firearms in my gun safe have ever killed anyone (safe for perhaps a very well worn Japanese Arisaka chambered in 6.5mm Jap built in 1932). The fact that there are fewer guns per population and per household now than there were in 1900, the fact that there are far more laws restricting gun ownership now than there were 20 years ago, and the fact that it is harder to obtain a firearm today than it has ever been thanks to a NRA devised background check tells me one overlaying theme: it isn't the guns. The bad guys, the psychos, the religious zealots, and anyone else who wants to harm the masses will get the job done with or without the use of firearms (anyone remember a certain Tim McVeigh? Anyone?). The best thing we can do is to stop them before they get their first shot off and that is done with secured entrances, security cameras, and the ability to stop the threat by equal means and if that means allowing the admin, the teachers, staff, or any other volunteer to arm themselves then so be it.
*snip*
Why was it different THEN than NOW? What has changed? The root cause of our problems do not sit with an inanimate object.
Its just a snap emotional response by those that haven't fully examined the issue, political maneuvering by those that already wanted guns banned, and wishful thinking by idealists.
Same things have fueled the current healthcare and welfare issues we're facing now. There is an emotional response which elicits knee-jerk reactions, then theres the maneuvering by people who want to use that to their own ends, and finally the idealists who think everything will work perfectly.
Essentially every time those three things get together, nothing good happens.
-
But, next will be a nice shotgun (12g) and a deer rifle (06 or 270).
I am not the most gun savy individual, so I'll ask for opinions.
Mossberg 500- cant go wrong
If you mean 30-06 I would get a Garand. Carries some nostalgia and is a great gun.
-
Bought my Feg PA-63 9X18MM and 2 boxes of ammo
Background check
AND
A Remington 870 12 Gauge
2 boxes of ammo
Best 500 i have ever spent!
Have to wait till next Friday to pick them up as i don't have a conceal permit.
Will be getting that too......Tb Happy American Gun Owner
-
Bought my Feg PA-63 9X18MM and 2 boxes of ammo
Background check
AND
A Remington 870 12 Gauge
2 boxes of ammo
Best 500 i have ever spent!
Have to wait till next Friday to pick them up as i don't have a conceal permit.
Will be getting that too......Tb Happy American Gun Owner
:aok
Fun Fact, 20% of the Floridian Population has a concealed weapons permit! :rock :rock
-
Really enjoy shooting the M-500... its a great gun. Its really the last think I want in my collection. Besides a Garand or an M-14 ;)
-
Really enjoy shooting the M-500... its a great gun. Its really the last think I want in my collection. Besides a Garand or an M-14 ;)
When I was a young kid I was at an uncle's house with my dad to help him remodel. Inside a wall we found a loaded / chambered fully automatic M-14 with taped clips.
-
:aok
Fun Fact, 20% of the Floridian Population has a concealed weapons permit! :rock :rock
fun fact: i live in an area where it could be the easiest thing ever to get a concealed carry, i went in the court house and five minutes later i had my temp
-
When I was a young kid I was at an uncle's house with my dad to help him remodel. Inside a wall we found a loaded / chambered fully automatic M-14 with taped clips.
:O
-
For my home I take my shotgun over anything else . Most of your shoots are going to be close range anyway so a shotgun is the way to go . With a rifle after you shoot a few rounds through it , it's going to get hot and start shooting off anyway .
:huh :huh :huh :huh :huh
Uh....what?
My God! This man has been brainwashed by the internet! Sure, a shotgun is nice.....but if you're firing pellets (which would be the case of owning a shotgun according to you since it has that spread for close range [a slug might as well be a .50 round]) you're going to spray matter all over the house and destroy a ton of crap in the process as well as highly increase the possibility of those pellets striking an innocent person in the household.
And that bolded statement...I'm staying away from that. I'll get into trouble.
Just know that we put over 200 rounds through our fully automatic weapons (not rifles, these are mean machines actually putting out heat)...if you need 200 rounds....and can fire them THAT fast....you're dead anyway.
When I was a young kid I was at an uncle's house with my dad to help him remodel. Inside a wall we found a loaded / chambered fully automatic M-14 with taped clips.
Lucky!
-
When I was a young kid I was at an uncle's house with my dad to help him remodel. Inside a wall we found a loaded / chambered fully automatic M-14 with taped clips.
The hell :eek:?
-
:huh :huh :huh :huh :huh
Uh....what?
My God! This man has been brainwashed by the internet! Sure, a shotgun is nice.....but if you're firing pellets (which would be the case of owning a shotgun according to you since it has that spread for close range [a slug might as well be a .50 round]) you're going to spray matter all over the house and destroy a ton of crap in the process as well as highly increase the possibility of those pellets striking an innocent person in the household.
The close range < 30 ft spread on any shot gun is negligible. For that matter, small shot is recommended for cqb due to it's limited ability to carry through walls yet remain lethal against unarmored opponents.
-
Really enjoy shooting the M-500... its a great gun. Its really the last think I want in my collection. Besides a Garand or an M-14 ;)
I have an M1 Garand and it is the cornerstone of my WWII collection. It is a joy to shoot as well. I have a theory that if and when there are new laws put in to place restricting magazine capacity and detachable mags, the value of M1 Garands and SKS's wil skyrocket. So, now would be the time to buy an M1 Garand. Or, if you dont have that "evil" fun gun that you've always wanted and a lot of people are buying in a panic then buy that first. But otherwise, I say the Garands and SKS's wil spike after any new laws are put in to play.
I do not have an M1A (civilian M14), but I dont blame you for wanting one, they are fine rifles as well. :aok
-
My God! This man has been brainwashed by the internet! Sure, a shotgun is nice.....but if you're firing pellets (which would be the case of owning a shotgun according to you since it has that spread for close range [a slug might as well be a .50 round]) you're going to spray matter all over the house and destroy a ton of crap in the process as well as highly increase the possibility of those pellets striking an innocent person in the household.
I'll still take my 12 ga shotgun, over a rifle for home defense. The pellets are not going to penetrate multiple walls and end up hitting one of my next door neighbors in their beds. I live in a suburban neighborhood where the houses are 50 feet apart. I have an M1 Garand I would only consider firing if my shotgun is empty and my wife's shotgun is empty. I would hate to send 30.06 rounds towards any of my neighbors homes.
-
:bhead :bhead His point was and you know it, is that schools are gun free zones. Perfect for the cowards who do mass shootings. He is saying that we need to value our children above the wrong headed politics of gun control and do something about it. In Israel the terrorist originally targeted schools. Israel rightly decided not to ban guns in schools, Israel armed their teachers. they aren't the easy targets they once were.
Everywhere that guns are banned is a potential shooting gallery for the sicko's and terrorists. The Aurora movie wack-job chose the 1 in 5 theater that banned CCWs in that area. Why wouldn't he? Going to one that allowed CCW would be like walking into a police station and opening fire. go chew on that.
So based on your logic then the best solution is to give everyone an AR-15 and require they carry it loaded all the time. That way everyone will see everyone else with a loaded gun. You go the bank and there's the teller with the barrel of her AR-15 pointed at you. No way you are going to rob that bank. My daughter the grade school teacher can just have hers loaded on the desk pointed at the kids. No behavior problems then.
Even better. We'll increase graduation rates. you can only get your AR-15 at graduation with a 3.0 grade point average or better. This way we'll know who the underachievers out there. Maybe we should only allow those gainfully employed to have them. That way we can identify the unemployed and the drop outs.
Think about it. only the best and the brightest able to wander freely with long guns so that everyone knows the lead will fly if they try and start something. No more behavior problems from teenagers as how would they dare act up knowing the teachers or the parents might open fire. No one would consider smacking their spouse as they'd be gunned down instead. The kid brings your daughter home late from that first date? There you are, loaded for bear. Bet he's on time.
If you drive drunk you lose your license and your gun. Talk about ashamed. No one would dare go postal for rear of the firefight that would follow.
You've solved it! We've solved it!
I appreciate your inspirational post in response to mine. I was inspired to come up with a practical solution :aok
-
So its fine if kids are sensatized to violence to a certian extent, just as long as we take away weapons because a few people abuse them.
I don't blame xbox, or video games, or guns. I don't think theres nessecarilly anything to blame. Yeah, I guess you could blame the kid, but its a tad late for that to do much.
You could blame guns I guess, but thats the same stupid, bass-ackward logic that lead to prohibition.
Fact is that if someone wants to go kill people, they're gonna do it. Hell, the materials to make chlorine gas aren't too terribly hard to get. Would it have been better if the guy had gassed those people instead of shooting them? Or would people be freaking out and demanding we ban bleach?
The point being, the head of the NRA stood up and said don't you dare step on the 2nd Amendment and then proceeded to blame the 1st Amendment for the problem. Hypocritical don't ya think?
Go ahead and argue that based on the 2nd Amendment you have a right to own a AR-15 with a 100 round mag if that's your belief, but don't turn right around and then blame X-Boxs or movies for the problem.
Not many headlines where you see "20 year old breaks into school and kills 26 with an X-Box."
Be real clear on this. I exposed my kids to guns. My son had an AR-15 I purchased for him and he had a number of AKs that he bought as he got real interested in the different versions. I still have 2 of his AKs along with my AR. Also understand I played shoot em up video games with my kids. My son was a big time Counterstrike fan. Day of Defeat was good fun, Quake, Rogue Spear.. I just saw somewhere that the shooter loved Counterstrike. Oh no! My son had AKs and played Counterstrike! Seems to me my daughter and her husband consider "Scarface' one of their favorite movies along with "The Godfather". She's a 4th grade teacher. She still comes home to play "Army of Two' and Halo with me on occasion. How dare she teach children! She and her peers want nothing to do with guns in their school. She teaches at an inner city school where there have been two officer involved shootings within a block of them.
I'm not suggesting banning guns. Nor do I think putting armed guards in school is the way to go.
Is it not possible to have a discussion on all the possible contributors to the tragedy without the gun owners panicking? I don't feel threatened by folks looking at how access to guns played into this anymore then I do them looking at how to get address dealing with mental health issues, or looking at how movies and media might contribute as well. None should be untouchable. And in the end I don't think anything will change. At best we'll quit cutting resources for mental health and social services so that parents don't have to deal with those issues on their own.
And all the guys who blew their bank rolls on panic buying will be stuck with over priced guns just as they were when the last totally ineffectual "Ban' ended.
-
The point being, the head of the NRA stood up and said don't you dare step on the 2nd Amendment and then proceeded to blame the 1st Amendment for the problem. Hypocritical don't ya think?
Go ahead and argue that based on the 2nd Amendment you have a right to own a AR-15 with a 100 round mag if that's your belief, but don't turn right around and then blame X-Boxs or movies for the problem.
Not many headlines where you see "20 year old breaks into school and kills 26 with an X-Box."
Be real clear on this. I exposed my kids to guns. My son had an AR-15 I purchased for him and he had a number of AKs that he bought as he got real interested in the different versions. I still have 2 of his AKs along with my AR. Also understand I played shoot em up video games with my kids. My son was a big time Counterstrike fan. Day of Defeat was good fun, Quake, Rogue Spear.. I just saw somewhere that the shooter loved Counterstrike. Oh no! My son had AKs and played Counterstrike! Seems to me my daughter and her husband consider "Scarface' one of their favorite movies along with "The Godfather". She's a 4th grade teacher. She still comes home to play "Army of Two' and Halo with me on occasion. How dare she teach children! She and her peers want nothing to do with guns in their school. She teaches at an inner city school where there have been two officer involved shootings within a block of them.
I'm not suggesting banning guns. Nor do I think putting armed guards in school is the way to go.
Is it not possible to have a discussion on all the possible contributors to the tragedy without the gun owners panicking? I don't feel threatened by folks looking at how access to guns played into this anymore then I do them looking at how to get address dealing with mental health issues, or looking at how movies and media might contribute as well. None should be untouchable. And in the end I don't think anything will change. At best we'll quit cutting resources for mental health and social services so that parents don't have to deal with those issues on their own.
And all the guys who blew their bank rolls on panic buying will be stuck with over priced guns just as they were when the last totally ineffectual "Ban' ended.
Rights carry with them, responsibilities. Not all speech is protected. Specifically, speech that can cause serious harm or speech that threatens or is used to frighten. The entertainment industry certainly contributes to our broken culture. When criticized for the extreme violence they push for profit, they refuse to accept any responsibility, but point to guns. This industry needs to be accountable.
I think that kids with reality issues can be adversely affected by the non-stop violence in film, TV and video games. Clearly, desensitizing kids towards violence isn't anything good.
When I grew up, violence on TV was minimal. Violence on film was tame in comparison to what we see today. We did not have video games. We did not have the now common mass killings. Kids played with toy guns, but didn't shoot people with real ones. There was a clearly defined line between reality and fantasy. That line is now anything but clear in the minds of some young people. The number of fistfights at the high school I graduated from in 1971 has risen from less than a dozen in 1971 to over 80 in 2011. Why?
Today, violence dominates current pop culture. Endless, excessive violence fills most films directed at young adults. TV is nearly as bad, and the level of violence in video games is pretty stark. This nation is growing a generation of desensitized and confused young people. Add some mental illness or metal disorder and you have mayhem. Mental heath care in this country is a mess.
I know a woman whose 26 year-old son is mentally ill. He frequently gets extremely angry and abuses his mother, threatening her, pushing her and sometimes even striking her. She calls the police, and the son is taken to and admitted into a hospital for few days of observation. They adjust his medications (which he often refuses to take at home) and release him to abuse his mom again. Over and over it's happened. Sooner or later, he'll do her serious harm or simply kill the woman. This screwball spends much of his waking hours playing video games. His mom attempted to stop this, but his reaction was so violent that she backed off, badly frightened. She's hired a lawyer to begin the process of getting him probated. This is how our nation deals with this situation in the 21st century... It's nothing less than idiocy.
These mass shootings are a recent phenomena. They are perpetrated by young, college age men, and sometimes high school age too. There's a pattern to be seen, and it is part and parcel of the prevailing culture, as well as the lack of a real mental health policy and not the result of firearm ownership.
-
Err, perhaps I should just keep my mouth shut on the subject, sorry
:salute
-
The close range < 30 ft spread on any shot gun is negligible. For that matter, small shot is recommended for cqb due to it's limited ability to carry through walls yet remain lethal against unarmored opponents.
I wouldn't use smaller than #4 shot. In my HD shotgun, I load six 00 buckshot, with 6 more on a butt stock mounted carrier. Bird shot is useless as it will not reliably penetrate to vital organs. Low brass bird shot will not cycle the action of many semi-auto shotguns. My thoughts are simple. My goal is to stop the bad guy. The most sure way to stop him is to make him dead. If he/they retreat, let 'em go.... Otherwise.. Weapons free.
-
I'll still take my 12 ga shotgun, over a rifle for home defense. The pellets are not going to penetrate multiple walls and end up hitting one of my next door neighbors in their beds. I live in a suburban neighborhood where the houses are 50 feet apart. I have an M1 Garand I would only consider firing if my shotgun is empty and my wife's shotgun is empty. I would hate to send 30.06 rounds towards any of my neighbors homes.
If you hit your target with the rifle, you're good to go. The body should slow it enough that (if your house was built and not "thrown together") it should stop the rifle round. :P
My preference is a pistol for home defense though. When I pick up a shotgun I just want to go shoot some "clays".
-
I wouldn't use smaller than #4 shot. In my HD shotgun, I load six 00 buckshot, with 6 more on a butt stock mounted carrier. Bird shot is useless as it will not reliably penetrate to vital organs. Low brass bird shot will not cycle the action of many semi-auto shotguns. My thoughts are simple. My goal is to stop the bad guy. The most sure way to stop him is to make him dead. If he/they retreat, let 'em go.... Otherwise.. Weapons free.
[/quote
I think we agree. The write ups I went through recommended heavier bird or light buck shot in the home defense situation. More rounds with enough energy to do severe damage at under 30ft. There was very little spread at that close of a range so the net mass of the smaller shots acted as if they where a large mass which transferred all of it's energy within the first eight inches. Overall, I'd prefer a .40 or above pistol but the 12 guage is very effective if you're defensive.
-
So based on your logic then the best solution is to give everyone an AR-15 and require they carry it loaded all the time. That way everyone will see everyone else with a loaded gun. You go the bank and there's the teller with the barrel of her AR-15 pointed at you. No way you are going to rob that bank. My daughter the grade school teacher can just have hers loaded on the desk pointed at the kids. No behavior problems then.
Even better. We'll increase graduation rates. you can only get your AR-15 at graduation with a 3.0 grade point average or better. This way we'll know who the underachievers out there. Maybe we should only allow those gainfully employed to have them. That way we can identify the unemployed and the drop outs.
Think about it. only the best and the brightest able to wander freely with long guns so that everyone knows the lead will fly if they try and start something. No more behavior problems from teenagers as how would they dare act up knowing the teachers or the parents might open fire. No one would consider smacking their spouse as they'd be gunned down instead. The kid brings your daughter home late from that first date? There you are, loaded for bear. Bet he's on time.
If you drive drunk you lose your license and your gun. Talk about ashamed. No one would dare go postal for rear of the firefight that would follow.
You've solved it! We've solved it!
I appreciate your inspirational post in response to mine. I was inspired to come up with a practical solution :aok
:huh Sorry Guppo, your writings are not based on my logic or what I suggested. I see it as another attempt to degrade our second amendment rights. Further, your imaginings seem strange and desperate to me. For that i feel sorry that you weren't instilled with the proper values and experiences when growing up. :ahand
Not everyone wants long guns (but they have a right to them) and not everyone should have them (only those permitted by law). So far it seems the progressives and Chinese Government are in violent agreement. Need to get rid of the guns. It will make it easier when they foreclose on us.
http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/china-calls-for-no-delay-on-gun-controls-in-u-s/ (http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/china-calls-for-no-delay-on-gun-controls-in-u-s/)
Infidelz
-
going to buy a PA-63 right now :aok
The CZ-82 is also a good choice in that caliber. Holds 50% more rounds and very handy and reliable. Classic Firearms carries both (a polish P-64) and offers second magazines for 20 bucks.
-
The CZ-82 is also a good choice in that caliber. Holds 50% more rounds and very handy and reliable. Classic Firearms carries both (a polish P-64) and offers second magazines for 20 bucks.
Yeah looked at them but liked the look and feel of the PA-63 better
-
:huh Sorry Guppo, your writings are not based on my logic or what I suggested. I see it as another attempt to degrade our second amendment rights. Further, your imaginings seem strange and desperate to me. For that i feel sorry that you weren't instilled with the proper values and experiences when growing up. :hand
Infidelz
I'm not the one paranoid that "they" are coming to get the guns. I don't see black helicopters. Thankfully I was raised to not overreact to things. And thankfully I've raised my kids the same way
-
Widewing you are using the good old days argument. I'm 52. They were shooting people on TV and in the movies just as much then. They just didn't show us the big holes guns made in people.
You talk about the influence on unstable kids. Look at it this way. If a kid on the edge sees dad's bolt action and a box of shells it would influence his thinking in one way. Seeing dad's AR-15 and a stack of loaded 30 round magazines would influence his thinking in another.
A bit like pong Vs Halo.
How is looking at the influence of one ok and the other not ok?
If that kid when he went over the edge didn't have access to mom's AR and was limited to a bolt action long gun, would as many children died? Kinda doubt it as he'd have been much more limited in the rounds he could have put out. Having to work the bolt,and reload individual shells would have slowed him at the door and allowed those inside time to call 911. Instead he's able to blow through the door and unload on those kids much faster.
Why is talking about that untouchable?
-
Widewing you are using the good old days argument. I'm 52. They were shooting people on TV and in the movies just as much then. They just didn't show us the big holes guns made in people.
You talk about the influence on unstable kids. Look at it this way. If a kid on the edge sees dad's bolt action and a box of shells it would influence his thinking in one way. Seeing dad's AR-15 and a stack of loaded 30 round magazines would influence his thinking in another.
A bit like pong Vs Halo.
How is looking at the influence of one ok and the other not ok?
If that kid when he went over the edge didn't have access to mom's AR and was limited to a bolt action long gun, would as many children died? Kinda doubt it as he'd have been much more limited in the rounds he could have put out. Having to work the bolt,and reload individual shells would have slowed him at the door and allowed those inside time to call 911. Instead he's able to blow through the door and unload on those kids much faster.
Why is talking about that untouchable?
Speculation is just that. Ultimately it is about society, not the guns. The minute people say we do not need a Corvette to drive to work so they should be outlawed is the moment I see idiocy taking over. If this psycho in CT would not have access to an AR15 and 30rd mags he still would have had 2 handguns and 15 rounds a piece in them. If he would have been restricted to 10 rd magazines he would have ad at 30 round to use before reloading. If semi-autos would have been banned he would have brought revolvers, lever-actions, and pump shotguns. If they would have been banned then he would have brought cans of gas, poured the gas on the kids and lit them on fire. McVeigh fertilizer bomb, etc, etc, on and on. The guy was a psycho, he was going to kill any way he could. If the principle would have been armed, or any one of those teachers that the killer attacked was armed, we'd be hearing a far different story. Unfortunately, the artificial cleansing and purification of schools and the public in general have made this not possible. Bolt gun or semi-auto, one death is too many. Start with the banning high capacity mags, then it will be semi-auto rifles, and eventually we'll ban the bolt guns too. Give an inch and they will take 10 yards. Count on it.
Question for anyone: If I volunteered to work security at a school, armed, but in a low key manner (business casual w/ concealed handgun) enough that only the teachers and staff know who I am, how would that sit? I've got 6 years of deputy/PD duty under my belt (includes lots of tactical/active shooter training), earned a college degree to be a teacher, am married and father of a 10yo and 7yo, etc, etc, plus I know how tom interact with the public from many angles. How would that sit with those of you who have heard of this option? Say I was one of 8 adults that volunteered for this duty and all of us had at least some minimal training (military, LEO, or professional training). How would this suffice?
The baddies will always try and do bad, their tools will change as need be. Limiting magazines capacity will not stop gun violence. Limiting the cosmetic features on certain firearms will not stop gun violence. Banning a certain type of firearms will not stop violence. Changing society to be more responsible and accountable for their actions or lack of actions will. We in the USA have gotten very soft, we've become far too complacent with allowing substandard everything in the name of "feeling good" instead of taking an issue head on and forcing people to see reality. The reality is that firearms are an inanimate object. So are forks and spoons. So are automobiles. So are knives. Where do we draw the line and stop the madness? Or, do we keep allowing a "feel good" law or policy to go in to effect with no direct and positive results? I remind everyone that the Columbine killers did all their damage during the "Assault Weapons Ban", and they obtained their guns illegally, and they used propane bombs (that failed), etc, etc. Laws do not stop the bad guys.
-
I'm not the one paranoid that "they" are coming to get the guns. I don't see black helicopters. Thankfully I was raised to not overreact to things. And thankfully I've raised my kids the same way
No need for name calling, I didn't call you naive. FYI they are using UAV's these day and you can't see em. Sad that you don't recognize the warning signs, you strike me as a nice fellow that just doesn't have full SA.
and again Not everyone wants long guns (but they have a right to them) and not everyone should have them (only those permitted by law). So far it seems the progressives and Chinese Government are in violent agreement. Need to get rid of the guns. It will make it easier when they foreclose on us.
http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/china-calls-for-no-delay-on-gun-controls-in-u-s/
The second amendment is all about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So please if you don't have time to get the SA stay thankful and don't tell the rest of us what we need.
-
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-british-citizen-piers-morgan-attacking-2nd-amendment/prfh5zHD (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-british-citizen-piers-morgan-attacking-2nd-amendment/prfh5zHD)
Look its a petition to oust that nice Peirs Morgan fellow from our shores. Wouldn't be a bad start especially this haughty SOB.
-
Speculation is just that. Ultimately it is about society, not the guns. The minute people say we do not need a Corvette to drive to work so they should be outlawed is the moment I see idiocy taking over. If this psycho in CT would not have access to an AR15 and 30rd mags he still would have had 2 handguns and 15 rounds a piece in them. If he would have been restricted to 10 rd magazines he would have ad at 30 round to use before reloading. If semi-autos would have been banned he would have brought revolvers, lever-actions, and pump shotguns. If they would have been banned then he would have brought cans of gas, poured the gas on the kids and lit them on fire. McVeigh fertilizer bomb, etc, etc, on and on. The guy was a psycho, he was going to kill any way he could. If the principle would have been armed, or any one of those teachers that the killer attacked was armed, we'd be hearing a far different story. Unfortunately, the artificial cleansing and purification of schools and the public in general have made this not possible. Bolt gun or semi-auto, one death is too many. Start with the banning high capacity mags, then it will be semi-auto rifles, and eventually we'll ban the bolt guns too. Give an inch and they will take 10 yards. Count on it.
Question for anyone: If I volunteered to work security at a school, armed, but in a low key manner (business casual w/ concealed handgun) enough that only the teachers and staff know who I am, how would that sit? I've got 6 years of deputy/PD duty under my belt (includes lots of tactical/active shooter training), earned a college degree to be a teacher, am married and father of a 10yo and 7yo, etc, etc, plus I know how tom interact with the public from many angles. How would that sit with those of you who have heard of this option? Say I was one of 8 adults that volunteered for this duty and all of us had at least some minimal training (military, LEO, or professional training). How would this suffice?
The baddies will always try and do bad, their tools will change as need be. Limiting magazines capacity will not stop gun violence. Limiting the cosmetic features on certain firearms will not stop gun violence. Banning a certain type of firearms will not stop violence. Changing society to be more responsible and accountable for their actions or lack of actions will. We in the USA have gotten very soft, we've become far too complacent with allowing substandard everything in the name of "feeling good" instead of taking an issue head on and forcing people to see reality. The reality is that firearms are an inanimate object. So are forks and spoons. So are automobiles. So are knives. Where do we draw the line and stop the madness? Or, do we keep allowing a "feel good" law or policy to go in to effect with no direct and positive results? I remind everyone that the Columbine killers did all their damage during the "Assault Weapons Ban", and they obtained their guns illegally, and they used propane bombs (that failed), etc, etc. Laws do not stop the bad guys.
Well spoken, sir! That is exactly what the issue is; mental health decay and the resulting violence against the innocent. Theses psychos never seem to go after police stations, gun shops, or anywhere there are people who can defend themselves. Guns of any type have nothing to do with it. The underlying reason for gun control is to disarm citizens and turn them into slaves.
-
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-british-citizen-piers-morgan-attacking-2nd-amendment/prfh5zHD (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-british-citizen-piers-morgan-attacking-2nd-amendment/prfh5zHD)
Look its a petition to oust that nice Peirs Morgan fellow from our shores. Wouldn't be a bad start especially this haughty SOB.
so, just to be clear: you consider the 2nd Amendment absolutely sacrosanct, but you're quite happy to ignore or repeal the 1st Amendment? :headscratch:
edit: btw everyone in the UK thinks Piers is a **** too ;)
-
Speculation is just that. Ultimately it is about society, not the guns. The minute people say we do not need a Corvette to drive to work so they should be outlawed is the moment I see idiocy taking over. If this psycho in CT would not have access to an AR15 and 30rd mags he still would have had 2 handguns and 15 rounds a piece in them. If he would have been restricted to 10 rd magazines he would have ad at 30 round to use before reloading. If semi-autos would have been banned he would have brought revolvers, lever-actions, and pump shotguns. If they would have been banned then he would have brought cans of gas, poured the gas on the kids and lit them on fire. McVeigh fertilizer bomb, etc, etc, on and on. The guy was a psycho, he was going to kill any way he could. If the principle would have been armed, or any one of those teachers that the killer attacked was armed, we'd be hearing a far different story. Unfortunately, the artificial cleansing and purification of schools and the public in general have made this not possible. Bolt gun or semi-auto, one death is too many. Start with the banning high capacity mags, then it will be semi-auto rifles, and eventually we'll ban the bolt guns too. Give an inch and they will take 10 yards. Count on it.
Question for anyone: If I volunteered to work security at a school, armed, but in a low key manner (business casual w/ concealed handgun) enough that only the teachers and staff know who I am, how would that sit? I've got 6 years of deputy/PD duty under my belt (includes lots of tactical/active shooter training), earned a college degree to be a teacher, am married and father of a 10yo and 7yo, etc, etc, plus I know how tom interact with the public from many angles. How would that sit with those of you who have heard of this option? Say I was one of 8 adults that volunteered for this duty and all of us had at least some minimal training (military, LEO, or professional training). How would this suffice?
The baddies will always try and do bad, their tools will change as need be. Limiting magazines capacity will not stop gun violence. Limiting the cosmetic features on certain firearms will not stop gun violence. Banning a certain type of firearms will not stop violence. Changing society to be more responsible and accountable for their actions or lack of actions will. We in the USA have gotten very soft, we've become far too complacent with allowing substandard everything in the name of "feeling good" instead of taking an issue head on and forcing people to see reality. The reality is that firearms are an inanimate object. So are forks and spoons. So are automobiles. So are knives. Where do we draw the line and stop the madness? Or, do we keep allowing a "feel good" law or policy to go in to effect with no direct and positive results? I remind everyone that the Columbine killers did all their damage during the "Assault Weapons Ban", and they obtained their guns illegally, and they used propane bombs (that failed), etc, etc. Laws do not stop the bad guys.
So since I'm a responsible driver with an perfect record the last 30+ years I should be able to drive any speed I want and not carry insurance too as I'll never need it. Why should I have limits on my driving?
My rights are being infringed!
How is that different?
-
so, just to be clear: you consider the 2nd Amendm"ent absolutely sacrosanct, but you're quite happy to ignore or repeal the 1st Amendment? :headscratch:
edit: btw everyone in the UK thinks Piers is a **** too ;)
"Deport British Citizen Piers Morgan for Attacking 2nd Amendment
British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens."
YUP. No issues on this one. Mr. Morgan is an alien agitator here advocating the overthrow of our constitution. I know the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to aliens - don't believe the first was intended to either.
-
Well spoken, sir! That is exactly what the issue is; mental health decay and the resulting violence against the innocent. Theses psychos never seem to go after police stations, gun shops, or anywhere there are people who can defend themselves. Guns of any type have nothing to do with it. The underlying reason for gun control is to disarm citizens and turn them into slaves.
So who are these people that are decaying? Are you suggesting parents aren't doing their jobs anymore? Each generation is just that much lousier at raising their kids? I don't but that at all. Who here that has kids now doesn't work at their parenting as hard as their parents did? That's a garbage excuse.
I'm very proud of how I raised my kids. Having been involved in their lives via school etc, I also saw how hard the other parents were working too. I spent most of my adult life working with troubled teens. It's a very small percentage of all the kids out there.
Are you a lousy parent? If so, how come? Why did you slack off and ruin your kids?
-
What is needed is to enforce accross the nation the laws in place now... there are states that require no reporting of mental illness to get a gun.. stop allowing states to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce... standardize it and keep guns out of the hands of these nuts...oops "troubled teens".. they are only nuts after they kill their mother and elementary kids.....
-
So who are these people that are decaying? Are you suggesting parents aren't doing their jobs anymore? Each generation is just that much lousier at raising their kids? I don't but that at all. Who here that has kids now doesn't work at their parenting as hard as their parents did? That's a garbage excuse.
I'm very proud of how I raised my kids. Having been involved in their lives via school etc, I also saw how hard the other parents were working too. I spent most of my adult life working with troubled teens. It's a very small percentage of all the kids out there.
Are you a lousy parent? If so, how come? Why did you slack off and ruin your kids?
You need to back off and get over yourself. Your guilt riddled comment completely misses the point and steers it off in another direction.
-
So since I'm a responsible driver with an perfect record the last 30+ years I should be able to drive any speed I want and not carry insurance too as I'll never need it. Why should I have limits on my driving?
My rights are being infringed!
How is that different?
Driving above the speed limit is unsafe, even if the road is perfectly strait and your car can handle the speed, because other cars are going slower, and other drivers are typically borderline retarded. The speed limit is not just for the safety of others, but for your own personal safety as well.
However, even owning a fully operational and combat-loaded tank is not dangerous in and of itself. It posses a potential risk if you go nuts, or if someone that is already nuts/very stupid steals it. But it doesn't pose a risk just by being in your driveway.
Whether or not people should have access to assult weapons is besides the point. The point is that banning assult weapons will do little to reduce the carnage. Only banning all guns would do anything significant toward reducing the number of shootings, and thats an unacceptable step, especially considering that there are other ways to reduce deaths.
-
Somehow many seem to overlook the fact that the 300 million guns in circulation may contribute to our "violent culture". All facets of gun violence need to be looked at; guns shouldn't be immune.
-
As I said in my earlier post, weapons are my business. I'm comfy with them. Being Canadian I take no position on the US gun control issue. However I will say, based on my experience in CQB, the argument that if everybody carried guns mass killings wouldn't happen is one that can only be advanced by someone utterly clueless about the realities of combat.
Say you're in the library, reading up on your favourite plane. Of course you've got your legal concealed carry sidearm on you. POP POP POP. You look up. Some guy is there with an automatic, capping rounds at someone you can't see. You draw with one well-practiced movement, take aim and... is this guy the killer? Or is he an armed citizen like you, shooting at the killer? Better not choose wrong.
And then POP POP POP, some else is shooting at you, because you've got a gun out and she ain't waiting to figure out who's who. So now you better shoot back. Only you CAN'T shoot back because lethal stress has shut down your fine motor skills so hard you can't find the trigger, even if you weren't too tunnel-visioned to get a sight picture. And that's probably a good thing, because if you could fire you WOULD fire, and you wouldn't be thinking to scan the background to see the school group trying to hide under desks behind the one shooting at you.
And some of you are thinking right now "Not me, I'm good. I'd be able to aim, to fire, to hit the target and not the kids." but the fact is you didn't even think of these things as you read this scenario until I brought them up. You're deluding yourself if you think you're going to be that switched on with live rounds coming at your face when you can't even do it when reading some text on your screen. To quote LCol Dave Grossman, who literally wrote the book on human performance under lethal stress. "You will not rise to the occasion, you will sink to the level of your training." Let us be clear on what "training" means. I don't care how many years you've managed to kill the deer and not your buddy - if your training didn't involve incoming simunition and a thousand target-discrimination rounds a day, it was inadequate. If you weren't in the kill-house in the last 14 days, you're stale. That's the level that SWAT teams and SF train to, and even they kill the wrong people sometimes. Still think you're so switched on you can get accurate rounds downrange in this situation? Then you already know why you just killed an innocent. What, surprised? The girl you just shot wasn't the killer, she's the one who thought YOU were the killer. You didn't forget that, did you McLane? She's the armed teacher protecting her students behind her, didn't you pull that out of your combat asessment? Do you even know what a combat assessment is?
So that's you in a no-warning firefight. Now thank about fifty other concealed-carry heroes in the library with you. Now think about this going down in a dark movie theatre, like in Colorado last July.
Yeah.
-
^ yup.
-
You need to back off and get over yourself. Your guilt riddled comment completely misses the point and steers it off in another direction.
you are the one talking about someone taking your guns and turning you into a slave. Who is the one that needs to get over himself. You are spouting the NRA line and the paranoid 'they're coming to get my guns' bit.
My AR15 will be right where I left it when the dust settles. Just like it's always been. The decaying society, it's the media, it's this, it's that, BS gets old.
And you never answered my question either? Do you really believe that parents have quit doing thier jobs this generation? I have a bit more faith in people apparently.
-
As I said in my earlier post, weapons are my business. I'm comfy with them. Being Canadian I take no position on the US gun control issue. However I will say, based on my experience in CQB, the argument that if everybody carried guns mass killings wouldn't happen is one that can only be advanced by someone utterly clueless about the realities of combat.
Say you're in the library, reading up on your favourite plane. Of course you've got your legal concealed carry sidearm on you. POP POP POP. You look up. Some guy is there with an automatic, capping rounds at someone you can't see. You draw with one well-practiced movement, take aim and... is this guy the killer? Or is he an armed citizen like you, shooting at the killer? Better not choose wrong.
And then POP POP POP, someone is shooting at you, because you've got a gun out and she ain't waiting to figure out who's who. So now you better shoot back. Only you CAN'T shoot back because lethal stress has shut down your fine motor skills so hard you can't find the trigger, even if you weren't too tunnel-visioned to get a sight picture. And that's probably a good thing, because if you could fire you WOULD fire, and you wouldn't be thinking to scan the background to see the school group trying to hide under desks behind the one shooting at you.
And some of you are thinking right now "Not me, I'm good. I'd be able to aim, to fire, to hit the target and not the kids." but the fact is you didn't even think of these things as you read this scenario until I brought them up. You're deluding yourself if you think you're going to be that switched on with live rounds coming at your face when you can't even do it when reading some text on your screen. To quote LCol Dave Grossman, who literally wrote the book on human performance under lethal stress. "You will not rise to the occasion, you will sink to the level of your training." Let us be clear on what "training" means. I don't care how many years you've managed to kill the deer and not your buddy - if your training didn't involve incoming simunition and a thousand target-discrimination rounds a day, it was inadequate. If you weren't in the kill-house in the last 14 days, you're stale. That's the level that SWAT teams and SF train to, and even they kill the wrong people sometimes. Still think you're so switched on you can get accurate rounds downrange in this situation? Then you already know why you just killed an innocent. What, surprised? The girl you just shot wasn't the killer, she's the one who thought YOU were the killer. You didn't forget that, did you McLane? She's the armed teacher protecting her students behind her, didn't you pull that out of your combat asessment? Do you even know what a combat assessment is?
So that's you in a no-warning firefight. Now thank about fifty other concealed-carry heroes in the library with you. Now think about this going down in a dark movie theatre, like in Colorado last July.
Yeah.
-
you are the one talking about someone taking your guns and turning you into a slave. Who is the one that needs to get over himself. You are spouting the NRA line and the paranoid 'they're coming to get my guns' bit.
My AR15 will be right where I left it when the dust settles. Just like it's always been. The decaying society, it's the media, it's this, it's that, BS gets old.
And you never answered my question either? Do you really believe that parents have quit doing thier jobs this generation? I have a bit more faith in people apparently.
Wow, you sure come up with a lot of fantasy about things I've not mentioned; parenting, NRA, etc. Unwind and brush up on your world history. Be reminded that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
....and, oh, by the way, whether I'm a parent, gun owner, NRA member, or anything else off the subject that you come up with is none of your business.
-
You two need to take it to PM so Skuzzy doesn't have to lock the thread.
SMH. :bhead
-
So who are these people that are decaying? Are you suggesting parents aren't doing their jobs anymore? Each generation is just that much lousier at raising their kids? I don't but that at all. Who here that has kids now doesn't work at their parenting as hard as their parents did? That's a garbage excuse.
I'm very proud of how I raised my kids. Having been involved in their lives via school etc, I also saw how hard the other parents were working too. I spent most of my adult life working with troubled teens. It's a very small percentage of all the kids out there.
Are you a lousy parent? If so, how come? Why did you slack off and ruin your kids?
Parenting is one part of the equation, sure. It isn't the only thing, but it is certainly a part of the big picture.
If we compare kids growing up 80 years ago, 60 years ago, 40 years ago, 20 years ago, and today I'm sure we all can see how there has been a major shift from learning responsibility and accountability to everyone gets a trophy and having fun. That may be a stretch but the general point is there. I understand the advances in technology, etc, but just how many of the kids today know what it means to earn a loaf of bread for shoveling coal all day like my grandfather did when he was 12yo during the Great Depression??? Trust me when I say that I don't want anyone to have to go through that like he did, but today's 12ypo kid is more worried about obtaining the latest $300 iPad, $200 smart-phone, $400 Xbawks, or a $150 pair of athletic shoes. On and on.
This could be a discussion that would never end. There is no such thing as a "perfect" parent, we all have things that we do good and things we don't do so good. I just hope we all do our best and teach them well because someday they will be in our shoes.
FWIW, I'm a father of a 10yo son and a 7yo girl. My wife of 13 years and I are very involved in the lives of our children. I coach baseball and football, am a leader in my son's Cub Scout unit, and chaperone church youth group when able. My daughter has shown a lot of interests in dancing, cheerleading, and other girlie girl stuff, she too is involved in church youth group stuff. Both my wife and I are active in their schools (PTO stuff). Both of my kids have daily chores, they do their homework and get good grades. Some of the in-laws say I am too tough on my kids because they do not just throw their coats on the floor, they hang them up. My kids ask to be excused from the table instead of just up and leaving (and they eat what is served no special chicken nuggets or cheese pizza for my kids), and my kids do not hesitate when their mother or I ask them to so something for they know to respect thy mother and father (and authority in general). Point being is that I too take great pride in the amount of time my wife and I spend with our kids, and also in pushing our kids to be the best they can be. I do my best to teach them about life's reality and the differences between needs and wants. I'm very proud of them and I know that when life does smack them along side the head they both wont get knocked down and if they do they will get right back up. I see it quite often in kids the same age as mine simply break out in tears and drama when they dont get what they want, or they are asked to try a spoon full of mashed 'taters instead of a hotdog at Thanksgiving meal. I applaud any parent for spending time with their kids and teaching their kids right from wrong and wants vs needs. Love does not have to be all laughs smiles, sometimes a bit of tough love is what is needed and I think that is a lost art to a lot of parents.
It is hard to not judge other kids or parents but when I see so many of the things going on that I am working to prevent with my kids it does get a bit disheartening. I see dad more worried about his fantasy football league stats than Jr''s homework. I see momma is more worried about posting photos on their social media account than they are in getting their child to a school function. I see dad's more concerned about their son winning a jr football game than being a good sport, etc, etc. It just seems many of the lessons we as parents should be teaching our kids are not being taught. This all ties right in to the Golden Rule.
-
Smokin,
Every generation since the beginning of time has thought the the kids of the one after theirs were spoiled and doomed. It's the nature of the beast. We all want to romanticize the past. I'm a history junkie. But if you really look at it, and what was being written and said at the time about the 'kids', it's always the same. Just because the world changes, and new 'stuff' appears that the kids want, doesn't mean we've fallen off the rails.
Everything you talk about you and your wife doing with your 10 and 7 year old, is what good parents do. Parents have always done that. Are there parents who aren't good at it? Absolutely. But that's been true forever as well.
Since this is a WW2 based game, I'll use 'the Greatest Generation' as an example. We love to make them larger then life because of how we've glorified and romanticized that war. I was sitting at a family gathering a while back and someone started a rant about the current generation and was lamenting them not being like the "Greatest Generation'. I pointed to my 21 year old nephew who'd just come back from a year long tour in combat with the 101st in Afghanistan and said there was a member of the greatest generation in the room and pointed at him.
He struggled in school, tested limits with his parents and all the usual stuff. But when push came to shove, he did what was needed to do, just like those kids back in the 40s. If you dig in to their stories, they screwed up, tested limits, challenged their parents too.
You can't blame the kids for being kids now, as they didn't have a say in the matter. Nor can you blame the parents for parenting now. It doesn't mean the world is coming to an end. It's just another generation dealing with what parents and kids deal with.
To say that today's kids don't get it, is to suggest the parents don't get it. Well that means the parents of the parents didn't get it and so on.
Understand that people react to tragedy in different ways and want to find someone or something to blame. It's not rational. But it is part of grieving. The AR15 I sold recently was bought right after my 21 year old son died. I bought it and an Springfield M1A because we enjoyed shooting and talking guns. I bought them in the agony of the pain of losing him. In my mind I thought that maybe, just maybe he'd come home because I could finally get the guns he really wanted. Guess what. It didn't work. But it was, was it was, and in some crazy way it helped me. I sat up by myself with that M1A where we'd deer hunted, dreaming and praying my son would walk out of the woods and join me. Didn't happen. I sold the AR15 and gave the M1A to his best friend's Dad because I knew I'd never shoot Andrew's guns and I suppose by not having them anymore, I finally admitted to my self that he's truly gone.
So now folks who are shocked, horrified and grieving the loss of those kids and teachers are looking, begging for an answer. And in that they are talking about guns. it's their right whether it's rational or not. If it helps folks to deal with this tragedy by talking about gun control, so be it. For the gun guys to panic in fear they'll lose their guns is just silly.
Step back, look at the entire picture and put it in perspective.
And keep up the good work raising your kids :aok
-
So since I'm a responsible driver with an perfect record the last 30+ years I should be able to drive any speed I want and not carry insurance too as I'll never need it. Why should I have limits on my driving?
My rights are being infringed!
How is that different?
Because driving is not a right?
-
you are the one talking about someone taking your guns and turning you into a slave. Who is the one that needs to get over himself. You are spouting the NRA line and the paranoid 'they're coming to get my guns' bit.
My AR15 will be right where I left it when the dust settles. Just like it's always been. The decaying society, it's the media, it's this, it's that, BS gets old.
And you never answered my question either? Do you really believe that parents have quit doing thier jobs this generation? I have a bit more faith in people apparently.
So then Guppy, what do we attribute the ever increasing violence to? Seriously, something has changed... What? I think that you're just whistling past the grave yard if you say nothing has.
As to the AR-15... I have a strong dislike for this rifle. Too many stoppages, too many ways to fail when you need it to work. The gas system sucks, and every round fired adds to fouling of the action. The M4 version is combat ineffective beyond 300 yards and practically worthless beyond 400 yards. The 5.56mm round is lacking in lethality. The M4 is more accurate than the AK systems, but unless you're bench resting it squeezing off individual rounds, that means little in combat. At least in comparison to the effectiveness of the round and the weapon's reliability. New variations of the basic M4 with piston gas systems are vastly better weapons. The H&K 416 being one of these, with the M6 series being another. At ranges over 400 yards, I'd take an old M1 Garand or even an ancient Enfield No.4 Mk.I and dominate the M4.
You can read about this issues with the M4/5.56mm in Afghanistan here:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA512331 (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA512331)
I would not point to the AR-15 or any other modern rifle as being significant in the Sand Hook shooting. I own two Rossi made Winchester Model 1892 clones (with 20" and 16" barrels). A John Browning design, essentially a scaled down version of his very stout model 1886 chambered for pistol cartridges. One holds 10+1 rounds of .44 Remington Magnum and the other 8+1 .357 Magnum. The action is slick and ultra fast. In terms of aimed fire, it gives up little to nothing to a semi-auto. I've done some cowboy action shooting with both. I've practiced with 20 steel plate targets. I have shot down all 20 in just over 43 seconds, including reloading. I've competed in 3 gun matches, and I've often had times better than some of the guys shooting ARs. Unlike the 5.56mm, one hit anywhere in the torso with a .44 Magnum and the target person (adult) is down. This round has a 96% incapacitation rate with torso hits, as does the .357 Magnum. Thus, shooting either rifle, one could duplicate Lanza's result with little effort. So, consider that a rifle design, originating in 1892 (that's 120 years ago), is at least as effective as the latest M4/AR-15 at close range.
Watch the video linked below.. A Henry Big Boy lever gun chambered in .357 Magnum. 10 aimed shots, all hits (6 on small steel plates) in 7 seconds. The last half of the video is the interesting part.
http://vimeo.com/33424932 (http://vimeo.com/33424932)
So, I defy anyone to argue successfully that the "assault weapon" and high capacity magazines are any more lethal or effective as the 19th century technology lever gun at close quarters. Those uneducated in combat arms may think that the AR-15 is too deadly for civilians to own. That's just baloney. In a "gun free school zone", any rifle, shotgun or pistol could kill dozens, because the victims are absolutely defenseless. They should change the signs outside from Gun Free School Zone to Lunatic Free Fire Zone.
-
And you never answered my question either? Do you really believe that parents have quit doing thier jobs this generation? I have a bit more faith in people apparently.
Hell, I'm only 18 and I think parenting has started to slip. Looking at other's parents, they seem incredibly lienient. Many of my friends were given xboxes for nothing, when only last month, I bought my second gaming consol ever. They had 2008+ cars given to them as birthday presents. They say they're going into town, or are spending the night somehwere, instead of asking permission to do so. They get rewarded for earning B's in school.
I'm not saying they're all dropping the ball, or screwing up their kids. But you must admit that the attitude has changed, and not nessicarily for the better. Personally, I think the whole "its ok if you got last place, just as long as you had fun" mentality is one of the worst things that society could inflict upon itself. "That they tried their best?" Sure, you gave it your all. But "you had fun"? Sorry, no.
Not having seen previous generations growing up, I'm only taking a shot in the dark here, but if I had to guess, I'd say todays kid is more .... presumptious, and perhaps a tad cavalier. They seem to think like the world should move aside for them because they're them.
-
As I said in my earlier post, weapons are my business. I'm comfy with them. Being Canadian I take no position on the US gun control issue. However I will say, based on my experience in CQB, the argument that if everybody carried guns mass killings wouldn't happen is one that can only be advanced by someone utterly clueless about the realities of combat.
Say you're in the library, reading up on your favourite plane. Of course you've got your legal concealed carry sidearm on you. POP POP POP. You look up. Some guy is there with an automatic, capping rounds at someone you can't see. You draw with one well-practiced movement, take aim and... is this guy the killer? Or is he an armed citizen like you, shooting at the killer? Better not choose wrong.
And then POP POP POP, some else is shooting at you, because you've got a gun out and she ain't waiting to figure out who's who. So now you better shoot back. Only you CAN'T shoot back because lethal stress has shut down your fine motor skills so hard you can't find the trigger, even if you weren't too tunnel-visioned to get a sight picture. And that's probably a good thing, because if you could fire you WOULD fire, and you wouldn't be thinking to scan the background to see the school group trying to hide under desks behind the one shooting at you.
And some of you are thinking right now "Not me, I'm good. I'd be able to aim, to fire, to hit the target and not the kids." but the fact is you didn't even think of these things as you read this scenario until I brought them up. You're deluding yourself if you think you're going to be that switched on with live rounds coming at your face when you can't even do it when reading some text on your screen. To quote LCol Dave Grossman, who literally wrote the book on human performance under lethal stress. "You will not rise to the occasion, you will sink to the level of your training." Let us be clear on what "training" means. I don't care how many years you've managed to kill the deer and not your buddy - if your training didn't involve incoming simunition and a thousand target-discrimination rounds a day, it was inadequate. If you weren't in the kill-house in the last 14 days, you're stale. That's the level that SWAT teams and SF train to, and even they kill the wrong people sometimes. Still think you're so switched on you can get accurate rounds downrange in this situation? Then you already know why you just killed an innocent. What, surprised? The girl you just shot wasn't the killer, she's the one who thought YOU were the killer. You didn't forget that, did you McLane? She's the armed teacher protecting her students behind her, didn't you pull that out of your combat asessment? Do you even know what a combat assessment is?
So that's you in a no-warning firefight. Now thank about fifty other concealed-carry heroes in the library with you. Now think about this going down in a dark movie theatre, like in Colorado last July.
Yeah.
This is pretty well thought out. I get a kick out of the keyboard Rambo's who have got no more training than what is required to get a CCW dreaming about being hero's.
-
Wow :O
That IS some fairly outstanding tooling. Out of curiosity, what material is the barrel made from and is there any kind of heat treatment, normalizing or stress relieving done to the material before boring or rifling?
I don't know what their process is, nor are they saying. I do know that their basic H001 .22 caliber lever gun shoots consistently tighter groups than my friend's bolt action, scoped Ruger 77/22, regardless of who shoots the Henry.
-
So since I'm a responsible driver with an perfect record the last 30+ years I should be able to drive any speed I want and not carry insurance too as I'll never need it. Why should I have limits on my driving?
My rights are being infringed!
How is that different?
Which Amendment specifically guarantees your right to drive a car?
Obviously, none. Driving is a privilege bestowed by State governments. You have no right to drive, thus you have no right to speed.
-
Which Amendment specifically guarantees your right to drive a car?
Obviously, none. Driving is a privilege bestowed by State governments. You have no right to drive, thus you have no right to speed.
I completely disagree with this......
this type of thinking is what started the whole process.
I know you are a smart guy WW and most often I agree with you.....but we OWN those roads.....this is one of many things that........
well I must stop there.
-
As I said in my earlier post, weapons are my business. I'm comfy with them. Being Canadian I take no position on the US gun control issue. However I will say, based on my experience in CQB, the argument that if everybody carried guns mass killings wouldn't happen is one that can only be advanced by someone utterly clueless about the realities of combat.
Say you're in the library, reading up on your favourite plane. Of course you've got your legal concealed carry sidearm on you. POP POP POP. You look up. Some guy is there with an automatic, capping rounds at someone you can't see. You draw with one well-practiced movement, take aim and... is this guy the killer? Or is he an armed citizen like you, shooting at the killer? Better not choose wrong.
And then POP POP POP, someone is shooting at you, because you've got a gun out and she ain't waiting to figure out who's who. So now you better shoot back. Only you CAN'T shoot back because lethal stress has shut down your fine motor skills so hard you can't find the trigger, even if you weren't too tunnel-visioned to get a sight picture. And that's probably a good thing, because if you could fire you WOULD fire, and you wouldn't be thinking to scan the background to see the school group trying to hide under desks behind the one shooting at you.
And some of you are thinking right now "Not me, I'm good. I'd be able to aim, to fire, to hit the target and not the kids." but the fact is you didn't even think of these things as you read this scenario until I brought them up. You're deluding yourself if you think you're going to be that switched on with live rounds coming at your face when you can't even do it when reading some text on your screen. To quote LCol Dave Grossman, who literally wrote the book on human performance under lethal stress. "You will not rise to the occasion, you will sink to the level of your training." Let us be clear on what "training" means. I don't care how many years you've managed to kill the deer and not your buddy - if your training didn't involve incoming simunition and a thousand target-discrimination rounds a day, it was inadequate. If you weren't in the kill-house in the last 14 days, you're stale. That's the level that SWAT teams and SF train to, and even they kill the wrong people sometimes. Still think you're so switched on you can get accurate rounds downrange in this situation? Then you already know why you just killed an innocent. What, surprised? The girl you just shot wasn't the killer, she's the one who thought YOU were the killer. You didn't forget that, did you McLane? She's the armed teacher protecting her students behind her, didn't you pull that out of your combat asessment? Do you even know what a combat assessment is?
So that's you in a no-warning firefight. Now thank about fifty other concealed-carry heroes in the library with you. Now think about this going down in a dark movie theatre, like in Colorado last July.
Yeah.
Well, you've constructed a strawman argument that makes many assumptions. You assume that every concealed carry individual will engage in a gunfight if shooting occurs nearby. Most will not intervene unless directly threatened.
Any argument that presupposes that civilians would be trained like a tactical entry team is silly. What about the typical cop? Many of them can't shoot worth a damn, and very few have ever been in a gunfight. Would they perform substantially better than a civilian who shoots far more frequently? I've read where the average concealed carry holder shoots 600 rounds annually. Not very much compared to a SWAT team member, but still 500 to 550 more than the average police officer. What about civilians with military training? Of course everything comes down to training.. But, how much training did Lanza have?
You've constructed worst case scenarios that are extremely unlikely to occur.
Some sources state that as many as 800,000 times a year, civilians use firearms to stop or prevent a crime in this country. Over 300,000 were reported, and it is estimated than another 500,000 go unreported because no shots were fired, or the bad guy simply skedaddled. Of that total number, only a small percentage result in discharge of the firearm.
Anyone trained in combat arms, or even self defense knows that when the adrenalin starts flowing, fine motor skills degrade. This is why they are taught to aim for center of mass when shooting, or use gross motor movements when defending against a physical assault.
How about that 22 year-old off duty security guard that ended the shooting at that Oregon mall? This guy ran to the sound of the gunfire. He spotted the shooter. The lunatic was trying to clear a feed jam in his AR-15. The young man drew his Glock 22 and put the sights on the shooter. However, he held his fire because people were in the line of fire behind the nutjob. The shooter cleared his jam and looked up to see the Glock pointed his way. He bolted for an alley or alcove. The armed civilian took up position to oversee where the shooter had hidden. Seconds later, one shot rang out. The shooter, having had his bubble burst, shot himself in the mouth. Only two died, because the young man intervened and used sound judgment.
How about this old fella? Betcha he hadn't been in the "kill=house" within the prior 14 days.... Didn't seem to impact the outcome much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm9o3vhKoF8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm9o3vhKoF8)
-
I completely disagree with this......
this type of thinking is what started the whole process.
I know you are a smart guy WW and most often I agree with you.....but we OWN those roads.....this is one of many things that........
well I must stop there.
The reality is that we own squat... The State or County can suspend your drivers license for too many speeding tickets. They cannot suspend your right to free speech. The first is a privilege, the second is a right. They are very different under the law.
-
and therein lies the problem :aok
-
So, I defy anyone to argue successfully that the "assault weapon" and high capacity magazines are any more lethal or effective as the 19th century technology lever gun at close quarters. Those uneducated in combat arms may think that the AR-15 is too deadly for civilians to own. That's just baloney. In a "gun free school zone", any rifle, shotgun or pistol could kill dozens, because the victims are absolutely defenseless. They should change the signs outside from Gun Free School Zone to Lunatic Free Fire Zone.
First, I agree that the AR15 is a terrible weapon. I carried a few guns during my service, several of which were the older cousin of the 15', the M-16. I had very little confidence in that rifle and I hear from my younger brother that had the AR-15 that they are no better. It is a good sports rifle I guess - the firing range targets do not shoot back.
As for the "gun free school zone" comments, I agree that ANY firearm can cause carnage in such an environment. No weapons and definitely no gun should enter school unless it is carried by a security guard. Not even a brown Bess. "Weapon" can be difficult to define because a sharpened toothbrush can be a weapon too. At least firearms and knives are well defined and can be forbidden.
-
If you need 15 rounds to kill a deer, you don't need to be hunting. If you think you're going to stop "the government" with a rifle, you haven't been to an armory. If you thing "the apocalypse" is coming, you haven't checked the Mayan calendar results...
-
If you need 15 rounds to kill a deer, you don't need to be hunting. If you think you're going to stop "the government" with a rifle, you haven't been to an armory. If you thing "the apocalypse" is coming, you haven't checked the Mayan calendar results...
And none of those reasons factor in to the purchase of my ARs.
-
Solving all the worlds problems on AH BB, one thread at a time.
-
And none of those reasons factor in to the purchase of my ARs.
Everyone has their own reasons. Just saying I'm confident in my bolt action rifles to suit my hunting/Year Zero needs. Really can't understand a logical civilian purpose for one with a 30 round magazine.
Therein lies the debate.
-
where i live, in the southern U.S., we have a rampant hog problem. hogs destroy millions of dollars in crop and livestock. it has gotten so bad that the state of alabama, louisiana, and mississippi have declared open season, no date limit, no bag limit. usually these feral swine travel in packs of 40 or more. this is a good example, and one many of my friends have been in. someone brought up 19 shots in 43 seconds earlier. in 43 seconds, the herd has usually gotten to cover 20 seconds earlier and your chance of culling the group is gone. just thought to give one data point on why ar's and high-cap mags are needed.
-
Everyone has their own reasons. Just saying I'm confident in my bolt action rifles to suit my hunting/Year Zero needs. Really can't understand a logical civilian purpose for one with a 30 round magazine.
Therein lies the debate.
Correct.
Need is subjective. Be careful with where you allow the line to be drawn. The next time someone picks up a pencil it may be drawn a little closer to your interests.
:salute
-
Everyone has their own reasons. Just saying I'm confident in my bolt action rifles to suit my hunting/Year Zero needs. Really can't understand a logical civilian purpose for one with a 30 round magazine.
Therein lies the debate.
So I'm not to have it because you don't understand or see the need for it? Not happening.
-
Everyone has their own reasons. Just saying I'm confident in my bolt action rifles to suit my hunting/Year Zero needs. Really can't understand a logical civilian purpose for one with a 30 round magazine.
Therein lies the debate.
No debate. It's our business. If you don't want a 30 round mag, don't buy them. If you don't want a DMR with 20 round mags, don't build one. If a 50 cal is to much for you don't get one. If you feel an MG-42 is not your style, don't buy one. That said I am sure you are a well meaning person and we can agree to disagree.
And one other thing, its OK for the presidents men to give assault rifles to the Mexican cartels and kill US boarder agents, but its not OK for me to have one? Please the hypocrisy of you people.
Infidelz
-
who said that "its OK for the presidents men to give assault rifles to the Mexican cartels and kill US boarder agents"?
I cant find the post :headscratch:
-
No debate. It's our business. If you don't want a 30 round mag, don't buy them. If you don't want a DMR with 20 round mags, don't build one. If a 50 cal is to much for you don't get one. If you feel an MG-42 is not your style, don't buy one. That said I am sure you are a well meaning person and we can agree to disagree.
And one other thing, its OK for the presidents men to give assault rifles to the Mexican cartels and kill US boarder agents, but its not OK for me to have one? Please the hypocrisy of you people.
Infidelz
Mixing 2 different issues in one discussion. If one particular weapon kept showing up in mass killings, don't you think removing access to that weapon wouldn't at least slow the cycle? How many innocent children have to be murdered before it becomes a viable solution? 40, 100, 1000?
Australia had a mass shooting in 1996 and after banning a particular weapon hasn't had another in over 15 years. They still have guns, just not one particular type.
As for "Fast and Furious", that was a 1st Class Cluster from the get go.
-
Mixing 2 different issues in one discussion. If one particular weapon kept showing up in mass killings, don't you think removing access to that weapon wouldn't at least slow the cycle? How many innocent children have to be murdered before it becomes a viable solution? 40, 100, 1000?
Australia had a mass shooting in 1996 and after banning a particular weapon hasn't had another in over 15 years. They still have guns, just not one particular type.
As for "Fast and Furious", that was a 1st Class Cluster from the get go.
Australia had to count on the USA to stop the Japanese from invading.
Australia is often overrun with mice and rabbits.
Australia doesn't have the 2nd Amendment. We do.
I love Australians, but they are not us, we are not them.
-
Smokin,
Every generation since the beginning of time has thought the the kids of the one after theirs were spoiled and doomed. It's the nature of the beast. We all want to romanticize the past. I'm a history junkie. But if you really look at it, and what was being written and said at the time about the 'kids', it's always the same. Just because the world changes, and new 'stuff' appears that the kids want, doesn't mean we've fallen off the rails.
Everything you talk about you and your wife doing with your 10 and 7 year old, is what good parents do. Parents have always done that. Are there parents who aren't good at it? Absolutely. But that's been true forever as well.
Since this is a WW2 based game, I'll use 'the Greatest Generation' as an example. We love to make them larger then life because of how we've glorified and romanticized that war. I was sitting at a family gathering a while back and someone started a rant about the current generation and was lamenting them not being like the "Greatest Generation'. I pointed to my 21 year old nephew who'd just come back from a year long tour in combat with the 101st in Afghanistan and said there was a member of the greatest generation in the room and pointed at him.
He struggled in school, tested limits with his parents and all the usual stuff. But when push came to shove, he did what was needed to do, just like those kids back in the 40s. If you dig in to their stories, they screwed up, tested limits, challenged their parents too.
You can't blame the kids for being kids now, as they didn't have a say in the matter. Nor can you blame the parents for parenting now. It doesn't mean the world is coming to an end. It's just another generation dealing with what parents and kids deal with.
To say that today's kids don't get it, is to suggest the parents don't get it. Well that means the parents of the parents didn't get it and so on.
Understand that people react to tragedy in different ways and want to find someone or something to blame. It's not rational. But it is part of grieving. The AR15 I sold recently was bought right after my 21 year old son died. I bought it and an Springfield M1A because we enjoyed shooting and talking guns. I bought them in the agony of the pain of losing him. In my mind I thought that maybe, just maybe he'd come home because I could finally get the guns he really wanted. Guess what. It didn't work. But it was, was it was, and in some crazy way it helped me. I sat up by myself with that M1A where we'd deer hunted, dreaming and praying my son would walk out of the woods and join me. Didn't happen. I sold the AR15 and gave the M1A to his best friend's Dad because I knew I'd never shoot Andrew's guns and I suppose by not having them anymore, I finally admitted to my self that he's truly gone.
So now folks who are shocked, horrified and grieving the loss of those kids and teachers are looking, begging for an answer. And in that they are talking about guns. it's their right whether it's rational or not. If it helps folks to deal with this tragedy by talking about gun control, so be it. For the gun guys to panic in fear they'll lose their guns is just silly.
Step back, look at the entire picture and put it in perspective.
And keep up the good work raising your kids :aok
:salute
You and I (and many others) are not much unlike each other, really. I think we both have an understanding of the issue but we both approach it from different angles based on our experiences, education, and perspectives on past, present, and future. Your comment on the "big picture": That is exactly what I am doing. ;)
In regards to the "Greatest Generation", I think you're exactly right. WWII was/is very romanticized even though the people did then what they had to do, just like generations before and after then. Though I dare say we, in general, in the USA are hardly effected by what is going on in 'stan and Iraq today as they were during WWII. I do not see rationing, I do not see blackouts, I do not see people buying war bonds, I do not see scrap collection depots, and I do not see a draft in effect. I surely hope I do not sound disrespectful to those families that have lost loved one during the past decade over seas, I certainly do not mean to be because for sure those families have been impacted for more than the rest of us know.
I've been reading as many of these anti-gun/pro-AWB stories as I can to see what angle people are playing to get their agenda through. It appears that there will be a package deal presented to limit magazines to 10 rounds and prohibit flash suppressors/muzzle devices/bayonet lugs/folding stocks and other cosmetic features on semi-auto rifles (banning the "high powered assault weapon". The architects of the new bill are Sen Feinstein (D-CA), and Sen Schumer (D-NY). She has already stated that the high capacity "clips" and firearms with these cosmetic features on them already out there in circulation will be grandfathered in. This means they will still be available. This means that the ability of a person to obtain a high capacity magazine and a firearm to use that magazine will be available to those who want to obtain it. Also, it means that the function of that rifle to perform will not change for the lack of a flash suppressor, lack of a folding stock, or lack of a bayonet lug. This is the kind of thing that perplexes me, I simply do not understand why people think we need to pass "feel good" laws. These kind of laws are only cosmetic in nature and they serve no function in lessening violence. It means nothing will change.
It is already against the law to murder. It is against the law in CT to have a firearm in a public building. It is already against the law for someone under the age of 18 to purchase/own a rifle and shotgun. It is already against the law for someone under the age of 21 to own a handgun. A rifle must have a barrel length of 16 in. If the rifle barrel is shorter than 16in that it is restricted to having no butt stock (or the own may obtain a $200 tax stamp that allows a "short barreled rifle"). It is already against the law to own a full auto fire arm (unless the owner want to pay 5 digits for the weapon, pay a major tax fee, go through an extensive background check, and waste a lot of high priced ammo). Like I've said before, the baddie is going to do their bad regardless of what tools they need to use. FWIW, I'd rather have an armed baddie walk up to a school with an armed person(s) inside vs having a McViegh bomb be driven up to the front door. At least the targeted people have a chance to respond.
To everyone else: please make sure you check your language and allow Skuzzy-Claus to keep this thread open. If you do not agree with someone please remember that just because someone does not think like you does not mean they are wrong. Do not leave your maturity at the door when you check in to this thread.
-
Australia had to count on the USA to stop the Japanese from invading.
Australia is often overrun with mice and rabbits.2 points that have absolutely nothing to do with restricting semi automatic weapons.
Australia doesn't have the 2nd Amendment. We do.
I love Australians, but they are not us, we are not them.
True. But the constitution is "a living document". It's subject to interpretation by the SCOTUS. Australia gives a good case study in solving the problem. But I agree, the US is not Australia.
-
If you need 15 rounds to kill a deer, you don't need to be hunting. If you think you're going to stop "the government" with a rifle, you haven't been to an armory. If you thing "the apocalypse" is coming, you haven't checked the Mayan calendar results...
Oh such an overly grandeur view you have. ;)
The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting and in most States a person can not hunt big game with a magazine of more than a 5 round magazine. :aok
I've seen the armory of more than one National Guard armory and it didn't frighten or concern me a bit. There are two things to remember with regards to your statement. if Martial Law is declared with the intent of reducing citizenship to serfdom/bondage, this I promise you: the untrained shoot from the hip armed brigands that Allied troops fought in Iraq will seem like the girls scouts in compared to organized militias full of riflemen with previous military training, LEO training, and a lust to defend their freedom. Count on it. Plus, you automatically assume that once the order comes down from the Commander-in-Chief that the military will fall in rank and file goose-stepping all the way. That too is highly debatable with conservative estimates saying that within the first few months of a civil conflict that at minimum %50 of the military will stand down and refuse to carry out orders desecrating the Constitution of the United States of America. It isn't about my rifle vs a tank, the picture is much larger than that. Besides, all I have to do to render that tank inoperable is to shove a potato in to the exhaust pipe, surely you know that trick, yes? ;)
As far as any apocalypse is concerned I have not bought in to that, ever. I'm not sure why anyone in their right mind would believe a bunch of loin cloth wearing chumps who cut the hearts out of living children to sacrifice to the gawds in the first place. Granted, I'll give kudos to any 'ancient" civilization that can point out the constellations and construct buildings around when they appear at certain points in the sky, but damn... predicting the end of the world??? I never could stomach that. However, what I can stomach is the LA '92 riots, a massive EMP of sorts, a major shortage of water/electricity/food, etc. When the masses are denied whatever luxury they think they need they get cranky. When the masses are unable to obtain the actual "needs" for survival guess what the world becomes: a dog eat dog world. If that happens I will have my tinfoil hat, some bottle water, a pot to cook a wabbit in (shot by a .22LR rifle), and my AR15 with 30rd mags and lot of homegrown ammo to protect my wifey and kids until the power comes back on. :noid :aok :D
-
Mixing 2 different issues in one discussion. If one particular weapon kept showing up in mass killings, don't you think removing access to that weapon wouldn't at least slow the cycle? How many innocent children have to be murdered before it becomes a viable solution? 40, 100, 1000?
Australia had a mass shooting in 1996 and after banning a particular weapon hasn't had another in over 15 years. They still have guns, just not one particular type.
As for "Fast and Furious", that was a 1st Class Cluster from the get go.
Let's look at this logically with an analogy, leaving emotion out of the equation.
Let's suppose that there has been a recent spate of multiple fatalities involving children, due to drunk drivers colliding with school buses. Children are being tossed around inside the buses and suffering catastrophic injuries. It appears that most of these involved the drunk driving a Ford Mustang GT. This appears to be a solid pattern. Public outcry demands something be done. The media rages about the high performance Mustangs, arguing that no one needs such a car. Some lawmakers want to limit the horsepower of all cars, stating that there's no acceptable reason to drive something that can exceed the speed limits by a factor of 3. A small majority of the public seems to agree based upon polls. Thus, the government bans all the installation of engines exceeding 300 hp in any Pony car or sports car.
Does this solve the problem?
Are the children any safer?
Does this reduce drunk driving?
Does this prevent a drunk from driving a 5,000 lb pickup truck at more than twice the posted speed limit?
Nothing will change because the root cause(s) have not been addressed. Only some emotional salve has been applied. Innocent law abiding citizens are being penalized for the actions of a tiny few and the root cause is untouched and those who don't think high performance cars should be on the public roads will rejoice at getting what they want.
-
this thread is going nowhere
-
this thread is going nowhere
I never thought it had a destination... It's good to discuss and disagree.
-
Everyone has their own reasons. Just saying I'm confident in my bolt action rifles to suit my hunting/Year Zero needs. Really can't understand a logical civilian purpose for one with a 30 round magazine.
Therein lies the debate.
Don't be so shallow to assume that those of us advocating freedoms automatically will champion the use of 30rd magazines for X use. FWIW, I do not even take 30rd mags to the range with me on most occasions, and I certainly do not use 30rd mags for hunting (I dont even use my AR for hunting save for once in a great while on coyotes and then I use an 8rd mag). I take a couple of USGI 20rd mags to the range because they are shorter and clear the bench better allowing me a lower and more stable position when I'm shooting for accuracy. I own about as many 20rd mags as I do 30rd mags.
FWIW, when I was in the Sheriff's Reserve and helped with the HRT/SWAT team and their endeavors I was given an AR15 carbine (semi-auto), and stuck on a corner of a farm house fence line to provide perimeter security, I put a 20rd mag in to my rifle and not a 30rd. Less weight and more handy. The rest of my mags in my vest were 30 rd mags in case the lead started to fly and I actually used all 20 rds of my first mag. Luckily, the only shots I fired out of that AR15 were on the range. I prefer 20rd mags in general, in a semi-auto rifle they make more sense (did I just say that? ;) ). They are lighter, and take up less space, and are more handy. Oh, did I mention fatigue? Pulling the trigger non-stop does get tiring. To each his own.
-
@widewing The old guy in your video illustrates my point perfectly. He's sure brave, but he's also clearly target-locked and isn't clearing his background properly (or at all). His barrel control goes from OK to non-existant, he doesn't take a sight picture once, and he has no concept of EOF rules, so he keeps shooting as they flee. He's actually lucky he's a bad shot, if he'd managed to hit one in the back it would be murder. Not to mention if he killed a bystander with his inexecusably bad drills. Fortune favours fools, I guess.
The criminals in this video also demonstrate my point. They thought they knew what they were doing, had their weapons out and ready, but they panicked and ran when they got under lethal stress. This is also fortunate for old guy and everyone else there too - had they been a bit more switched on this would have become a firefight, and the criminals sure aren't going to be clearing their backgrounds. Basically this armed citizen hero escalated a situation where innocent people were going to lose some cash to a situation where innocent people were lucky they didn't wind up dead.
Brave? Sure. Smart? No.
I have no sympathy for the criminals here, but you have to think the big picture through. You can quote all the statistics you want, and I could show you a bunch of videos illustrating criminally negligent armed citizens who weren't so lucky as old-guy hero here. However the bottom line statistic is that the person most likely to die by any particular firearm is the person who owns it, followed closely by that person's family and friends.
Again, not my country, not my problem, and I don't know the answer. I do know the more guns=more safety position is delusional. No nation has more gun owners (or people in prison) than the USA, but every first-world nation is safer. So are such paragons of freedom and security as communist China, Lebanon and Uzbekistan. If you want understand the psychology/physiology that makes arming schoolteachers a bad idea, read LCol Grossman On Killing and On Combat. If you don't want to understand, that's cool too.
-
Everyone has their own reasons. Just saying I'm confident in my bolt action rifles to suit my hunting/Year Zero needs. Really can't understand a logical civilian purpose for one with a 30 round magazine.
Therein lies the debate.
If you encounter a bad guy with 30 round magazines, wouldn't you prefer not to have to reload 3x to deliver the volume of fire? This presents a very serious tactical disadvantage to the guy with the 10 round magazines. Guess what? Regardless of what the good guy has, the bad guys can get and will use the 30 round mags.
That said, if the range is sufficient, a bolt gun can easily pin the bad guy down or dispatch him when he exposes himself to close the range. The reality is that very few crimes with firearms take place at 600 yards.
All of this is moot if defending your home from the inside of its confines, combating armed intruders. Under these circumstances, an assault rifle is not the best choice. A 18" to 20" barreled, pump action 12 gauge shotgun is probably the closest to ideal, with a handgun next. The effectiveness and reliability of this type of shotgun is outstanding.
-
@widewing The old guy in your video illustrates my point perfectly. He's sure brave, but he's also clearly target-locked and isn't clearing his background properly (or at all). His barrel control goes from OK to non-existant, he doesn't take a sight picture once, and he has no concept of EOF rules, so he keeps shooting as they flee. He's actually lucky he's a bad shot, if he'd managed to hit one in the back it would be murder. Not to mention if he killed a bystander with his inexecusably bad drills. Fortune favours fools, I guess.
The criminals in this video also demonstrate my point. They thought they knew what they were doing, had their weapons out and ready, but they panicked and ran when they got under lethal stress. This is also fortunate for old guy and everyone else there too - had they been a bit more switched on this would have become a firefight, and the criminals sure aren't going to be clearing their backgrounds. Basically this armed citizen hero escalated a situation where innocent people were going to lose some cash to a situation where innocent people were lucky they didn't wind up dead.
Brave? Sure. Smart? No.
I have no sympathy for the criminals here, but you have to think the big picture through. You can quote all the statistics you want, and I could show you a bunch of videos illustrating criminally negligent armed citizens who weren't so lucky as old-guy hero here. However the bottom line statistic is that the person most likely to die by any particular firearm is the person who owns it, followed closely by that person's family and friends.
Again, not my country, not my problem, and I don't know the answer. I do know the more guns=more safety position is delusional. No nation has more gun owners (or people in prison) than the USA, but every first-world nation is safer. So are such paragons of freedom and security as communist China, Lebanon and Uzbekistan. If you want understand the psychology/physiology that makes arming schoolteachers a bad idea, read LCol Grossman On Killing and On Combat. If you don't want to understand, that's cool too.
That old guy shot both, one in the arm and buttocks, the second in his back. No charges.... Why? The old man's logic was undeniable. They were still armed, and fleeing is no guaranty that they would not return, pistol blazing.
As to whether or not more or less guns makes a society less safe from violent crime, your comments don't stand up to the data.
Harvard Law Journal sponsored a study to prove essentially, what you claim. The result of the study shocked them. Not only did severely restrictive private gun ownership laws not reduce violent crime or suicide, the incidence of violent crime went up, dramatically so in most locations where implemented and suicide rates were unaffected.
You can read the study here:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf)
-
@widewing The old guy in your video illustrates my point perfectly. He's sure brave, but he's also clearly target-locked and isn't clearing his background properly (or at all). His barrel control goes from OK to non-existant, he doesn't take a sight picture once, and he has no concept of EOF rules, so he keeps shooting as they flee. He's actually lucky he's a bad shot, if he'd managed to hit one in the back it would be murder. Not to mention if he killed a bystander with his inexecusably bad drills. Fortune favours fools, I guess.
The criminals in this video also demonstrate my point. They thought they knew what they were doing, had their weapons out and ready, but they panicked and ran when they got under lethal stress. This is also fortunate for old guy and everyone else there too - had they been a bit more switched on this would have become a firefight, and the criminals sure aren't going to be clearing their backgrounds. Basically this armed citizen hero escalated a situation where innocent people were going to lose some cash to a situation where innocent people were lucky they didn't wind up dead.
Brave? Sure. Smart? No.
I have no sympathy for the criminals here, but you have to think the big picture through. You can quote all the statistics you want, and I could show you a bunch of videos illustrating criminally negligent armed citizens who weren't so lucky as old-guy hero here. However the bottom line statistic is that the person most likely to die by any particular firearm is the person who owns it, followed closely by that person's family and friends.
Again, not my country, not my problem, and I don't know the answer. I do know the more guns=more safety position is delusional. No nation has more gun owners (or people in prison) than the USA, but every first-world nation is safer. So are such paragons of freedom and security as communist China, Lebanon and Uzbekistan. If you want understand the psychology/physiology that makes arming schoolteachers a bad idea, read LCol Grossman On Killing and On Combat. If you don't want to understand, that's cool too.
You're speculating. A lot. You're speaking of the old man with the gun as if he was some loose cannon showing off some bravado induced blaze of glory movie scene. I see him engaging the immediate threat (baddie w/ a gun) and engaging him all the way out the door. You speak of his muzzle discipline as if he was one of them, I didn't see him cross his muzzle over anyone but the baddies. The thing I smiled about what the shooting stance and grip he used which points to 1950's military training (grab the wrist with support hand and muzzle up between shots). I'd much rather have fellows like this walking around with handguns than not.
You speak of this old fellow like he should be some tacti-coolio operator fresh back from 'stan. He isn't. He saw 2 baddies in front of him, he saw the gun, he heard the threats, and he engaged. Judging him on his lack of "situational awareness" is a bit of a stretch. In the 12 seconds from where he stoop up and engaged the baddies with his pocket pistol until the end he did what he needed to do: he kept the immediate threats to his front and kept them engaged. As a person who has been through multiple schools in clearing buildings, active shooter, low light, etc, all which entailed engaging multiple threats, this guy really could not have done much better.
Brave? Yes. Smart? Who is to judge? Lots of unanswered questions. Here we are with the luxury of hindsight. Do you know where you would stand on this issue if those perps would have walked in and started shooting and killing people and THEN the old man starts firing? Would you be the type to scream at him for not doing something sooner? Run the scenarios through your head a few times. See what could have been. Sure, the old man could have hit a patron. Sure, the baddies could have started firing. Etc etc. Lots of speculation can be had. Remember how you judge something and dont forget the luxury of hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Be very careful on calling delusional the "more guns = more security" stance. There is a much larger picture to view than what your allowing to be seen. Can you explain the Swiss? Can you explain the lack of gun violence in places in the US that have few gun laws and many guns (per population), vs places like Chicago and it very restrictive gun laws? Just curious your thoughts on that one.
-
Back to the original post, yes it's nuts out there right now. I have a 3 gun match Wednesday and they are allowing us to shoot our .22 AR's vs our .223/5.56 guns so we can save our ammo, since .223/5.56 has gotten very scarce and very expensive, very quickly. In the case of any sort of "tactical" shooting such as 3 gun, magazine changes are something that is going to have to be done, and the less you have to do it the better score you'll get. Especially me, since my Mag changes aren't fast by any means :lol. SmokinLoon, and Widewing, seem to be doing a good job at any other arguments in this thread, and will keep me from personally being Scuzzified :lol. I do agree that the 20round mags make more sense for regular range work where I'm not having to do quick reloads. When buying ammo it's easier to figure out 20 round mags then 30 round mags with boxes of ammo to buy since they come in 20 round boxes :D.
:salute
BigRat
-
Those guys at Harvard need to get their story straight. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
-
Those guys at Harvard need to get their story straight. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
Joey, trying to tell the anti-intellectual crowd to look at facts is like trying to get an illiterate to study a book.... you're better off yelling "free whiskey and guns", and watching what happens.
-
Be very careful on calling delusional the "more guns = more security" stance. There is a much larger picture to view than what your allowing to be seen. Can you explain the Swiss? Can you explain the lack of gun violence in places in the US that have few gun laws and many guns (per population), vs places like Chicago and it very restrictive gun laws? Just curious your thoughts on that one.
the Swiss thing can be explained because the Swiss guy that plays the game already explained it. the Swiss dont have fewer crimes because they have a gun in every home. they have fewer crimes because they have one of the highest standard of living in the world. the population is pretty much happy and stable. if this was a bit inaccurate dont you think that people would take that firearm that they are required to have and are trained to handle and basically go steal something from their neighbor? or you expect me to believe that the swiss also have a person 24/7 in every home?
let's take another town that made it mandatory to have guns in every home, with some exceptions. the crime rate didnt change from before the law went into effect, why? because it was a small town where everybody knew everybody to begin with and the crime rate was low anyway.
same thing again, having a gun in every home doesnt mean that there's somebody in the house 24/7 to protect it. I have 2 handguns in my apartment and guess what when I am not here they wont protect my house by themselves.
comparing small towns to big cities is a bit misleading. in south central los angeles just about every home has at least one fire arm and guess what, it has one of the worst crime rates.
thinking either that more guns or lack of them will make you safer is delusional. to be safer we need an attitude change for the entire population.
midway
edit: food for thought, Japan bans guns in the civilian population. look up the crime rate in Japan.
-
Let's look at this logically with an analogy, leaving emotion out of the equation.
Let's suppose that there has been a recent spate of multiple fatalities involving children, due to drunk drivers colliding with school buses. Children are being tossed around inside the buses and suffering catastrophic injuries. It appears that most of these involved the drunk driving a Ford Mustang GT. This appears to be a solid pattern. Public outcry demands something be done. The media rages about the high performance Mustangs, arguing that no one needs such a car. Some lawmakers want to limit the horsepower of all cars, stating that there's no acceptable reason to drive something that can exceed the speed limits by a factor of 3. A small majority of the public seems to agree based upon polls. Thus, the government bans all the installation of engines exceeding 300 hp in any Pony car or sports car.
Does this solve the problem?
Are the children any safer?
Does this reduce drunk driving?
Does this prevent a drunk from driving a 5,000 lb pickup truck at more than twice the posted speed limit?
Nothing will change because the root cause(s) have not been addressed. Only some emotional salve has been applied. Innocent law abiding citizens are being penalized for the actions of a tiny few and the root cause is untouched and those who don't think high performance cars should be on the public roads will rejoice at getting what they want.
i was doing my best to stay outta this thread.....but i think i'm insulted that you chose to use mustang gt's in your analogy. :noid :bolt:
-
These mass-shootings are only the tip of the iceberg. There are 600+ accidental deaths by guns per year. It'd be easier to look at the facts if the NRA didn't continue to try to thwart firearms reasearch.
-
Let's look at this logically with an analogy, leaving emotion out of the equation.
Let's suppose that there has been a recent spate of multiple fatalities involving children, due to drunk drivers colliding with school buses. Children are being tossed around inside the buses and suffering catastrophic injuries. It appears that most of these involved the drunk driving a Ford Mustang GT. This appears to be a solid pattern. Public outcry demands something be done. The media rages about the high performance Mustangs, arguing that no one needs such a car. Some lawmakers want to limit the horsepower of all cars, stating that there's no acceptable reason to drive something that can exceed the speed limits by a factor of 3. A small majority of the public seems to agree based upon polls. Thus, the government bans all the installation of engines exceeding 300 hp in any Pony car or sports car.
Does this solve the problem?
Are the children any safer?
Does this reduce drunk driving?
Does this prevent a drunk from driving a 5,000 lb pickup truck at more than twice the posted speed limit?
Nothing will change because the root cause(s) have not been addressed. Only some emotional salve has been applied. Innocent law abiding citizens are being penalized for the actions of a tiny few and the root cause is untouched and those who don't think high performance cars should be on the public roads will rejoice at getting what they want.
but remember the tires, roofs, side doors, crumble zones, brakes... and you can name a zillion other safety changes were made because only a few people died. they didnt got rid of cars but they did change the design to make them safer. then we have law changes, when before you had a drunk driver kill another well that was too bad, basically as it was called an "accident". now you get charged with murder as it should be.
remember cars dont kill people, people kill people. having an analogy comparing cars to guns is dumb.
midway
-
There are a lot of things we have, but don't need, that are far more damaging to society in the long run. Unless you demand fast food be banned, your case for banning assault weapons is severely weakened, given that more die from food-induced heart problems every year than are killed by weapons of all kinds.
Also just what percentage of deaths are caused by assault weapons? What proof do you offer that it is assault weapons that are more deadly, as opposed to the typical owner of an assault weapon being more likely to have greater proficiency with firearms of all kinds in such a situation compared to your typical hick with a bolt action.
-
Those guys at Harvard need to get their story straight. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
"Most people use the words "murder" and "homicide" interchangeably, but they are not the same. Although murder and homicide are both used to describe the act of killing another human being, the circumstances surrounding the charges are different.
The easiest way to describe the differences between murder and homicide is that homicide is the killing of another human being, while murder requires the intent to kill another human being. Homicide can be used to describe any death where another person is at fault, but there are mitigating circumstances that can influence the charge of homicide. When someone is convicted of murder, however, they are not only convicted of a homicide, but also the malicious intent to kill."
Therefore that study would include any accidental deaths caused by another human being. They just add guns into the mix as another possibly way to die accidently or on purpose, which will increase the rate. Might as well say accidental deaths are more common with people that own swimming pools, compared to those that do not have a pool, same result would occure. I bet there's way more accidental drownings every year in backyard pools then 600+. Lets ban pools, their death traps :lol.
:salute
BigRat
-
There are a lot of things we have, but don't need, that are far more damaging to society in the long run. Unless you demand fast food be banned, your case for banning assault weapons is severely weakened, given that more die from food-induced heart problems every year than are killed by weapons of all kinds.
This asinine logic is just way too prevalent. Because there are other problems, don't deal with this one. Don't address the 30,000+ gunshot deaths that occur each year. Of course obesity should be dealt with, but so should gun violence.
Big, for one, an accidental pool drowning isn't a homicide. The independent variable is gun ownership, and the dependent, homicide rates. If a country or state with more guns have drastically higher homicide rates than those with less guns, then there has to be a trend. A lower homicide rate is a good thing.
Here's another study by Johns Hopkins http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdf
Whatever side you're on on this issue, we should all agree that guns should be studied and researched thoroughly; let the results speak for themselves. The NRA blocking research is all too similar to the tactics of the tobacco industry.
-
Those guys at Harvard need to get their story straight. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
Completely different departments within Harvard. The writings generally cited on the Harvard School of Public Health site were not sponsored by nor published by Harvard. They were published in medical publications and were the work of dedicated anti-gun advocates. Much if their stuff was written more than a decade ago, and has been roundly pummeled for cherry picking data and ignoring contradictory data. In short, they ignored scientific method when it didn't support their previously formed conclusions. This is primarily the work of three individuals, all members of anti-gun organizations prior to their writings.
The piece I cited was peer reviewed and was praised for being objective in its approach and methodology.
-
Whatever side you're on on this issue, we should all agree that guns should be studied and researched thoroughly; let the results speak for themselves. The NRA blocking research is all too similar to the tactics of the tobacco industry.
Objective research... I agree, can be useful. The problem is that there is little objectivity on either side. One need only look at the Global Warming debate to recognize that no one is less scientific than scientists with an agenda.
Now, explain how the NRA blocks research....
-
These mass-shootings are only the tip of the iceberg. There are 600+ accidental deaths by guns per year. It'd be easier to look at the facts if the NRA didn't continue to try to thwart firearms reasearch.
:headscratch:
-
There are a lot of things we have, but don't need, that are far more damaging to society in the long run. Unless you demand fast food be banned, your case for banning assault weapons is severely weakened, given that more die from food-induced heart problems every year than are killed by weapons of all kinds.
Also just what percentage of deaths are caused by assault weapons? What proof do you offer that it is assault weapons that are more deadly, as opposed to the typical owner of an assault weapon being more likely to have greater proficiency with firearms of all kinds in such a situation compared to your typical hick with a bolt action.
what proof do you have that fast food is causing all those deaths? and dont you think that the research on those is also based on people who have an agenda?
midway
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XMg0FQS6Fqo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XMg0FQS6Fqo)
-
^^Score 1 for the good guys.... :aok
-
By lobbying heavily to cut funding for firearms research, such as that done by the CDC.
-
what proof do you have that fast food is causing all those deaths? and dont you think that the research on those is also based on people who have an agenda?
midway
Well, theres that morgan spurlock guy for one thing, and common sense backed up by cause and effect for another. And its a major contributing factor, not the direct cause. But you miss the point.
Firearms aren't the leading cause of death, even for non-natural causes. IIRC, automobile accidents kill more people each year than projectile weapons. Yet we still don't see the kind of hysteria that a shooting causes, when they differ very little in principle. You're just as dead if you get hit by a drunk driver as you are if you take a .30cal round to the face, and its just as invoulantary on your part.
Really, that it only becomes an issue when there is a shooting, despite the fact that there have been multiple shootings in the past and the threat of shootings is well recognized, damn near proves that its just an illogical, irrational, knee-jerk, emotion-driven response.
This most recent shooting in a long line of shootings and killings didn't change anything. It wasn't piviotal. It wasn't the final straw that finally provoked people to long-needed action. The simple is that it was worse than most, and elicited a stronger-than-usual emotional response.
Untill there is the same demand for action against obesity, drunk driving, and all the other things that result in more deaths than firearms, theres no way to call those supporting extensive gun-control anything but stupid.
-
A life saved is a life saved. Why do you consider someone trying to reduce gun violence stupid? If you disagree with their beliefs on how gun violence would be reduced, fine, that's your prerogative, but calling them stupid for trying to reduce gun violence? :headscratch:
-
True. But the constitution is "a living document". It's subject to interpretation by the SCOTUS. Australia gives a good case study in solving the problem. But I agree, the US is not Australia.
No, it's not a living document, that is just some nonsense the left has been trying to sell for years so they could have the ability to go in and rewrite the very basis upon which our country was founded to their way of thinking. The SCOTUS decides when certain issues are in line with the Constitution, or not. They do not have the ability to change it, only interpret the framers intent.
They have ruled on the 2nd plenty, and like it or not, they accepted the framers intent to let the people have firearms. Most types.
-
No, it's not a living document, that is just some nonsense the left has been trying to sell for years so they could have the ability to go in and rewrite the very basis upon which our country was founded to their way of thinking. The SCOTUS decides when certain issues are in line with the Constitution, or not. They do not have the ability to change it, only interpret the framers intent.
They have ruled on the 2nd plenty, and like it or not, they accepted the framers intent to let the people have firearms. Most types.
no you are wrong, it's a living document in the fact that it can be changed at any time and it is not set in stone like the other book. actually it has been changed plenty of times since it was created. nowhere in the constitution does it say that it cannot be changed. actually article 5 of the constitution lists the requirements needed in order for it to be changed.
midway
-
Firearms aren't the leading cause of death, even for non-natural causes. IIRC, automobile accidents kill more people each year than projectile weapons. Yet we still don't see the kind of hysteria that a shooting causes, when they differ very little in principle. You're just as dead if you get hit by a drunk driver as you are if you take a .30cal round to the face, and its just as invoulantary on your part.
that is probably because with cars you dont go and kill 5, 10 or 15 people in one accident or premeditated attack. how many train wrecks do we have? and yet after one that kills a number of people there's always a "hysteria" to go find out why and make changes.
same for factories that blow up, or oil rigs, or that drunk guy in the boat that damaged a lot of beaches in alaska. whenever you have a single incident that causes a lot of damage or deaths, there's always a lot of yelling, shoving and screaming trying to find out what went wrong and try to fix it.
to say that there's nothing wrong with guns is just as dumb as saying that all the blames are due to guns.
one more thing about your comment here:
"Untill there is the same demand for action against obesity, drunk driving, and all the other things that result in more deaths than firearms, theres no way to call those supporting extensive gun-control anything but stupid."
when was the last time somebody used obesity to commit mass murder. even suggesting that obesity should be "fixed" before "extensive" gun-control is just plain dumb. even saying "extensive" gun control makes me laugh as I cant even imagine what the hell that means. unless you are trying to figure out a way to be superfluous.
anyway like I said before suggesting getting rid of all guns is just as stupid as saying we dont need to regulate guns.
midway
-
no you are wrong, it's a living document in the fact that it can be changed at any time and it is not set in stone like the other book. actually it has been changed plenty of times since it was created. nowhere in the constitution does it say that it cannot be changed. actually article 5 of the constitution lists the requirements needed in order for it to be changed.
midway
He said that the SCOTUS cannot change the Constitution. He was correct. You are also correct, there is a means to amend the Constitution. However, you'll never see the 2nd Amendment changed in your lifetime. There is insufficient support now and for the foreseeable future.
-
By lobbying heavily to cut funding for firearms research, such as that done by the CDC.
LOLOL
Like the CDC doesn't have an anti-gun agenda....
I'd lobby to prevent funding of any organization's biased "research".
A truly independent study would not be opposed.
-
Anyone who proposes any measure of gun control seems to be anti-gun.
-
Not locked yet? :headscratch:
-
Joey, trying to tell the anti-intellectual crowd to look at facts is like trying to get an illiterate to study a book.... you're better off yelling "free whiskey and guns", and watching what happens.
Really?
-
that is probably because with cars you dont go and kill 5, 10 or 15 people in one accident or premeditated attack.
There are many examples of cars being used as weapons, it wouldn't be hard to clock up 10-15 victims if you wanted.
-
If you check U.S. Filicide stats mothers should be banned versus assault weapons if we want to keep with the emotional and illogical theme.
Mothers kill more children in the U.S. than assault weapons. In america your deranged mother has a greater chance of murdering you without a gun befor you reach age ten than your chances of being massacered by a deranged madman in your grade school or day care center with a gun, knife, club, rabid gerbil or his stinky socks.
The US has the highest rates of child homicide (8.0/100,000 for infants, 2.5/100,000 for preschool-age children, and 1.5/100,000 for school-age children). Mothers murder more children in the age group of those in CT without a gun every year than children in that age group killed by guns (accidental\intentional\suicide) in the U.S. The CDC lumps age 0-19 as children in the U.S which makes the average child inflated death rate by guns around 1700. Most of the deaths are in the 15-19 age group performed by criminals on criminals. Mothers murder without a gun on average 600 a year in the U.S of their children in the CT range.
We don't got a gun problem or a madman problem when it comes to our little ones. We got a Mommy problem the media won't touch. You can lock up all the madmen you want, ban all guns, and your mommies are still gonna massacer more children each year with their hands and household items than the CT incident and it won't show up on your boob tube.
The only time I needed a gun it worked exactly as designed. We both lived becasue the perp valued his own life enough that we didn't have to find out if he was superman and faster than a speeding bullet. A gun saved two lives that day becasue it was available to do so. My wife agrees that it was a good and well behaved gun and is thankfull that it lives with us. Untill you actuly need one, only a few know what that moment is like and why it is so special. Surviving is akin to a near death experience. Once you have been there it makes sense like a lightning flash and realy can't be explained. Thats why it becomes so polorising trying to debate it. It's easier to debat that we souldn't tell our littel ones santa isn't real until they are about 11 and have already figured it out for themselves.
-
Anyone who proposes any measure of gun control seems to be anti-gun.
No, not at all. You and others like you forget that out current system of background checks was devised by the NRA. Not Feinstein, not Schumer, not the anti-gun crown. Legislating firearms in the USA is not bad. What is bad is the idiocy of limiting cosmetic features and a certain capacity of magazines and expect the violence to stop.
I'm all for introducing heavier penalties for breaking the laws. Thing is, I do not see the need for anything new, I see the need for reality to step in and say that the right to defend yourself is the first fundamental right anyone has, sanctioned law enforcement can not be everywhere at once (we do NOT want that), and that bad guys will be bad guys regardless of the tools they use.
-
bustr since most mass murdered are committed by white males, then let's get rid of all white males. that would fix the problem.
midway
-
bustr since most mass murdered are committed by white males, then let's get rid of all white males. that would fix the problem.
midway
That would work out well for you wouldn't it?
-
If you encounter a bad guy with 30 round magazines, wouldn't you prefer not to have to reload 3x to deliver the volume of fire? This presents a very serious tactical disadvantage to the guy with the 10 round magazines.
In the last 50 years I've never encountered that situation. Don't see it happening in the next 50 either.
-
That would work out well for you wouldn't it?
sure that would eliminate 1/2 of my family. just a silly statement no worst that bustr's.
midway
-
that is probably because with cars you dont go and kill 5, 10 or 15 people in one accident or premeditated attack. how many train wrecks do we have? and yet after one that kills a number of people there's always a "hysteria" to go find out why and make changes.
midway
http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-highway-accident-kills-14/story?id=16834835#.UNj04qzyCSo
http://www.limaohio.com/news/local_news/article_6a9112b2-4dcc-11e2-8b95-0019bb30f31a.html
http://www.cbs7.com/news/details.asp?ID=36135
-
No, not at all. You and others like you forget that out current system of background checks was devised by the NRA.
The NRA spent millions and went to court in numerous states trying to shoot down the Brady Bill. Then, with the NICS system they devised as a solution, they fought tooth and nail to deafeat a nominal fee for the NICS and have tried to have the FBI destroy its NICS records. In effect defunding and threatening the functionability of the background checks.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-highway-accident-kills-14/story?id=16834835#.UNj04qzyCSo
http://www.limaohio.com/news/local_news/article_6a9112b2-4dcc-11e2-8b95-0019bb30f31a.html
http://www.cbs7.com/news/details.asp?ID=36135
which one of those had a guy who got on his car with the only intention of committing mass murder?
midway
-
bustr since most mass murdered are committed by white males, then let's get rid of all white males. that would fix the problem.
midway
Then who would pay the taxes?
Minorities in the US have higher overal rates of multiple homicide yearly contributing to 65-70% of 9000 or so murders by guns opposed to the incidence of killings meeting your criterion. But, then it's not defenceless grade schoolers, defencless highschoolers, defenceless college young adults or defenceless patrons in no gun zones who are the multiple casulties generaly in the 9000 over this country's history in the last 50 years.
Though the "deaths by mother" cross the demographc lines and have agriggated more ongoing yearly deaths than the demographic you suggest banning. And with your logic we could solve a much higher death rate by banning complete other demographic groups of males and still get our taxes payed. White males are necessary to our country for that at least if we want to taked care of our least fortunate across all demographics. Regardless of the small aggrigate number of deaths by "young white male massacer" over the history of this nation versus the yearly ongoing murder rate by mothers and other demographics.
Maybe it's the insane fear of having to grow up and shoulder that tax burden that's driving those young men to commit these massacers. There's fewer of us every year to pay for more of everyone else now. That kind of IRS pressure could make almost anyone snap out of shear terror.
-
"Hundreds of residents in New York's Westchester and Rockland counties were surprised to find their names and addresses listed on a map posted by The Journal News on Sunday. Users can click any dot on the map to see which of their neighbors has a permit for a gun."
http://www.lohud.com/comments/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-
-
Then who would pay the taxes?
Minorities in the US have higher overal rates of multiple homicide yearly contributing to 65-70% of 9000 or so murders by guns opposed to the incidence of killings meeting your criterion. But, then it's not defenceless grade schoolers, defencless highschoolers, defenceless college young adults or defenceless patrons in no gun zones who are the multiple casulties generaly in the 9000 over this country's history in the last 50 years.
Though the "deaths by mother" cross the demographc lines and have agriggated more ongoing yearly deaths than the demographic you suggest banning. And with your logic we could solve a much higher death rate by banning complete other demographic groups of males and still get our taxes payed. White males are necessary to our country for that at least if we want to taked care of our least fortunate across all demographics. Regardless of the small aggrigate number of deaths by "young white male massacer" over the history of this nation versus the yearly ongoing murder rate by mothers and other demographics.
Maybe it's the insane fear of having to grow up and shoulder that tax burden that's driving those young men to commit these massacers. There's fewer of us every year to pay for more of everyone else now. That kind of IRS pressure could make almost anyone snap out of shear terror.
well you want to take care of the less fortunate while at the same time you advocate trying to get rid of all mothers. are you contradicting yourself or you just advocate saving the white males while getting rid of all child bearing females?
do you understand now the silliness of your own post regarding banning mothers? mine was posted along the same silliness lines as yours.
midway
-
Everyone has their own reasons. Just saying I'm confident in my bolt action rifles to suit my hunting/Year Zero needs. Really can't understand a logical civilian purpose for one with a 30 round magazine.
Therein lies the debate.
That is because you limit yourself to just hunting.
-
@widewing The old guy in your video illustrates my point perfectly. He's sure brave, but he's also clearly target-locked and isn't clearing his background properly (or at all). His barrel control goes from OK to non-existant, he doesn't take a sight picture once, and he has no concept of EOF rules, so he keeps shooting as they flee. He's actually lucky he's a bad shot, if he'd managed to hit one in the back it would be murder. Not to mention if he killed a bystander with his inexecusably bad drills. Fortune favours fools, I guess.
The criminals in this video also demonstrate my point. They thought they knew what they were doing, had their weapons out and ready, but they panicked and ran when they got under lethal stress. This is also fortunate for old guy and everyone else there too - had they been a bit more switched on this would have become a firefight, and the criminals sure aren't going to be clearing their backgrounds. Basically this armed citizen hero escalated a situation where innocent people were going to lose some cash to a situation where innocent people were lucky they didn't wind up dead.
Brave? Sure. Smart? No.
I have no sympathy for the criminals here, but you have to think the big picture through. You can quote all the statistics you want, and I could show you a bunch of videos illustrating criminally negligent armed citizens who weren't so lucky as old-guy hero here. However the bottom line statistic is that the person most likely to die by any particular firearm is the person who owns it, followed closely by that person's family and friends.
Again, not my country, not my problem, and I don't know the answer. I do know the more guns=more safety position is delusional. No nation has more gun owners (or people in prison) than the USA, but every first-world nation is safer. So are such paragons of freedom and security as communist China, Lebanon and Uzbekistan. If you want understand the psychology/physiology that makes arming schoolteachers a bad idea, read LCol Grossman On Killing and On Combat. If you don't want to understand, that's cool too.
Does this mean you would like to see the video if no one other than the thugs had weapons?
-
A life saved is a life saved. Why do you consider someone trying to reduce gun violence stupid? If you disagree with their beliefs on how gun violence would be reduced, fine, that's your prerogative, but calling them stupid for trying to reduce gun violence? :headscratch:
Becaues it boils down to banning guns designed to look a certian way, when they aren't inherently more effective than any other semi-automatic weapon at the relevant ranges, and then thinking the killing will go away. AR-style rifles are not the problem. High capacity magazines are not the problem. Banning either would do essentially nothing to reduce the killings. Think so is stupid.
Its a knee-jerk, emotion-driven reaction, and that they can't step away from the fact that it was an AR-style rifle used and try to look for an actual solution makes them stupid.
I'm all for gun control. But it has to be intellegent, otherwise it does nothing while arguably infringing on rights. Worst of both worlds.
that is probably because with cars you dont go and kill 5, 10 or 15 people in one accident or premeditated attack. how many train wrecks do we have?
:rofl
and yet after one that kills a number of people there's always a "hysteria" to go find out why and make changes.
The day they start doing that, every pro-gun citizen will shut up. Guns aren't the issue, the issues are that nobody considered that glass won't stop someone intent on getting in, that no one at the school had any viable means of self-defense, and that the kid went nuts and felt like he had to kill 27 people.
That he used an AR-style rifle, or even a projectile weapon is entirely besides the point. Some plastic bottles and fuze, some BB's or ball bearings, and some gunpowder. Thats about all you need for a crude grenade, all of which is readily available. The fuzes are where you would run into problems, if you even do, and I can think of one time of year where they're sold on every other street corner.
same for factories that blow up, or oil rigs, or that drunk guy in the boat that damaged a lot of beaches in alaska. whenever you have a single incident that causes a lot of damage or deaths, there's always a lot of yelling, shoving and screaming trying to find out what went wrong and try to fix it.
The issue is that the hysteria in those situations doesn't result in a call for infringment on constitutional rights.
to say that there's nothing wrong with guns is just as dumb as saying that all the blames are due to guns.
one more thing about your comment here:
"Untill there is the same demand for action against obesity, drunk driving, and all the other things that result in more deaths than firearms, theres no way to call those supporting extensive gun-control anything but stupid."
when was the last time somebody used obesity to commit mass murder. Even suggesting that obesity should be "fixed" before "extensive" gun-control is just plain dumb. even saying "extensive" gun control makes me laugh as I cant even imagine what the hell that means. unless you are trying to figure out a way to be superfluous.
anyway like I said before suggesting getting rid of all guns is just as stupid as saying we dont need to regulate guns.
midway
I'm not saying we should deal with the fatties before we stop school shootings; I'm illustrating a point. The problem people have with shootings isn't so much that they take lives, lives are taken on a daily basis. The problem they have is that shootings are random, unexpected, typically commited by those with mental issues, and then widely publicized and used to stir up fear.
They aren't the biggest threat to children, or even the second biggest. They're merely the most random, and least out of our control. The result is that people panic, and think 'it could be my kid next!!!", and demand government try to control something that is largely out of anyone's control. There will always, always, always be ways to kill. Be it grenades, guns, or chlorine gas, something lethal will always be readily available.
Now again, fully support gun control.... provided its intellegent. I'm all for increased reulation on the sales of firearms. I'm all for mandatory cagalouging and checks of all semi-automatic long-arms, even if it means I have to go in to the county seat every 6 months, or even if it means someone gets to come into my house, and verify that I still have the Mini-30, and that it hasn't been modified to be fully automatic, or whatever they're worried about.
-
The NRA spent millions and went to court in numerous states trying to shoot down the Brady Bill. Then, with the NICS system they devised as a solution, they fought tooth and nail to deafeat a nominal fee for the NICS and have tried to have the FBI destroy its NICS records. In effect defunding and threatening the functionability of the background checks.
In case you missed it, the Brady Bill "Assault Weapons Ban" was good for nothing. Nothing was banned with exception to the new manufacture or importation of magazines of capacity over 10 rounds. The AR15 was still built, it didnt have a flash suppressor and the stock on a carbine unable to be telescoped. The NRA fought it because it was total and complete idiocy and when it expired the stats showed exactly what the NRA said would happen: no reduction in gun violence. I'm not sure where you are getting your mud to sling at the NRA, they did not try and derail the NICS in any way shape or form. Again, they are the architects of the system and they advocated a fee to be assessed on a state by state basis, not have it de-funded. Where are you getting this stuff???
I still don't think you get it, the NICS system was devised by the NRA. They devised and developed it. What they fought for was the prohibiting of the FBI collecting of data from buyers on who, when, and what. If law enforcement ever need that info they would have to get a warrant and go to the local shop where the firearm was purchased because all the information is there on Form 4473 (as it was before NICS and as it still is). Since it is a right for an individual to own a firearm in the USA it is in violation of the 4th Amendment for the FBI to keep and store any data used in that background check. Also, it wasn't the NRA that stopped that from happening, it was the FBI themselves because they obtained an opinion from federal judges even before any of it was even heard in court.
now take a seat.
-
I was talking about the Brady Act, not the assault weapons ban that was part of the Violent Crime Control Act of 94. They fought in NRA v. Reno against the six-month retention of background check data, which would have hampered the functionability of the program, but lost in that suit. They also fought and succeeded in preventing the FBI from charging a small user fee for the NICS, which would helped fund and maintain the program. They've also tried to get rid of the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program, a database that has successfully worked in conjunction with the NICS in Virginia to keep people who shouldn't have guns attain them.
In terms of policy prescriptions, I think there are definately some that don't involve "gun control" per se. For one, include people who commit violent misdemeanors and youth felons on the restricted list, as they are much more likely to commit a crime with a gun (but also give ways to regain the ability to possess a firearm, such as after x number of years without crime or something along those lines). Also extend the drug addiction limit to those who have been convicted of a drug sale or possesion further than a year previous, as they are also disproportionally likely to commit a crime. Lastly, raise the age that you are allowed to own a firearm to 21, as those 18-20 are also much more likely to be involved in gun violence. Another is to close the private-sale loophole that doesn't require a background checks and undercuts the Brady Act. What's the point of having background checks when you can choose to buy your weapon from an unlicensed dealer no problem. You could also relax concealed carry restrictions. Overall this would mean less guns in the hands of bad guys and good guys with guns in more places.
-
who said that "its OK for the presidents men to give assault rifles to the Mexican cartels and kill US boarder agents"?
I cant find the post :headscratch:
My bad sorry, i do have some shortcomings. so to be clear, no one in here said anything about the present administration and their blown covert operation against the second amendment. I Tend to use all the information i have at hand to get the strategic view.
I also have a habit of lumping all the loons and commies on the wrong side of an argument together into one group. I will work on that. Perhaps, you could take the time to educate yourself on what is going on? Might reduce your dandruff.
Infidelz
-
@widewing. Point blank range, only three hits, two from behind, none center of mass. Maybe this meets your standard, but I'd rather not have this level of marksman escalating holdups to shootouts. He stopped the robbery. Great. He didn't make anyone safer, which is my point.
Anyway, as I keep saying, I'm not here to take a position on US gun control. For the record, I don't think it would make much difference either way. You guys don't really have a gun problem, you have a violence problem, as evidenced by the fact that non-gun murders are also off-scale compared to every Western nation. There's no easy ansmmwer to this, but the good news is that violence generally is in long-term decline. As American society continues to evolve, gun rights and gun crime will both become non-issues, just as they are in frequently cited Switzerland. Or even Canada.
:)
-
While the debate rages, skuzzy is home undoing the gift wrapper of his new ban hammer.
-
@widewing. Point blank range, only three hits, two from behind, none center of mass. Maybe this meets your standard, but I'd rather not have this level of marksman escalating holdups to shootouts. He stopped the robbery. Great. He didn't make anyone safer, which is my point.
Anyway, as I keep saying, I'm not here to take a position on US gun control. For the record, I don't think it would make much difference either way. You guys don't really have a gun problem, you have a violence problem, as evidenced by the fact that non-gun murders are also off-scale compared to every Western nation. There's no easy ansmmwer to this, but the good news is that violence generally is in long-term decline. As American society continues to evolve, gun rights and gun crime will both become non-issues, just as they are in frequently cited Switzerland. Or even Canada.
:)
I completely agree with your second point. We really have a serious violence issue here in the US. The culture is broken... It's not gun related, although guns get used frequently. Take away legal guns and the violence would not subside whatsoever. Until we as a nation are willing to accept that and do what is required to change the culture, it won't get better. Think about this... The shooting rate in Dodge City at it's height was a tiny fraction of what it is in Chicago today. Everyone was armed. Most of Dodge City's shootings involved very young cow hands getting drunk and arguing. There was no systematic crime. There was no culture of violence like we see today.
I would argue that the presence of an armed felon waving a gun around is grounds for immediate action. Why? Perhaps they would not shoot or beat anyone if everyone cooperated. However, it's a mistake to assume that a brazen robber would not use his gun without provocation. It's a more frequent occurrence now that ever before. You must assume that if they have a gun, they will use it. Inasmuch as the gun-toting robber never even saw the man approach him... Even unarmed, one could have whacked him with a chair, and disarmed him. However, the old man had a gun, was not young enough to risk a fight. I figure the old guy was more angry than frightened.
To know where I'm coming from, I should provide an overview of my experience. I have a long background with firearms or all type...
1) I am well versed in the law. All gun owners should read and know the laws governing gun ownership and you rights to use a gun in self defense for where they live. There's no excuse for not knowing.
2) I'm just weeks short of 60 years old. However, I've been very well trained. Both in the military and later working with various Federal agencies and the DOD. I design shot counter sensors for various weapons, such as the M4/ M4A1 SOPMOD/M16, M9, Beretta 96, Sig 550 series rifles, Sig pistols (P226, P228), Mk.46, Mk.48, SCAR light, SCAR heavy, H&K 416, MP5/10, MP5 and so on. We tested on the Mk.19 and Mk.47 grenade launchers as well, although we only used inert training ammo (too bad, making big bangs is much more entertaining). I get to extensively test them on the weapons and have worked with SOCOM quite a bit. I've had opportunities to verify function in tactical exercises. I'm one of a very few civilians who has had a chance to play with the old Stoner 63. The SEAL armory at NSWC Crane still had some of these in the late 90s and probably still do. The Stoner 63 was the rifle to DOD should have procured instead of the M16, because it is simply a much better, more reliable weapon.
3) More than 45 years of firearms experience, and have competed with handgun (revolver and pistol), shotgun and rifle. I still do cowboy action shooting events when I can, but it's getting tougher to find the time recently. It usually involves two days of travel as I refuse to transport weapons via the airlines. I get to the range, indoors and outdoors, 4 to 6 times a month for several hours at a time. My last visit was this past Saturday, and I brought my new Savage 11/111 (.300 Win Mag) to zero a newly purchased Leatherwood 7-30x50mm Mil Dot scope at 200 yards (longest range near to where I live). Once that was done, I spent an hour plinking with a .22 cal Henry lever rifle... Much fun, that little Henry, and you can shoot for days for the price of 20 rounds of Hornady A-Max Match Ammo for the Savage (at $2 a round, you bore sight before going to the range).
-
Stellar is and wide wing have hit the nail on the head. Its not a gun issue, and really never has been. Its a violence issue, entirely independent of any and all firearms.
I have no idea why violence is such an issue, and I doubt anyone truly knows for sure.
-
I think most people would rather live in a society where one doesn't feel a need for a firearm...
Fighting fire with fire is often not be the best option unless you are seeking conflict...
Fear begets fear, creating self fulfilling prophecies...
human survival's foundation is interdependence, a web built on trust. Fear poisons that trust.
-
I think most people would rather live in a society where one doesn't feel a need for a firearm...
Yet we do live in one. You ever come home and find a meth head sexual predator that's broke in your house on a Saturday morning?
-
Yet we do live in one. You ever come home and find a meth head sexual predator that's broke in your house on a Saturday morning?
Merry Christmas Slash. I hope you are comfortable at your home now with your family and everyone is safe and well. I hear many had a white Christmas, cool! Although I have experienced break-ins, never when I was around thankfully. If I was, despite feeling that my place of security was violated and being enraged with anger, I'd call the cops and leave. Admittedly, I would talk a good game about how I'm going to get that sweetheart and this and that, but Russian roulette with a low life isn't worth risking my life. Once I knew someone who had a break-in where the perpetrator, broke in via the window, drank beer out of the fridge, took a shower and left... (and no I'm not making this up).
-
Check my FB, we got a couple inches or more on the ground at the moment. The dog loved it briefly. :D
I caught the bastard inside but my gun was in the truck. ( who needs to wear you gun at the carwash right?) I retrieved it and stood by at the door until the locals arrived. He was pretty fast though, ran down the stairs and out the back in the time it took me to get 10 feet to my truck. He was stealing meds and guns. Guess it's good I didn't have it on in a way. Might have been a hell of a mess.
-
@widewing - well at least we can agree on something!
My point is this. Just as guns don't kill people, guns don't create safety. A person competent in the use of firearms in combat CAN create security (which in turn can contribute to safety), but the level of training required to be competent in combat is huge. This is ENTIRELY unrelated to whatever skill someone might have on the range or hunting. Lethal stress is the limiting factor, and most people don't understand this. Even the military has only recently come to understand this and has massively changed, and intensified, training in response. Without the sufficient and CURRENT training, guns subtract safety. Old guy here in your video illustrates this perfectly. He's obviously trained and experienced, but not recently, and though he pulls it off his performance is marginal. His last shot is one-handed, no sight-picture, into the street - this is beyond unacceptable. It is only because he gets the first shot off against incompetent opponents that this has a positive outcome. He was brave, but he was also lucky, and luck is not a planning factor. The irony is, had this gone sour and he'd wound up dead along with a half dozen innocents because he escalated the situation, he'd be even MORE of hero. Such are the ways of the mainstream media.
So my point is, was, and remains - more guns will not create more safety. How many hours of kill-house training does the average concealed-carry citizen get in a week? Zero. How many will the armed schoolteacher get? Zero. How much safety do these guns create? Less than zero, because there are the inevitable accidents that even trained professionals fall victim to. I've had to knock on one of my soldier's mom's door because his supposedly professional colleague killed him in-theatre. I trained them both, so that's where I'm coming from.
To go back to the original question on this thread, I think a big reason so many people want so many guns is that they feel afraid and feel they're buying themselves security. They feel powerful carrying a gun - but without a level of training simply unavailable to the average citizen, it's a false sense of security. A false sense of masculinity in a lot of cases too, but that's another discussion.
To go back to where we agree - the problem is certainly violence, not guns. Since WWII the US has taken an increasingly different path from the rest of the developed world to wind up in a very different place in a lot of areas, including being so much more more violent. There's a bookshelf to be written to unravel the reasons for that, but the good news is the culture is changing. I get to the US fairly often, and it's really started to show over the last few years. I know some on here will shudder at the thought of their country becoming more like Canada or the UK, but we're doing just fine. Despite what you may have heard on Fox.
:)
Paul
-
@widewing - well at least we can agree on something!
My point is this. Just as guns don't kill people, guns don't create safety. A person competent in the use of firearms in combat CAN create security (which in turn can contribute to safety), but the level of training required to be competent in combat is huge. This is ENTIRELY unrelated to whatever skill someone might have on the range or hunting. Lethal stress is the limiting factor, and most people don't understand this. Even the military has only recently come to understand this and has massively changed, and intensified, training in response. Without the sufficient and CURRENT training, guns subtract safety. Old guy here in your video illustrates this perfectly. He's obviously trained and experienced, but not recently, and though he pulls it off his performance is marginal. His last shot is one-handed, no sight-picture, into the street - this is beyond unacceptable. It is only because he gets the first shot off against incompetent opponents that this has a positive outcome. He was brave, but he was also lucky, and luck is not a planning factor. The irony is, had this gone sour and he'd wound up dead along with a half dozen innocents because he escalated the situation, he'd be even MORE of hero. Such are the ways of the mainstream media.
So my point is, was, and remains - more guns will not create more safety. How many hours of kill-house training does the average concealed-carry citizen get in a week? Zero. How many will the armed schoolteacher get? Zero. How much safety do these guns create? Less than zero, because there are the inevitable accidents that even trained professionals fall victim to. I've had to knock on one of my soldier's mom's door because his supposedly professional colleague killed him in-theatre. I trained them both, so that's where I'm coming from.
To go back to the original question on this thread, I think a big reason so many people want so many guns is that they feel afraid and feel they're buying themselves security. They feel powerful carrying a gun - but without a level of training simply unavailable to the average citizen, it's a false sense of security. A false sense of masculinity in a lot of cases too, but that's another discussion.
To go back to where we agree - the problem is certainly violence, not guns. Since WWII the US has taken an increasingly different path from the rest of the developed world to wind up in a very different place in a lot of areas, including being so much more more violent. There's a bookshelf to be written to unravel the reasons for that, but the good news is the culture is changing. I get to the US fairly often, and it's really started to show over the last few years. I know some on here will shudder at the thought of their country becoming more like Canada or the UK, but we're doing just fine. Despite what you may have heard on Fox.
:)
Paul
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service)
I guess our leadership doesn't get your point. They and their families are well protected by guns. Who are you or they to say I can't be too? Seems to me they have no more of a right to breath than I do (or maybe you'd care to try and make that argument). So why don't you just shake your head, tsk tsk us, take your talking points and leave us to our guns and we will take care of things here. Thanks for playing.
-
I think most people would rather live in a society where one doesn't feel a need for a firearm...
Ardy, I couldn't agree with you more....
I like going to the range because I enjoy shooting for recreation. However, I'd rather not think about having to defend myself. Ever.
-
@Infidelz - The Secret Service are trained to a world-class standard, but I have no problem with you protecting yourself with guns as well. My point is only that if you aren't training force-on-force with simunition, target discrimination with live rounds, combat assessment, etc. you aren't protecting yourself, you're deluding yourself. I'm not here to stop you though. Enjoy!
@ardy + Widewing Yep!
-
Personally, I have a fair number of guns (shotguns, rifles, handguns; pumps, double barrels, semi-autos, levers, revolvers, bolts, and flintlocks), but don't have them to feel safe. I don't buy them for HS.
I don't buy them because I'm fearful or because I think I'll ever have a need to defend myself or others.
I just like them. I like the pastime of shooting; it's one of my favorite ways to play. I don't golf, drink or bowl; I shoot.
I also hunt. I don't hunt so that I have a use for my guns though, and I don't own guns so that I can hunt. Hunting to me sometimes involves a little shooting, but shooting and gun use isn't anywhere near a "top priority", or a "drawing" factor. It's just a tool. I hunt to hunt; I just carry a firearm when the type of hunting I'm doing makes it appropriate.
Most of my hunting is with birds or bow though. So even though I have a handful of firearms that I love to shoot, the majority of the time I hunt I don't carry a firearm. Most of the time when I do hunt with a firearm I'm hunting with a flintlock rifle, pistol, or musket. I get one shot generally but shoot a LOT, and have actually reloaded after a miss and still shot the deer I missed... No clips or magazines on those guns.
I think way too much emphasis is being placed on the "security" aspects of firearms.
My right to own a firearm isn't limited to "need", or defense, or hunting...
-
@widewing - well at least we can agree on something!
My point is this. Just as guns don't kill people, guns don't create safety. A person competent in the use of firearms in combat CAN create security (which in turn can contribute to safety), but the level of training required to be competent in combat is huge. This is ENTIRELY unrelated to whatever skill someone might have on the range or hunting. Lethal stress is the limiting factor, and most people don't understand this. Even the military has only recently come to understand this and has massively changed, and intensified, training in response. Without the sufficient and CURRENT training, guns subtract safety. Old guy here in your video illustrates this perfectly. He's obviously trained and experienced, but not recently, and though he pulls it off his performance is marginal. His last shot is one-handed, no sight-picture, into the street - this is beyond unacceptable. It is only because he gets the first shot off against incompetent opponents that this has a positive outcome. He was brave, but he was also lucky, and luck is not a planning factor. The irony is, had this gone sour and he'd wound up dead along with a half dozen innocents because he escalated the situation, he'd be even MORE of hero. Such are the ways of the mainstream media.
So my point is, was, and remains - more guns will not create more safety. How many hours of kill-house training does the average concealed-carry citizen get in a week? Zero. How many will the armed schoolteacher get? Zero. How much safety do these guns create? Less than zero, because there are the inevitable accidents that even trained professionals fall victim to. I've had to knock on one of my soldier's mom's door because his supposedly professional colleague killed him in-theatre. I trained them both, so that's where I'm coming from.
To go back to the original question on this thread, I think a big reason so many people want so many guns is that they feel afraid and feel they're buying themselves security. They feel powerful carrying a gun - but without a level of training simply unavailable to the average citizen, it's a false sense of security. A false sense of masculinity in a lot of cases too, but that's another discussion.
To go back to where we agree - the problem is certainly violence, not guns. Since WWII the US has taken an increasingly different path from the rest of the developed world to wind up in a very different place in a lot of areas, including being so much more more violent. There's a bookshelf to be written to unravel the reasons for that, but the good news is the culture is changing. I get to the US fairly often, and it's really started to show over the last few years. I know some on here will shudder at the thought of their country becoming more like Canada or the UK, but we're doing just fine. Despite what you may have heard on Fox.
:)
Pau
Paul, I only wish that I could look at firearms as a fun hobby. I enjoy shooting. I do not enjoy wasting a single brain cell thinking about every situation in a tactical sense. It's a pretty sad commentary on our society that I would have to think about every situation as a tactical exercise.....
-
Paul, I only wish that I could look at firearms as a fun hobby. I enjoy shooting. I do not enjoy wasting a single brain cell thinking about every situation in a tactical sense. It's a pretty sad commentary on our society that I would have to think about every situation as a tactical exercise.....
Same here and for all but the most paranoid in society. His rationality is taken to an extreme as are his conclusions. Millions of crimes have been prevented by individuals who have adequate skills when necessary to get job done and move on with their lives. The vast majority of gun owners happily go though their lives never pulling a trigger in fear or anger. They have great fun hunting or target shooting with friends and family and appreciate the knowledge that if it ever came down to it. They would at least have a better chance to defend those friends and families with the firearms they have. To say that a gun is a liability to your life unless you train with it daily in "kill houses" is a matter of one persons limited perspective instead of a reasoned and objective observance of daily life.
-
Same here and for all but the most paranoid in society. His rationality is taken to an extreme as are his conclusions. Millions of crimes have been prevented by individuals who have adequate skills when necessary to get job done and move on with their lives. The vast majority of gun owners happily go though their lives never pulling a trigger in fear or anger. They have great fun hunting or target shooting with friends and family and appreciate the knowledge that if it ever came down to it. They would at least have a better chance to defend those friends and families with the firearms they have. To say that a gun is a liability to your life unless you train with it daily in "kill houses" is a matter of one persons limited perspective instead of a reasoned and objective observance of daily life.
+1
-
So my point is, was, and remains - more guns will not create more safety.
I can agree with that, just as I would say that more guns will not create less safety.
-
@Infidelz - The Secret Service are trained to a world-class standard, but I have no problem with you protecting yourself with guns as well. My point is only that if you aren't training force-on-force with simunition, target discrimination with live rounds, combat assessment, etc. you aren't protecting yourself, you're deluding yourself. I'm not here to stop you though. Enjoy!
@ardy + Widewing Yep!
Even the world class would be at a disadvantage without their weapons. :lol I am glad you aren't opposed to my embrace of my second amendment rights - seriously, we also won't be needing your permission to enjoy our liberty.
-
@Infidelz - The Secret Service are trained to a world-class standard, but I have no problem with you protecting yourself with guns as well. My point is only that if you aren't training force-on-force with simunition, target discrimination with live rounds, combat assessment, etc. you aren't protecting yourself, you're deluding yourself. I'm not here to stop you though. Enjoy!
Meh..... kinda. Even if you're not sure how to opperate a firearm, having one pointed at him will intimidate most burglars into surrendering
-
The trained and elite in the world are but a fraction of the total population.
This has been true since the dawn of soldiering and trained men at arms. The rest of us unwashed, untrained, incompentent masses have always done the best we can protecting our lives with whatever was at hand. And so the trained since the dawn of their profession have looked askance at the rest of us for our clumsy and inferior lack of training. There are not and never will be enough of the trained to protect the other 98% of the population. For the most part the trained protect governements and the elite who have the funds to pay for the professional. The U.S. is a rare exception that the professionals in our armed forces protect "We the People" rather than a government or a crown based institution.
Untill the day arrives that magicly our violent tendacies leave us and pigs fly over rainbows. The 98% of the untrained masses will continue to protect their own lives, family and property as best they can regardless of the derision from trained professionals. After all, when violence happens to the majority of us unwashed masses, there is no one on hand but ourselves to save our own lives regardelss of how inept we are at the process. Or should we 98% just roll over and commit suicide in the face of our lack of skill becasue a professional has judged us incompitent?
The cartoon anti-hero "Stellaris" would probably look at us untrained unwashed masses as mud under her boot also. Interesting choice of forum ID's in a kiddy shootemup cartoon game forum. Stellaris could be described at some times as a professional soldier girl working out some serious issues and grudges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellaris
-
@widewing. Point blank range, only three hits, two from behind, none center of mass. Maybe this meets your standard, but I'd rather not have this level of marksman escalating holdups to shootouts. He stopped the robbery. Great. He didn't make anyone safer, which is my point.
Do you know what point blank range is? Technically?
-
Ardy, I couldn't agree with you more....
I like going to the range because I enjoy shooting for recreation. However, I'd rather not think about having to defend myself. Ever.
The founders always amaze me as to how relevant their words remain
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors
-
Here is a good, informative (and long) read on the subject. I hope some of you read it.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/ (http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/)
-
I think it boils down to those of us that are prone to panic not being able to handle your so called lethal stress. I have seen well trained military men panic at the first sound of rounds whizzing overhead.
-
Here is a good, informative (and long) read on the subject. I hope some of you read it.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/ (http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/)
Wow, thanks for posting!
Nice to see a well-argued view. I'll be sharing it.
-
@buzzard. Absolutely correct, panic (what LCol Grossman calls condition black) shuts down your ability to function effectively in a firefight, and even well trained troops are subject to it. Even condition yellow, which is where fear arousal is actually helping you, - shuts down fine motor skills, induces tunnel vision and does other things that your training needs to accommodate.
@bustr. I'm not deriding anyone. By all means, defend yourself as you see fit against whatever threats you feel are present in your life. I'm simply stating that, just as guns don't kill people, guns don't keep people safe. Only someone who is properly trained can do this, and as it turns out, the required level of training is far higher than anyone imagined until quite recently. There is only one writer with two books on the US Army's required reading list, and that is LCol Dave Grossman, whose research into the psychology and physiology of combat uncovered how bad a job armies (and everyone else) were actually doing at training soldiers (and police) for combat.
Think about that. You would think that with dozens of wars over generations of time, with millions of combat veterans, armies would have had this nailed. Nope. They didn't have a clue. Training has been radically changed in the last decade or so in response, and it has gotten MUCH more intense. As a soldier, I've lived through that change. I've been fortunate enough to meet LCol Grossman, and to be trained by and beside some of the people who've been central to this change. Before that, I thought I was good. After all I was a twenty-year infantry soldier, qualified to marksman level every year for that whole time, had a shelf full of trophies besides. Nope. I wasn't good, not even close, because range shoots, and blank fire exercises, and even live-fire exercises do not actually produce skills which work well in real close combat. The drills I learned were likely to fail under lethal stress, because they weren't built around the way people function when someone is trying to kill them. And >I< was likely to fail under lethal stress, because my training didn't expose me to it in a meaningful way. I'm still not good, not even close, because "good" requires full time dedication to the skillset, and I'm a reservist who fights with a radio. I do now know what "good" looks like.
It does not look like an armed schoolteacher.
This is my point.
@everyone else I'm not saying nobody should have firearms. Hunt, shoot clays, shoot targets, hang 'em on your wall, accessorize 'em, carry 'em everywhere you go if that's what you like doing. I am saying that the American violence problem is not guns, and the solution is not guns. The problem isn't guns because the problem is violence. The solution isn't guns because the average armed citizen isn't trained to function under lethal stress. If you want to understand this check killology.com, which is LCol Grossman's website. He can explain this way better than I.
-
It does not look like an armed schoolteacher.
Sandy hook has already shown us what an unarmed school teacher looks like. Their funerals were several days later because the only option they had that day was to die valiantly but futilely with their students.
-
Sandy hook has already shown us what an unarmed school teacher looks like. Their funerals were several days later because the only option they had that day was to die valiantly but futilely with their students.
then you have the guy who was armed when he answered a knock on his door and was shot by police.
you will always find situations where you can say, if only...... but that doesnt help after the fact. if we armed the teachers that will only last until a teachers gets mad for whatever reason and starts shooting, but that has never happened before, right?
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/feb/10/two-shot-at-inskip-school-teacher-being-held-on/
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/03/2-dead-in-shooting-at-fla-high-school-/1
midway
-
Guncrasher if you will only be happy with a 100% success on any option you will be forever frustrated in this life. The folks in Sandy Hook had a zero option available to them. Your choice as to which one you would like to have.
-
@Maverick - armed schoolteachers at Sandy Hook would look exactly like the unarmed schoolteachers unless they were trained properly. Look at the criminals in widewing's video - they panic so hard they don't even think to return fire. We cheer at this, because they're the bad guys. We imagine the law abiding armed citizen as the good guy. But the good guy will panic just as badly if someone else opens fire, unless - and I'm seriously amazed I have to sell the concept of tough, realistic, high stress training to this audience - unless they are trained to deal with lethal stress.
And while they were standing around armed with a school-issued sidearm and a false sense of security, many more would end up looking like the dad who accidentally shot his son. I don't want my children in that guy's classroom, I'll take my chances with the random maniac. Especially, as midway points out, that inevitably a few of these teachers would end up looking like the perpetrator.
-
Guncrasher if you will only be happy with a 100% success on any option you will be forever frustrated in this life. The folks in Sandy Hook had a zero option available to them. Your choice as to which one you would like to have.
well look at it this way. if we were to arm every single teacher in the schools how many more shootings by teacher are we gonna have? the answer is that there isnt really a right answer one way or another. we can only speculate that the teacher will do the right thing. but think about it, lots of teacher get arrested every year for sex abuse of student, but now the kids know that teachers are armed, what will that tell you?
not trying to indict every teacher as the great majority are good teachers, but arent we going to make one problem worst while trying to solve another?
midway
-
@buzzard. Absolutely correct, panic (what LCol Grossman calls condition black) shuts down your ability to function effectively in a firefight, and even well trained troops are subject to it. Even condition yellow, which is where fear arousal is actually helping you, - shuts down fine motor skills, induces tunnel vision and does other things that your training needs to accommodate.
@bustr. I'm not deriding anyone. By all means, defend yourself as you see fit against whatever threats you feel are present in your life. I'm simply stating that, just as guns don't kill people, guns don't keep people safe. Only someone who is properly trained can do this, and as it turns out, the required level of training is far higher than anyone imagined until quite recently. There is only one writer with two books on the US Army's required reading list, and that is LCol Dave Grossman, whose research into the psychology and physiology of combat uncovered how bad a job armies (and everyone else) were actually doing at training soldiers (and police) for combat.
Think about that. You would think that with dozens of wars over generations of time, with millions of combat veterans, armies would have had this nailed. Nope. They didn't have a clue. Training has been radically changed in the last decade or so in response, and it has gotten MUCH more intense. As a soldier, I've lived through that change. I've been fortunate enough to meet LCol Grossman, and to be trained by and beside some of the people who've been central to this change. Before that, I thought I was good. After all I was a twenty-year infantry soldier, qualified to marksman level every year for that whole time, had a shelf full of trophies besides. Nope. I wasn't good, not even close, because range shoots, and blank fire exercises, and even live-fire exercises do not actually produce skills which work well in real close combat. The drills I learned were likely to fail under lethal stress, because they weren't built around the way people function when someone is trying to kill them. And >I< was likely to fail under lethal stress, because my training didn't expose me to it in a meaningful way. I'm still not good, not even close, because "good" requires full time dedication to the skillset, and I'm a reservist who fights with a radio. I do now know what "good" looks like.
It does not look like an armed schoolteacher.
This is my point.
@everyone else I'm not saying nobody should have firearms. Hunt, shoot clays, shoot targets, hang 'em on your wall, accessorize 'em, carry 'em everywhere you go if that's what you like doing. I am saying that the American violence problem is not guns, and the solution is not guns. The problem isn't guns because the problem is violence. The solution isn't guns because the average armed citizen isn't trained to function under lethal stress. If you want to understand this check killology.com, which is LCol Grossman's website. He can explain this way better than I.
It doesnt necessarily not look like an armed school teacher either. Different people will act differently regardless of training. Hell we even have trained police who sometimes seem to manage to hit everyone and everything around them but the perp they are shooting at.
Fact of the matter is nobody knows for sure until put to the test. Yes there are some even trained people who shut down. Likewise there are also untrained people who dont shut down and indeed even thrive and in fact do extra ordinary heroic things under extra ordinary circumstances. We see and read about them on the news all the time.
I contend you can have armed teacher. Those teachers can and should also be trained. And inasmuch as soldiers and police are trained. there is no logical reason why teachers cant nor definitive evidence that if trained they would perform any less effectively then say. Even the police.
This is one of the things that a "well regulated(trained and practiced) militia" is supposed to be about and for. And what the founders wanted.
The last thing they wanted was for arms to be for and used by the government alone.
-
well look at it this way. if we were to arm every single teacher in the schools how many more shootings by teacher are we gonna have? the answer is that there isnt really a right answer one way or another. we can only speculate that the teacher will do the right thing. but think about it, lots of teacher get arrested every year for sex abuse of student, but now the kids know that teachers are armed, what will that tell you?
not trying to indict every teacher as the great majority are good teachers, but arent we going to make one problem worst while trying to solve another?
midway
I don't think there will be a requirement for teachers to arm. I believe there is a movement to allow those who want to be armed to be able to do so. I'd rather not force anyone to have a firearm. Those who want to be armed and are willing to learn and maintain the responsibility... I say go for it.
-
well look at it this way. if we were to arm every single teacher in the schools how many more shootings by teacher are we gonna have? the answer is that there isnt really a right answer one way or another. we can only speculate that the teacher will do the right thing. but think about it, lots of teacher get arrested every year for sex abuse of student, but now the kids know that teachers are armed, what will that tell you?
not trying to indict every teacher as the great majority are good teachers, but arent we going to make one problem worst while trying to solve another?
midway
they just did a story on this on CNN
Utah has been doing it for over 10 years now and teachers havent been involved in any shootings yet.
Now 200 more are going to receive training.
-
Their has been multiple occasions that during one of my "walk abouts" at the ranch i have run threw a 30 round ak mag. Last time was on saturday with a epic fight with a pack of 15 pigs in the open. People ask me why 30 rounds and my reply is why do you need to drive over 55 mphs. Modern firearms are what the name implies MODERN.
-
As I pointed out in a thread on another website.
On of the largest arguments I hear about not allowing teachers to be armed is that kids might be caught and killed in a crossfire.
I will admit that is possible. it is indeed a possibility that kids might end up caught in a crossfire and killed. But it is also a possibility that an armed teacher might be able to stop a gunman before he does kill large numbers of people. That is also possible.
What we do know for sure and what isnt just possible but the inevitable outcome. Is what happens when the ONLY person armed is the badguy with the gun hellbent to take out as many lives as possible.
Being armed and able to shoot back when being shot at increases your chances of survival significantly.
-
they just did a story on this on CNN
Utah has been doing it for over 10 years now and teachers havent been involved in any shootings yet.
Now 200 more are going to receive training.
what you just said is mentioned in the link someone above provided.
-
now this may be stirring the pot exponently, but i have heard both that he used an ar-15 in the shooting, and that he used a sig and a glock with the ar in the trunk. don't follow mainstream media, so does anyone have a yea or nea on either?
-
As a parent (who grew up in Chicago) with two kids in school (MS and HS), and a wife who's a teacher (shared between the Elementary and HS disabled students rooms)... We live 6 miles outside of a small town (700 people), about 45 minutes from the nearest "city" (Oshkosh, Appleton, or Steven's Point, WI). We live in an area with a low crime rate, and in an area where many, if not most, families hunt (our kids can be excused from classes to hunt if they show the school their license). It's a pretty safe location. Most households likely have firearms.
Based on the last two bomb threats our school has had, a policeman or maybe two could be expected to arrive within 8-10 minutes. The next batch could be expected to show up at about the 15-20 minute mark. Again, based on prior response, the police may go to the wrong school (we have three, two of which are next to each other, but separated by the activity fields).
Small, safe town or not, we have the "regular" variety of children, so have the "regular" variety of problems. I don't consider us to be immune to murderous nutcases. I and many other parents actually have strong concerns regarding one or two students in particular.
What are my choices? What would I feel most comfortable with?
Option 1 is the "status quo".
Nobody is allowed to carry a firearm on school property, and there are multiple signs strategically posted to remind potential fame-starved killers that the children on the premises are defenseless and undefended.
If one of these nutcases were to act, they would have several long minutes of freedom. Knowing several teachers very well, I have zero doubt that they would do everything in their power to slow or stop a gunman. My wife would be one of those, I guarantee it. How successful could I expect them to be, one on one against an armed person? Will it matter what type of gun the shooter has? Innocents are in absolute danger, and will be killed. The best chance for survival of my loved ones might be if the shooter shoots my kids friends instead, or first? Should I hope for that? Did I mention that I know all of the kids in their classes? That I've coached many of them?
Option 2 "Arm a select number of teachers who choose to be trained and are committed to doing their best with something other than a pencil"
This may be a failure of an option. Somebody might get hurt. An innocent might get killed. But at least there's a chance.
At least there's a chance...
Are we really arguing that it might be better to withhold that option, because there's also a chance of failure? Really?
Wait until you're a parent.
-
I did not read through all of this but simply put the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun...period.
-
I did not read through all of this but simply put the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun...period.
Not true, apparently, you just have to inconvenience him with having to carry more magazines.
Or, make him break the law by carrying a "high capacity clip". We wouldn't want any criminals breaking the law now, would we?
-
I am a parent. I choose to live where school shootings are a lower risk than being struck by lightning. Doesn't mean it can't happen, but you can't live life in a bunker. My main worry is my little one being run over by a soccer mom in an SUV running late for PTA.
But let's put some numbers on this.
Center for Disease Control figures released for 2008-2011 show a fairly steady rate of about 600 accidental firearms deaths annually. There's also another 250 firearms deaths of undetermined intent, which I guess means someone said it was an accident and no-one could prove otherwise. Anyway, lets use 600 accidental deaths. Here's the data http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
Assume all 4.3 million NRA members go armed every day, 1.1 million police/law enforcement, plus 13.7 million hunters who go out one day a week every week all year (who we'll treat as 2 million who go out every day). and toss several million more criminals, psychopaths and communist infiltrators to bring the numbers up to 10 million.
This works out to an accident rate of 1 death per 16,666 person/gun/years. Pretty safe, but not absolutely safe. However safety is relative, so let us continue the calculation.
There are 98,817 chools in the US, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (data http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf). Let's call that 100,000, and say there's an average of twenty classrooms per school. for roughly 2,000,000 classrooms.
Now lets arm all those teachers. Crunch the numbers and there will be about 120 accidental firearms deaths in classrooms every year. At a student teacher ratio of 20:1, this is 114 children and 6 teachers.
Since the turn of the millenium 96 people have died in school shootings in the US, excluding suicides. (data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2010s)
So assuming the armed teachers could have stopped every single shooter before the first round was fired, saving those 96 would have cost 1440 lives, mostly children.
More guns do not create more safety. The training of the average armed citizen (or schoolteacher) is not up to the task. Leave out proper lethal stress training, even the most basic rule of never touching the trigger without a target in your sights is not adequately followed.
-
^^ :huh :huh
wow...
-
So assuming the armed teachers could have stopped every single shooter before the first round was fired, saving those 96 would have cost 1440 lives, mostly children.
look up how many teachers have been the shooters at school. but your assumption that arming teachers would have stopped every single shooter is like saying if the passengers had been armed then the airplanes would not have crashed into the towers, which is possible, however it is possible that there would have been more shootings in airplanes.
my concern here is not kids getting shot at school as it is rare, very rare actually. but if you compare that to students being molested at school by teachers, then you begin to see that the biggest problem is not shootings, but kids being molested. except now you have kids being molested by teachers having guns. which kids will now really believe the "I'll kill your parents..." threat.
like I said before rushing to claim that teachers with guns at school would have stopped shootings is just as dumb as thinking getting rid of guns would stop deaths.
midway
-
I am a parent. I choose to live where school shootings are a lower risk than being struck by lightning. Doesn't mean it can't happen, but you can't live life in a bunker. My main worry is my little one being run over by a soccer mom in an SUV running late for PTA.
But let's put some numbers on this.
Center for Disease Control figures released for 2008-2011 show a fairly steady rate of about 600 accidental firearms deaths annually. There's also another 250 firearms deaths of undetermined intent, which I guess means someone said it was an accident and no-one could prove otherwise. Anyway, lets use 600 accidental deaths. Here's the data http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
Assume all 4.3 million NRA members go armed every day, 1.1 million police/law enforcement, plus 13.7 million hunters who go out one day a week every week all year (who we'll treat as 2 million who go out every day). and toss several million more criminals, psychopaths and communist infiltrators to bring the numbers up to 10 million.
This works out to an accident rate of 1 death per 16,666 person/gun/years. Pretty safe, but not absolutely safe. However safety is relative, so let us continue the calculation.
There are 98,817 chools in the US, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (data http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf). Let's call that 100,000, and say there's an average of twenty classrooms per school. for roughly 2,000,000 classrooms.
Now lets arm all those teachers. Crunch the numbers and there will be about 120 accidental firearms deaths in classrooms every year. At a student teacher ratio of 20:1, this is 114 children and 6 teachers.
Since the turn of the millenium 96 people have died in school shootings in the US, excluding suicides. (data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2010s)
So assuming the armed teachers could have stopped every single shooter before the first round was fired, saving those 96 would have cost 1440 lives, mostly children.
More guns do not create more safety. The training of the average armed citizen (or schoolteacher) is not up to the task. Leave out proper lethal stress training, even the most basic rule of never touching the trigger without a target in your sights is not adequately followed.
FWIW, mife wife was in our parked but running minivan when it was hit by lightning in October. I was standing 12-15 feet away from it. Heck of a noise (sounded like giant static, not like thunder) big white/blue ball of fire, heat on my face, etc... Kind of neat. No damage to us or the vehiclle, although some of the electro-gadgets are all jinky now.
I like the idea of putting numbers on it.
If we do that though, should we even spend any real time bothering with the "mass" shootings? I mean, statistically we'd have much more to gain by tackling one of the other segments of firearm death than with mass shootings, right? I think that would be the case whether we used sheer number of deaths or number of events.
Of course, if we did that we might be forced into looking even deeper into the problem, and getting out of the smoke screen distraction of mass shootings, "clip" size, weapon color and shape, etc...
We'd end up needing to look at the individuals who commit the crimes; who they are, and where they're from, etc., and that wouldn't be PC (regardless of who does it). I don't know if we could make any legitimate headway under forum rules?
There's a reason (or 20) that the media and politicians have decided not to go this route, but have instead directed us to the pointless smoke screen distraction of mass shootings, assault weapons, etc...
If we looked at numbers, would we even want to go with firearms from an accidental death viewpoint? I mean, why waste time with a statistical anomaly, when we might be able to really solve something and save a bunch of lives? 600 per year? Please... That doesn't even match up with my state numbers per year for motor vehicles! MV's are almost sacred though, so probably aren't a good topic.
You've kind of shown that mass shootings are less of a threat than accidental firearm injuries, right? So why regulate in an effort to reduce crime, if what we're really worried about is an accident?
How about accidental falls? What are the numbers there?
Bah! Let's go back to being distracted with a pointless discussion on mass shootings, "clips", and ugly guns... Much more interesting.
See how easy it is to get distracted?
We jumped from nasty guns used in mass murders (well, or not), to (unrelated) gun accidents (I don't lump accidents with criminal acts for the most part), to lightning...
There's a reason those guys are in politics or on the daily media... It isn't always to help you/us, or to keep you informed enough to make logical choices.
-
One thing everyone seems to overlook is that the shooters have zero combat training. Moreover, the shooters specifically target soft targets, where it is known that there will be no opposition armed with firearms. This is important to understand.
The Oregon mall shooter was stopped in his tracks when he encountered an off duty security guard armed with a Glock pistol. He panicked, hid and shot himself.
These are not SOCOM operators or Spetsnaz . They are not prepared for armed opposition. They don't have the slightest clue how cope.
One needs only a few trained individuals in schools to deal with this with some expectation of success. Another advantage is being in the defense mode. The attacker must, by the nature of the event, expose themselves. This is where they can be best dealt with... Even before they gain entry.
Yes, armed staff and faculty is only one aspect. Hardening the schools is the first line of defense. Not being able to shoot their way in through a window or door is critical to adding time to the front side of the evolution.
Like any other defensive situation, keeping the bad guy out is priority #1. Defeating him if he should gain entry is priority #2. If they can't get in, you don't have dead kids.
Also, one reason they went to a school is because the know it's a very soft target. Harden the target and they may go elsewhere. The downside is, there are lots of soft targets. However, the chances of someone being armed at those locations are far greater than in a school (at least as they exist today).
(Edit typo)
-
Guns in schools are a deterrent, a psychological wall for people that are thinking about doing something wrong. What's the school system in Texas that allows cc? Have they ever had a shooting at the schools since they implemented this? That's the point! You don't have to arm every teacher just a few veterans that are willing to come out of retirement to make school zones less of a target. Schools might still be targeted but there will be somebody there to at least try to stop them or give the bad guy something else to shoot at besides helpless kids and teachers. That armed guard would be one heck of a deterrent compared to the teachers trying to shield the children with their bodies.
-
Some seem to feel that teachers are all but incompetent to do anything but stand in front of a classroom. They seem to feel and then expound on this by saying that they armed teacher would fold at the first hint of trouble or even more strangely cause trouble themselves. They are welcome to their supposition and or opinion.
I've been a teacher as well as a couple other professions. There are teachers and administrators I would not expect to react aggressively in the face of aggression but there are also others that would. The Principal and Counselor at Sandy Hook are examples. They did not run from the threat, they charged towards it. They only had one option however and it was to become casualties instead of stopping the threat since they had no tools. The fact of the matter is that the gun safe zone has a total failure rate at prevention. The law the shooters violated by bringing a weapon to the campus did nothing to deter them. Same for the laws against assault and murder.
The recognition of a threat in two recent shootings has shown the typical shooters mindset. Hit something that cannot hit back and as soon as someone who can hit back shows or gets near off themselves or surrender. Having no tool or option to do anything resulted in the deaths at Sandy Hook, that is fact not supposition. When the shooter seemed to hear the sirens, he stopped and shot himself. Just the THREAT of a reaction stopped him. Think if the Principal had actually been able to fire a shot at him to begin with. Do you really honestly expect the result to have been the same? Surrendering certainly didn't do the trick, neither did co operating with the murderer.
What would be your preference when faced with someone who intends to kill you? Meek submission and death for yourself and family / friends or a chance to make the bad guy die instead?
I've already been there and I know what my choice is.
-
Guns in schools are a deterrent, a psychological wall for people that are thinking about doing something wrong. What's the school system in Texas that allows cc? Have they ever had a shooting at the schools since they implemented this? That's the point! You don't have to arm every teacher just a few veterans that are willing to come out of retirement to make school zones less of a target. Schools might still be targeted but there will be somebody there to at least try to stop them or give the bad guy something else to shoot at besides helpless kids and teachers. That armed guard would be one heck of a deterrent compared to the teachers trying to shield the children with their bodies.
Did Texas had shootings at schools often before they allowed cc? I bet most people are unaware that the school district allows it.
Midway
-
Think about that. You would think that with dozens of wars over generations of time, with millions of combat veterans, armies would have had this nailed. Nope. They didn't have a clue. Training has been radically changed in the last decade or so in response, and it has gotten MUCH more intense. As a soldier, I've lived through that change. I've been fortunate enough to meet LCol Grossman, and to be trained by and beside some of the people who've been central to this change. Before that, I thought I was good. After all I was a twenty-year infantry soldier, qualified to marksman level every year for that whole time, had a shelf full of trophies besides. Nope. I wasn't good, not even close, because range shoots, and blank fire exercises, and even live-fire exercises do not actually produce skills which work well in real close combat. The drills I learned were likely to fail under lethal stress, because they weren't built around the way people function when someone is trying to kill them. And >I< was likely to fail under lethal stress, because my training didn't expose me to it in a meaningful way.
Thinking about going military. Out of curiosity, how has training changed? Also, I always thought the point of the training was largely to condition an automatic response, not so? Or is the response not enough to overcome the reaction to being shot at, and so something new was needed?
-
To all the people worried about arming teachers.... arms locker. Just saying.
Put two padlocks on it that only six people know the combination to, with no one knowing the combination to both locks. Keep a couple pistols, maybe a shotgun loaded with bird shot (keep collateral damage down) and you largely take care of both problems.
-
To all the people worried about arming teachers.... arms locker. Just saying.
Put two padlocks on it that only six people know the combination to, with no one knowing the combination to both locks. Keep a couple pistols, maybe a shotgun loaded with bird shot (keep collateral damage down) and you largely take care of both problems.
I am not taking a stance either way on having teachers armed but if you would, please:
1) Please detail, as verbosely as possible, what the protocols, and details of gaining access to this locker would be.
2) In addition, please describe, in best and worst of conditions, what the projected elapsed time it would take to present these to target.
A weapon locked in a closet is more useless than a paperweight. An unloaded one is a metal club...
-
I am not taking a stance either way on having teachers armed but if you would, please:
1) Please detail, as verbosely as possible, what the protocols, and details of gaining access to this locker would be.
2) In addition, please describe, in best and worst of conditions, what the projected elapsed time it would take to present these to target.
A weapon locked in a closet is more useless than a paperweight. An unloaded one is a metal club...
The arms locker would be kept in the office of the school, and would in actuality be a small gun safe, to prevent one person with a gun from gaining access to even more guns. Preferably, it would be hidden from sight, but not kept in a locked room, as it is a locked safe.
There would be two locks, either opened by keys or combination. Combination would likely be more secure, as you can't take a combination from a dead man. A total of 6 people (or more in a larger school) would be involved in the opening of the arms locker, with 3 of the people knowing the combination/having the key to one lock, but not the other, and the other 3 knowing the combination/having the key to the other lock, but not the first one. Nobody is to know the combiation/possess the keys to both locks at any point in time, to ensure at least two people must know about and authorize access to the firearms stored within the safe.
The purpose of multiple people being able to open each lock is to allow for people being sick, or incapacitated in an emergency. Idealy, the 6 individuals would be seperated from eachother, to help ensure there is at least one person that can open each lock who is present and uninjured.
In larger schools, multiple arms lockers could be dispersed througout the school, to allow for quicker response. Locks would be standardized between arms lockers, to simplify the system.
Those in possession of the keys/combinations would be required to carry radios at all times when on school grounds. If an incident is reported that warrants the use of firearms, the people involved with the opening of the arms locker are to procede to the location of the arms locker as quickly and directly as is safe to do so. Predetermined routes are to be identified based on general location in the school. If possible, nobody will proceede by the same route as another person, to the extent that any detours nessecetated by alternate routes do not constitute a delay of more than 2 minutes, if not possible, and multiple people are in close proximity, they are to put a 30 second interval between their departure times, so that if the first is fired on, the other(s) may backtrack and detour.
Elapsed time will vary greatly with the situation.
Best case scenario
school is relatively small, and the office is not the first target. Warning is given by the office as soon a shots are heard, and the shooter is not obstructing the path to the arms locker. I would estimate time to be between 1 and 3 minute to opening the locker, and up to another 3 to engagment of the hostile gunman, again depending on size of the school, and location of the shooter.
Worst case probable scenario
school is large, but old and poory laid out. Shots are not recognized as such, warning is not given immediately. The office or location of the arms locker is targeted first, any any school personelle present are incapacitated or killed. Layout of the school prevents people involved in opening of the arms locker from taking alternate route, and shooter has incapacitated or killed one of their group in his initial assult. Shooter is blocking another member from proceding directly to the arms locker, nessecetating his/her exiting of the school building, and entering another door. 4 other members must take the same route in order to avoide excessive delay by detours. Due to the 30 second delay between departures, response time from first shots fired to opening of the arms locker is up to 15 minutes, with another 5 to 7 to engagment of the shooter, depending on exact layout of the school, and location of the shooter.
Completely irrational/inept shooter scenario
Shooter assults the office or location of the arms locker first, incapacitating or killing all staff members present. Shooter is aware of the existance of the arms locker, and holds possition to kill those attempting to open the arms locker. Response time from firing of first shots to engagment of the shooter is incalculable, and entirely dependent on response time of local law enforcment.
Having a gun that can't be used for 15 minutes might not be as good as having a gun that can be used imediately, but its also more secure, and is still better than having no gun at all, which is my point.
-
The arms locker would be kept in the office of the school, and would in actuality be a small gun safe, to prevent one person with a gun from gaining access to even more guns. Preferably, it would be hidden from sight, but not kept in a locked room, as it is a locked safe.this was my thoughts
There would be two locks, either opened by keys or combination. Combination would likely be more secure, as you can't take a combination from a dead man. A total of 6 people (or more in a larger school) would be involved in the opening of the arms locker, with 3 of the people knowing the combination/having the key to one lock, but not the other, and the other 3 knowing the combination/having the key to the other lock, but not the first one. Nobody is to know the combiation/possess the keys to both locks at any point in time, to ensure at least two people must know about and authorize access to the firearms stored within the safe.combination lock would be bad in high stress situation. key lock would do well.
The purpose of multiple people being able to open each lock is to allow for people being sick, or incapacitated in an emergency. Idealy, the 6 individuals would be seperated from eachother, to help ensure there is at least one person that can open each lock who is present and uninjured.
In larger schools, multiple arms lockers could be dispersed througout the school, to allow for quicker response. Locks would be standardized between arms lockers, to simplify the system.
Those in possession of the keys/combinations would be required to carry radios at all times when on school grounds. If an incident is reported that warrants the use of firearms, the people involved with the opening of the arms locker are to procede to the location of the arms locker as quickly and directly as is safe to do so. Predetermined routes are to be identified based on general location in the school. If possible, nobody will proceede by the same route as another person, to the extent that any detours nessecetated by alternate routes do not constitute a delay of more than 2 minutes, if not possible, and multiple people are in close proximity, they are to put a 30 second interval between their departure times, so that if the first is fired on, the other(s) may backtrack and detour.
Elapsed time will vary greatly with the situation.
Best case scenario
school is relatively small, and the office is not the first target. Warning is given by the office as soon a shots are heard, and the shooter is not obstructing the path to the arms locker. I would estimate time to be between 1 and 3 minute to opening the locker, and up to another 3 to engagment of the hostile gunman, again depending on size of the school, and location of the shooter.
Worst case probable scenario
school is large, but old and poory laid out. Shots are not recognized as such, warning is not given immediately. The office or location of the arms locker is targeted first, any any school personelle present are incapacitated or killed. Layout of the school prevents people involved in opening of the arms locker from taking alternate route, and shooter has incapacitated or killed one of their group in his initial assult. Shooter is blocking another member from proceding directly to the arms locker, nessecetating his/her exiting of the school building, and entering another door. 4 other members must take the same route in order to avoide excessive delay by detours. Due to the 30 second delay between departures, response time from first shots fired to opening of the arms locker is up to 15 minutes, with another 5 to 7 to engagment of the shooter, depending on exact layout of the school, and location of the shooter.
Completely irrational/inept shooter scenario
Shooter assults the office or location of the arms locker first, incapacitating or killing all staff members present. Shooter is aware of the existance of the arms locker, and holds possition to kill those attempting to open the arms locker. Response time from firing of first shots to engagment of the shooter is incalculable, and entirely dependent on response time of local law enforcment.
Having a gun that can't be used for 15 minutes might not be as good as having a gun that can be used imediately, but its also more secure, and is still better than having no gun at all, which is my point.
-
From Tank-Ace:
Having a gun that can't be used for 15 minutes might not be as good as having a gun that can be used imediately, but its also more secure, and is still better than having no gun at all, which is my point.
----------------------------------------
15 minutes is about the average response time of the police in many of our "massacer by whiteboy" events in the last 30 years. On average 14 people die before the police get on sight. What dosen't get into the news are the attempted "massacer by whiteboy" that are addressed by a person(s) on sight with CCW. On average 2.5 people are killed\injured before the police get on sight to address the dead shooter or haul him away to jail. The "massacer by whiteboy" types are not specialy trained in any manner so are not prepaired for an armed confrontation. Thats why they go hunting in gun free zones. Armed confrontation is a mental state radical game changer the "massacer by whiteboy" types are not counting on.
If it takes 15 minutes to gain access to the locked up firearm. You might as well not allow firearms in the school. And the "massacer by whiteboy" will know your firearms are locked up becasue our press and politicians will publicly pound their chests over protecting the children from evil guns leaping out of the storage lockers and going on a child slaying rampage. So in effect your school is still a gun free zone to hunt children in by the "massacer by whiteboy" nuts.
In Utah the teachers who carry are volinteers who subject themselves to invasive personal scrutiny by the Utah governemnt. Not employees forced into being something they are incapable of. As with CCW persons across the US. For the most part they are the kind of personaly responsible people you want as policmen, combat soldiers or sitting next to the red launch switch in a silo. We are not at war so they don't need to become world class special ops trained to deal with "massacer by whiteboy" types. That argument is a red herring to cover a personal fear. Being a CCW carrier they are eminently better trained than the "massacer by whiteboy" types unless we see an evolutionairy response by these monsters to seek out world class combat training. I would suspect CCW and personal combat trainers wherever teachers volinteer will gladly and generously volinteer their professional time to make the process a success like one did in Utah.
-
I know it wouldn't nessicarily do a whole lot of good, but still the attempt must be made.
If you have a better suggestion, then by all means share.
-
ok numb skull.....say your opponent spawns into a gv fight while you have it camped and you cant use your gun for 15 minutes.....nuff said
-
ok numb skull.....say your opponent spawns into a gv fight while you have it camped and you cant use your gun for 15 minutes.....nuff said
Lol! If you seriously think thats an apt comparison, I'm not sure you should be calling me a numb skull.
-
This thread has now morphed into blatant stupidity.
-
Tank-Ace,
How can I give you an answer to your real dilemma in the face of a voting block in the USA deciding suicide is better than taking responsibility for their own lives and choosing to kill the demons slaughtering them becasue they are playing the odds which are in their favor for the most part. Just not the parents in CT. You want no possibility of casulties along with another poster arguing we can never be trained well enough to satisfy his professional opinion. Then your only answer is suicide. But, probably in someone elses town and not yours. No one is even arguing from the most famous of all emotional positions.
It's worth it if it saves even one life to have gun free suicide zones. Except this argument is why our children are being slaughtered and our teachers have no way to kill the demons. Works good don't it if slaughtered children and teachers is your goal to the gun free zone laws.
The only answers are very simple. Do nothing and commite suicide because you cannot account for all of the unknowns and unitendad consiquences to keep everyone but the perp from getting hurt. Or reverse the famous logic of: Gun Free Zones are worth it if they save even one life to: it's worth it to be armed and kill the demons if it saves only one life.
As I was trained and survived by. Action has consiquences you accept along with killing your enemy and you surviving. Some casulties happen and have always happened. Inaction is suicide and will result in more deaths 99.9999% of the time. And you and those you are trying to protect "will die anyway". Thats called suicide from the trained professional's perspective under any situation.
Your chances of survival go up slightly by taking action. Slightly has been all it ever was to tip the balance in human survival through out history when it was not a man made by force of law one sided slaughter zone. In that case you have mandated by force of law everyone in that zone is potentialy dead the whole time they are there. It worked as constructed in CT didn't it? But, not in your kids school yet.....maybe never. And you want to keep accidents out of their teachers hands just for good measure because you are playing the odds. Life is playing the odds on what we cannot control or forsee. We just lie to ourselves it isn't because the odds are with you much of the time. Untill they aren't. Thats how gun free zones happened. And look at the unintendad consiquences in CT.
Children were slaughtered and teachers forced to commit suicide in the hopes of achiving the possibility of slightly tipping the balance in a suicide zone. In their specific case training in unarmed interdiction of an armed attacker might have tipped the balance, maybe. That is a very specialised skillset and takes many more years to be combat effective than a CCW. Too much psycology and micro body queues to watch for in the perp along with constant rigorous martial and psyco\strategic training. Who wants that kind of a lethal dangerous mind teaching and protecting their children? A CCW is simpler and more effective for this form of domestic trained individual if we are playing the odds.
As long as you vote for suicide zones you will continue to feed this kind of mass murderer and for children and teachers in someones town to commit suicide. No one will say the truth: "Not around my child you don't!! You might shoot him\her even if you save the whole school from the child mass murderer." And so you are happy playing the odds. And there is a strange and guilty solace in being one of a group of parents with dead children versus the one who accidentaly died while the rest were saved. We are human afterall.
-
Lol! If you seriously think thats an apt comparison, I'm not sure you should be calling me a numb skull.
ok ....say I come into your personal space....where ever it might be and start shooting at you...then you can't shoot back for 15 minutes...nuff said
-
Tank-Ace,
How can I give you an answer to your real dilemma in the face of a voting block in the USA deciding suicide is better than taking responsibility for their own lives and choosing to kill the demons slaughtering them becasue they are playing the odds which are in their favor for the most part. Just not the parents in CT. You want no possibility of casulties along with another poster arguing we can never be trained well enough to satisfy his professional opinion. Then your only answer is suicide. But, probably in someone elses town and not yours. No one is even arguing from the most famous of all emotional positions.
It's worth it if it saves even one life to have gun free suicide zones. Except this argument is why our children are being slaughtered and our teachers have no way to kill the demons. Works good don't it if slaughtered children and teachers is your goal to the gun free zone laws.
The only answers are very simple. Do nothing and commite suicide because you cannot account for all of the unknowns and unitendad consiquences to keep everyone but the perp from getting hurt. Or reverse the famous logic of: Gun Free Zones are worth it if they save even one life to: it's worth it to be armed and kill the demons if it saves only one life.
As I was trained and survived by. Action has consiquences you accept along with killing your enemy and you surviving. Some casulties happen and have always happened. Inaction is suicide and will result in more deaths 99.9999% of the time. And you and those you are trying to protect "will die anyway". Thats called suicide from the trained professional's perspective under any situation.
Your chances of survival go up slightly by taking action. Slightly has been all it ever was to tip the balance in human survival through out history when it was not a man made by force of law one sided slaughter zone. In that case you have mandated by force of law everyone in that zone is potentialy dead the whole time they are there. It worked as constructed in CT didn't it? But, not in your kids school yet.....maybe never. And you want to keep accidents out of their teachers hands just for good measure because you are playing the odds. Life is playing the odds on what we cannot control or forsee. We just lie to ourselves it isn't because the odds are with you much of the time. Untill they aren't. Thats how gun free zones happened. And look at the unintendad consiquences in CT.
Children were slaughtered and teachers forced to commit suicide in the hopes of achiving the possibility of slightly tipping the balance in a suicide zone. In their specific case training in unarmed interdiction of an armed attacker might have tipped the balance, maybe. That is a very specialised skillset and takes many more years to be combat effective than a CCW. Too much psycology and micro body queues to watch for in the perp along with constant rigorous martial and psyco\strategic training. Who wants that kind of a lethal dangerous mind teaching and protecting their children? A CCW is simpler and more effective for this form of domestic trained individual if we are playing the odds.
As long as you vote for suicide zones you will continue to feed this kind of mass murderer and for children and teachers in someones town to commit suicide. No one will say the truth: "Not around my child you don't!! You might shoot him\her even if you save the whole school from the child mass murderer." And so you are happy playing the odds. And there is a strange and guilty solace in being one of a group of parents with dead children versus the one who accidentaly died while the rest were saved. We are human afterall.
What the hell are you talking about :huh?
I've always accepted there will be some deaths, no matter what you do. Always, never argued otherwise. I've also argued action, I even suggested putting a Golly-geen arms locker in the school!
I haven't said a word about slaughter, or suicide zones, or even seen anyone else in this thread talking about them (not that I've looked at a good many posts)!
Gun-free suicide zones, children being slaughtered? Playing the odds? The only conclusion I can come to, and I'm being completely serious here, is that you're drunk off your ass.
-
ok ....say I come into your personal space....where ever it might be and start shooting at you...then you can't shoot back for 15 minutes...nuff said
World of difference between a lone individual being targeted, and a gunman coming into a school to kill whoever he can.
1) If I'm alone, you'll probably try to come in close, which is more dangerous for me, since I can't flee as well.
2) in the school, you'll be busy shooting everyone you can, and I could be in any number of places, none of them nessicarily near you.
3) you kind of imply that alone, I'll be under fire constantly, which also isn't true in the school.
4) and finally, in the school, you're going to be shooting people regardless of if I have a gun or not, untill the cops come and stop you, or you screw up and do something stupid. But if I have a gun, and save even just one person from being shot, then me being armed is worth it.
..... Nuff said :rolleyes:
-
A weapon locked in a closet is more useless than a paperweight. An unloaded one is a metal club...
Yet proper storage of weapons may have recently prevented 27 deaths.
-
in the UK gun laws mean that police have to come out and check that you have secure storage for guns before you even get a licence . you also have to pass psychological examination . Would you object to such measures being applied to the US. plus ammo has to be locked separate to guns ( can still be in the same room just not the same cabinet) . UK gun laws are not that restrictive or difficult to attain a licence . I've been looking into it as i want to try my hand at shooting (got my eye on getting a lee Enfield SMLE No.4 carbine) I was discussing this with an ex armour for the army . He gave me the low down , suggesting the easiest way would be to store the weapon at a gun club .
From my discussions it seems the biggest issues is safe , secure storage . I believe that this is needs to be involved in gun laws and licensing . This wont reduce your freedoms in any way but will infact help to keep your freedom . It's a far better the defence to gun owner ship than just letting idiots scream only about the 2nd . Actively demonstrating that gun owners (not the NRA as all that seems to be doing is fuelling gun hatred) want to cool the situation seems a worth while endeavour.
Maybe you ladies and gents should start a more sensible organisation that will co-operate with the anti-gun lobby a little . At the moment it appears to the outside world that both sides are unwilling to budge on anything due to other side not moving . Maybe making a small concession would give mature gun owners a good moral footing in the eyes of the world . Maybe the sensible people on both sides need to speak up , work together to resolve the situation.
-
in the UK gun laws mean that police have to come out and check that you have secure storage for guns before you even get a licence . you also have to pass psychological examination . Would you object to such measures being applied to the US. plus ammo has to be locked separate to guns ( can still be in the same room just not the same cabinet) . UK gun laws are not that restrictive or difficult to attain a licence . I've been looking into it as i want to try my hand at shooting (got my eye on getting a lee Enfield SMLE No.4 carbine) I was discussing this with an ex armour for the army . He gave me the low down , suggesting the easiest way would be to store the weapon at a gun club .
From my discussions it seems the biggest issues is safe , secure storage . I believe that this is needs to be involved in gun laws and licensing . This wont reduce your freedoms in any way but will infact help to keep your freedom . It's a far better the defence to gun owner ship than just letting idiots scream only about the 2nd . Actively demonstrating that gun owners (not the NRA as all that seems to be doing is fuelling gun hatred) want to cool the situation seems a worth while endeavour.
Maybe you ladies and gents should start a more sensible organisation that will co-operate with the anti-gun lobby a little . At the moment it appears to the outside world that both sides are unwilling to budge on anything due to other side not moving . Maybe making a small concession would give mature gun owners a good moral footing in the eyes of the world . Maybe the sensible people on both sides need to speak up , work together to resolve the situation.
I store my guns in a gun safe, with the ammunition. One exception is my security shotgun, which is stored loaded.
This whole issue was resolved some years ago by the Supreme Court and lower courts that have ruled that individuals have the right to personal firearms and the the storage of these arms, limiting access in an emergency is unconstitutional as it denies or can deny the right to immediate self-defense.
Thanks, but very few American gun owners are interested in the British model.
Also, recall that in 1940, when a German invasion was a genuine threat, the British Home Guard was drilling with pitchforks and a handful of shotguns. Why? Because their were very few privately owned firearms and so many military rifles had been left behind in France. The NRA, which you are bashing, shipped many tens of thousands of privately donated firearms to Britain to marginally equip the Home Guard.
-
i am starting to look into gun safes. by new jersey state law, i should have my permits by april at latest, since i have no record, and have never been commited. it just takes a long time here. my rifles will be stored in that safe, which will be in the basement, and bolted to the floor. hand guns will be there too.
-
I didn't want to "bash" the NRA as such but it does seem overly "zealous" in fighting a gun ban . Maybe having too much emotion attached to the situation. Maybe it's the way US media reports that makes it very difficult for other nations to see a more balanced view of the NRA (portrayed as a bunch of die hard that wont listen to any criticism) . It's why I stated that the middle ground people should speak up more against both sides . At the moment the extremes of both sides are so loud that responsible and reasonable voices can not be heard .
Wide wing I respect that yourself and many other gun owners in the US are responsible and to be held up as how things should be done .
I'm not saying that the US should adopt all of the UK model but that maybe aspects of it should be investigated and adapted for your country . I'm sure that yourself would agree that a more active role in instructing people and making storage safe for the user and family .
While such measures wont stop illegal gun crime it could reduce gun accidents and such events as witnessed in the last few years .
-
Good luck with that Lee-Enfield. Excellent weapon, I have steered away from one because I heard that .303 ammo is not that easy
to find and expensive as well. Apparently it shoots a little too well :D
Well locking your ammo away from your weapons makes them practically useless for home defense. I suppose a cricket bat makes
more sense in that case.
-
Talking to the armourer he said I can get a cheap conversion kit that will make it rimless and able to use 22 not just .303 . The rule is that the ammo can be inside the same room even safe but have a separate lock . I can see that such a thing would not be practical for US home defence but seeing how the use of fire arms during home robbery is so low in the UK it wouldn't make to much of a difference .
side note cricket bats bloody hurt and have a longer reach than a knife with almost as much pain as the ball speeding at 90 MPH (I got hit by one while keeping wicket in school on the forehead I was out cold for 15 mins)
As I said maybe an adaptation on some aspects of UK laws in purchasing fire arms and licensing could be helpful
-
Yet proper storage of weapons may have recently prevented 27 deaths.
How do you know they werent properly stored? Maybe they were and he just happened to find the key? His mother was found in her bed. Indicating she may have been asleep. You never tried to sneak anything while your parents were sleeping?
-
I didn't want to "bash" the NRA as such but it does seem overly "zealous" in fighting a gun ban . Maybe having too much emotion attached to the situation. Maybe it's the way US media reports that makes it very difficult for other nations to see a more balanced view of the NRA (portrayed as a bunch of die hard that wont listen to any criticism) . It's why I stated that the middle ground people should speak up more against both sides . At the moment the extremes of both sides are so loud that responsible and reasonable voices can not be heard .
Wide wing I respect that yourself and many other gun owners in the US are responsible and to be held up as how things should be done .
I'm not saying that the US should adopt all of the UK model but that maybe aspects of it should be investigated and adapted for your country . I'm sure that yourself would agree that a more active role in instructing people and making storage safe for the user and family .
While such measures wont stop illegal gun crime it could reduce gun accidents and such events as witnessed in the last few years .
Actually, nationwide, while guns sales were up 45% in 2012, gun injuries are down almost 20%. Closer to 30% in California.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/5079151/california-gun-sales-increase.html (http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/5079151/california-gun-sales-increase.html)
I am a strong supporter of gun safety training for all, not just gun owners. It should be taught in our schools, inasmuch as 60% of all households have a firearm. However, the liberal teacher's unions and left leaning administrators won't even hear of this. IMHO, they are being obtuse. They can teach 12 year-olds about condoms, that's okay in their minds. However, no one has ever been accidentally shot with a condom and died... It's just common sense, which is a term that is becoming more and more of an oxymoron in this world.
Another simple way to encourage gun safety training is to make the cost of it tax deductible. Anything that can reduce gun accidents should be encouraged by the government at the state and federal level. Again, common sense.
Storing firearms is important. I used to store mine in a closest with an entry door lock and deadbolt (requiring 2 different keys to get into it). However, a determined burglar could eventually defeat this and get to the guns. So, I bought two Stack-On brand steel gun cabinets (really just very stout steel lockers). I keep these in the locked closet, lag bolted to wall studs. Each holds up to 8 rifles/shotguns and my revolvers. Some of my black powder rifles are in the closet, with some actually on display on the gun rack in my den. However, these are retained by a cable lock through the rack and trigger guards. The cap nipples are plugged with solder, making them useless. Besides, a burglar would not have clue one on what was required to load and shoot one of these, and they are all single shot. The powder and ball are locked up.
You said you had your eye on a Enfield rifle. I own several Enfields, a US made 1943 (Savage) No.4 Mk.I*, a Canadian made 1944 (Longbranch) No.4 Mk.I* and a beautiful Australian made 1917 (Lithgow) No.I Mk.III*. Even today, I would not consider myself badly armed with either of those three Enfields. As to the cost of shooting an Enfield... Surplus ammo is getting harder to come by, and is increasing in cost. New manufacture ammo is expensive, with the cheaper.303 ball ammo (FMJ) going for between 80 and 90 cents a round. High quality ammo can easily exceed $1 per round. So, consider the investment required to shoot frequently.
The least expensive rifle to shoot is a .22 cal type. A good .22 caliber bolt action rifle is inexpensive operate. Here, I can buy top quality, very accurate ammo for about $25 for 525 rounds. My BRNO (a Mauser design) Model 1 rifle is a true tack driver. I frequently take the BRNO and my Henry lever gun out for a relaxing afternoon of shooting, and not spend very much money. Of course, I haul a lot of gear with me. Two rifles, ammo box, tool box, cleaning box, bench rest pads, spotting scope, and a folding stool. Plus, a thermos of coffee.
-
The thing that cracks me up about the whole anti gun lobby right now is the emphasis they are placing on the so called assault gun which in spite of mass shootings continues to be the one gun that people get killed by the least.
If I were anti gun. (I am not) I'd push for a banning of pistols rather then rifles. Rifles are much harder to hide when your strolling down a street or into a building.
Likewise the proposed ban on high capacity mags is just as silly. I mean really. how long does it take to change out a mag?
Lower capacity mags wouldnt have made a bit of difference in the Conn shooting even if you were only allowed 2 round mags. Same thing with the AR itself if it even was in fact the weapon used. The gun woudlnt have made a bit of difference. Glok 9 mil carries on average between 12-15 rounds right? And he had two?
He would only have had to change out clips on one gun
-
The thing that cracks me up about the whole anti gun lobby right now is the emphasis they are placing on the so called assault gun which in spite of mass shootings continues to be the one gun that people get killed by the least.
If I were anti gun. (I am not) I'd push for a banning of pistols rather then rifles. Rifles are much harder to hide when your strolling down a street or into a building.
Likewise the proposed ban on high capacity mags is just as silly. I mean really. how long does it take to change out a mag?
Lower capacity mags wouldnt have made a bit of difference in the Conn shooting even if you were only allowed 2 round mags. Same thing with the AR itself if it even was in fact the weapon used. The gun woudlnt have made a bit of difference. Glok 9 mil carries on average between 12-15 rounds right? And he had two?
He would only have had to change out clips on one gun
They are i think. check the feinstein thread on the other bbs.
-
Talking to the armourer he said I can get a cheap conversion kit that will make it rimless and able to use 22 not just .303
Ive shot alot with the lee enfield T, its accurate but a bloody heavy rifle for a .22LR! If you want to shoot rifles, get your FAC for £50 and grab a semi-auto Ruger 10/22 for ~£250 and you can keep it at home, target shoot at the range, or take woodies, rabbits and squirrels for the pot, or rats for pest control (as long as you have permission). cheap too at ~10p a round, I dread to think how much .303 rounds cost.
-
The term Assault riffle is tosh . you strip down an AR-15 and any semi-auto hunting riffle it's pretty much the same.
Wide-wing Yeah ammo in the Uk is a bit pricey but I only expect to do shooting one weekend or so a month . I might just convert it to .22 .
I think seeing how the US has such a gun culture then it would make perfect sense to teach firearm safety to every one . What if some one finds a gun on the side of the road ect.
-
Ive shot alot with the lee enfield T, its accurate but a bloody heavy rifle for a .22LR! If you want to shoot rifles, get your FAC for £50 and grab a semi-auto Ruger 10/22 for ~£250 and you can keep it at home, target shoot at the range, or take woodies, rabbits and squirrels for the pot, or rats for pest control (as long as you have permission). cheap too at ~10p a round, I dread to think how much .303 rounds cost.
But it's not a lee Enfield . I'd like to shoot it more for it's history .
-
fair enuf, just handling one you can feel the history oozing out it :aok
how much are they going for?
-
seen between £300 - £700
1950's SMLE for about £350 but a WWII Carbine was £700
-
The term Assault riffle is tosh . you strip down an AR-15 and any semi-auto hunting riffle it's pretty much the same.
Wide-wing Yeah ammo in the Uk is a bit pricey but I only expect to do shooting one weekend or so a month . I might just convert it to .22 .
I think seeing how the US has such a gun culture then it would make perfect sense to teach firearm safety to every one . What if some one finds a gun on the side of the road ect.
Do we appear to have a gun culture to other countries?
-
Yet proper storage of weapons may have recently prevented 27 deaths.
Useless statement impossible to prove. Just as silly as saying people that call off often at work save lives due to less car accidents..
Midway
-
Useless statement impossible to prove. Just as silly as saying people that call off often at work save lives due to less car accidents.
About half of this thread is impossible to prove. Don't cherry pick.
-
Useless statement impossible to prove. Just as silly as saying people that call off often at work save lives due to less car accidents..
Midway
off topic......but car asccidents aren't accidents. they're collisions caused by carelessness, negligence, inattention, or something else....but they're rarely accidents.
-
Do we appear to have a gun culture to other countries?
It does appear that way . weather it is true or not is another thing , hence my comments about the less "radical" parties to start finding a voice in the discussions.
Midway (the real midway) please note that I said MAY not it WOULD HAVE. your analogy is half true BUT car collisions can be reduced by things such as :
car sharing (reducing traffic numbers)
better road layouts ,
better education
control on car quality with regular inspections (I don't mean new cars but older cars that need to pass minimum safety to be on the roads such as good tyres , correctly operating brakes , suspention ect)
Notice how such things do not restrict an individual that uses a car for enjoyment or for work purposes , these things can and do reduce road deaths in countries that do have this (as far as I am aware the USA has no federal policy for the testing the road worth of a vehicle) . In the same way those wanting to use firearms in a responsible way would not find that a balanced requirement and strong guidelines for ownership would not reduce their ability to own said items . There will always be deaths , shootings and the ilk and I'm sure that a system that would enable agencies to watch out for the safety of owners is a good thing. I'm not trying to stop you from having a gun or saying you shouldn't have one .
Heck I would like a rifle for myself and seeing how Americans think it's "difficult" to own one in the UK I can say it's pretty easy , only it means talking to the police and getting instruction at a rifle club . I would then have a certificate that I have to produce when purchasing a firearm and have to inform the police on each firearm I do buy . Is it an inconvenience ? maybe but then so are the laws to do with my car (which to be honest I'm more likely to die in ) but then will it detract from the enjoyment I may (or may not) get from shooting ? Not really .
-
I didn't want to "bash" the NRA as such but it does seem overly "zealous" in fighting a gun ban .
:huh
-
It does appear that way . weather it is true or not is another thing , hence my comments about the less "radical" parties to start finding a voice in the discussions. i would venture that you guys get a very "guided" picture of us. much the same, i'm pretty sure we get a very "guided" picture of other countries.
Midway (the real midway) please note that I said MAY not it WOULD HAVE.if this is in reference to a weapon in a lock box.....you would be correct to say it would have. if a person was brave enough to charge into a madman empty handed, this same person would have been brave enough to do what was necessary to end the tragedy before it became a tragedy. your analogy is half true BUT car collisions can be reduced by things such as :
car sharing (reducing traffic numbers) might or might not.
better road layouts ,this is something i've been saying for years. sometimes it looks like a cross eyed drunk designed them.
better education definitely would help.
control on car quality with regular inspections (I don't mean new cars but older cars that need to pass minimum safety to be on the roads such as good tyres , correctly operating brakes , suspention ect) this is a big one. some states don't have safety inspections, my state being one of those. i am happy to say that we should be going back to them shortly. but even that won't make much difference though. we need to get people into the mindset of paying attention to their driving, not their phone, the hot chick on the corner, that awesome looking shelby or zl1 that just passed them going the other way.
Notice how such things do not restrict an individual that uses a car for enjoyment or for work purposes , these things can and do reduce road deaths in countries that do have this (as far as I am aware the USA has no federal policy for the testing the road worth of a vehicle) . In the same way those wanting to use firearms in a responsible way would not find that a balanced requirement and strong guidelines for ownership would not reduce their ability to own said items . There will always be deaths , shootings and the ilk and I'm sure that a system that would enable agencies to watch out for the safety of owners is a good thing. I'm not trying to stop you from having a gun or saying you shouldn't have one .
Heck I would like a rifle for myself and seeing how Americans think it's "difficult" to own one in the UK I can say it's pretty easy , only it means talking to the police and getting instruction at a rifle club . I would then have a certificate that I have to produce when purchasing a firearm and have to inform the police on each firearm I do buy . Is it an inconvenience ? maybe but then so are the laws to do with my car (which to be honest I'm more likely to die in ) but then will it detract from the enjoyment I may (or may not) get from shooting ? Not really .
sorry bout the red mess yup top.
-
Thanks CAP . I get sort of fed up of Knee jerk reactions when people suggest that maybe some things need to be looked at in the way the USA handles firearm procedures . Canada is a very good example they have as many weapons per house hold as the USA yet gun crime is less , fatalities are less ect. Maybe it's due to some way that they view firearms and ownership . Instead of a right maybe more of a privilege.
-
In RP to CAP.
Yes, our opinions are guided here.
The United States does get quite a bit of bad press in most nations due to its policies. In Australia our government and our media is considerably left wing. Australia is very similar to the USA in a lot of ways. Robin Williams the comedian said it best calling Australians "British Rednecks". Which I think is an accurate statement. But our media and government are very anti gun. Have been ever since the last massacre we had in Port Arthur Tasmania.
Ironically it was a Right Wing government that instituted the ban so our nation as a whole is very "left".
But NOT turning this into a Gun Control thread. Skuzzy has spoken.
Around the world I think the USA's popularity has gone into the negative numbers. The recent Gulf War 2. The subsequent economic crisis. And the repeated events such as the Newtown shooting and Westboro Baptist church etc. Has culminated in the USA becoming the pariah.
Most of my friends and indeed my girlfriend are Americans. So the American people aren't what our media is attacking, rather its leadership. However, as stated earlier, our governments fore mentioned "left leaning" has led to a certain unnamed government official getting a lot of good press.
-
Thanks CAP . I get sort of fed up of Knee jerk reactions when people suggest that maybe some things need to be looked at in the way the USA handles firearm procedures . Canada is a very good example they have as many weapons per house hold as the USA yet gun crime is less , fatalities are less ect. Maybe it's due to some way that they view firearms and ownership . Instead of a right maybe more of a privilege.
to me the ability to own a firearm is both a right and a privilege. it's a right guaranteed to us by our constitution. but it's also a privilege, because if you eff up......as in you go rob a gas station, and get prison time.....or beat your wife.....or anything that shows you to be incompetent to own a firearm, then you give up that right. that's why i view it as both.
i think our crime stats may(or may not) be sqewed thanks to the poverty level in a lot of the inner cities, and due to the presence of drugs in inner cities. i'm not sure about that though.
i would fully support training/testing in order to earn a firearms permit, much as we do for drivers license, and pilots license. it would even be worth the extra cost. i don't necessarily think it's needed, but i would still support it, as it just seems like an overall good idea.
as much as i think we don't need any new laws, as most already have proven ineffective, i DO however feel that the owner of a weapon should in most instances be held accountable for any damage/harm caused with their weapon. there will be times when that isn't applicable, but.......if my weapon is stored properly, then it would be impossible for someone in my family to gain access to it, and go do harm. it would be overly difficult for "joe the badguy" to gain access to it. if he does, and it's not reported stolen......then the owner is responsible just as if they pulled the trigger. and there can't be any loopholes, or plea bargains. people need to know that they will be held accountable. that goes for lots of other stuff too. it truly isn't a gun problem here, as you seem to realize. it's a crime problem. we could spend another 30 pages going into why there's such a crime problem here.
the problem with how you guys over there see this.....and with how we all get inundated with this stuff is a couple reasons. first off, the media's job is to sell their stuff. to sell their stuff, they have to take something that's bad, and make it look gruesome. they take something gruesome, and make it look ungodly horribly gruesome. i suspect your media over there does the same thing. i mean really......how many people would read about poodles pooping on the boardwalk in atlantic city? or the multi-million dollar winner at harrah's casino? heck, they even do it with the weather. right now, they've got a "winter weather advisory" till 6am tomorrow morning. WHY?? it snowed a little this morning. that turned to rain. it's going down to 29F tonight. tomorrow in the mid 30's. there is no friggin abnormal weather! loilolol. they do it so that people will watch their stupid shows.
i best stop.....kind of rambling now. and hopefully i didn't overstep any bounds here. if i did, it was not intentional.
-
In RP to CAP.
Yes, our opinions are guided here.
The United States does get quite a bit of bad press in most nations due to its policies. In Australia our government and our media is considerably left wing. Australia is very similar to the USA in a lot of ways. Robin Williams the comedian said it best calling Australians "British Rednecks". Which I think is an accurate statement. But our media and government are very anti gun. Have been ever since the last massacre we had in Port Arthur Tasmania.
Ironically it was a Right Wing government that instituted the ban so our nation as a whole is very "left".
But NOT turning this into a Gun Control thread. Skuzzy has spoken.
Around the world I think the USA's popularity has gone into the negative numbers. The recent Gulf War 2. The subsequent economic crisis. And the repeated events such as the Newtown shooting and Westboro Baptist church etc. Has culminated in the USA becoming the pariah.
Most of my friends and indeed my girlfriend are Americans. So the American people aren't what our media is attacking, rather its leadership. However, as stated earlier, our governments fore mentioned "left leaning" has led to a certain unnamed government official getting a lot of good press.
i think the guided opinion thing goes both ways though. i don't think just austrailia or england guides their readers to dislike the usa, or to whatever opinion is convenient. i don't think they do it for that purpose even. i think they do it because it's what sells. and our press here is just as guilty of that as anyone elses press is.
-
Thanks CAP . I get sort of fed up of Knee jerk reactions when people suggest that maybe some things need to be looked at in the way the USA handles firearm procedures . Canada is a very good example they have as many weapons per house hold as the USA yet gun crime is less , fatalities are less ect. Maybe it's due to some way that they view firearms and ownership . Instead of a right maybe more of a privilege.
it isn't the firearm but the people's attitude that needed to be changed. look at Japan very few arms in the general public but the murder rate for the country is very low. Switzerland is another example, high rate of gun "ownership" but very few deaths.
you see both extremes and either works well not only due to regulations but people's attitude. the most important being people's attitude.
midway
-
seen between £300 - £700
1950's SMLE for about £350 but a WWII Carbine was £700
Indeed, Enfields are greatly over-priced in Britain. You can find a nice shooting No.4 Mk.I here for the equivalent of £250.
(http://gastatic.com/UserImages/5611/923282004/pop_wm_4534472.jpg)
-
it isn't the firearm but the people's attitude that needed to be changed. look at Japan very few arms in the general public but the murder rate for the country is very low. Switzerland is another example, high rate of gun "ownership" but very few deaths.
you see both extremes and either works well not only due to regulations but people's attitude. the most important being people's attitude.
midway
I agree... Our culture is broken. We must change how we view violence and not glorify it to the extent that the entertainment industry does now.
-
Midway - yup thats what I was trying to say Just not very well . It's not so much the tools that need restricting but the users . I can't even watch some shows about Lumber jacks that show them doing stupid things as reality shows about "real lumber jacks" , I want to string them up for being idiots with a tool that can kill a man in half a second (had a friend who was saved by his special clothing even though he was the safest saw user I had ever known ) .
It's a case of monkey see monkey do . I don't think you tube and other online media help in showing how to use dangerous tools properly what ever they are . PLease tell me if i'm wrong but there is a certain macho image in having the biggest meanest gun in some cultures ; i know there is in some parts of the UK (morons who think that holding a gun to the side is bad bellybutton ect) .
I used to go to a pub where we think one of the old guys there is in either the SAS or SBS as he would "disappear" for a few months when something would kick off in the world ; come back with new scars and couldn't say where he'd been , you know just away..........yet I've seen him drop guys twice his size with out moving off his stool just because they were harassing this girl . They were out cold just with a flick of his wrist . We knew he was "ex - military" he would show us how to disarm people and what to do if you get a gun pulled on you . He had some interesting things to say . Nice guy very quiet .
-
Useless statement impossible to prove. Just as silly as saying people that call off often at work save lives due to less car accidents..
Midway
My firearms are in a room (man cave) that has a door lock, a padlock, are in a gun safe, and have trigger locks. The bolts and ammo are stored separately.
If one of my kids ever decides to off himself, or play silly buggers with a firearm it will not be one of mine.
It's only impossible if you have your head a decent way up your rear end.
-
As has been said in answer to the OP ..it's convenient to have loaded multiple magazines.,
especially at a range where time is money and would rather spend it shootin instead of loading :)
I used to shoot 2500 rounds in a few hours of target shooting with my .22 semi auto rifle and luger pistol.
-shrug-
It was the effort to do the best I could ..self competition.
Paid off in spades when I joined the USAF
..first time with the M-16 and every time I had to qualify thereafter I shot expert.
Didn't 'like' it as much when they switched to the .22 adapter setup in the M16 ..felt too much like a toy.
Wife and I decided no guns in the house when we had our first child ..never got back into it.
Too many other things kept me busy altho every year I got to go play on the range while I was in the USAF.
Had a friend who used to think anything less than 35,000 rounds was 'getting low' and he had to restock :)
Also had a friend (Harry Wells) who owned and operated a WW2 vintage .50 cal machine gun.. among others.
Different strokes :)
Funny story:
Harry decides to shoot his .30 cal machine gun like John Wayne at a 'shoot' one fine day.
Loads a belt up, takes aim ..and lets fly.
Well.
The gun only cycles 3-4 rounds and stops ..and Harry screamed like a schoolgirl.
First ..the recoil was damped too much by Harry not being able to hold the gun steady enough..the reason it stopped firing.
Second.. the barrel traveled upward even in that short a burst to the point where the last round was almost straight up as Harry fell on his butt.
..and last but not even least, and funniest ..and why Harry screamed ..
That way cool belt feed system with the brass clippy dealies ..as it fed the rounds in..
..it yanked hairs right out of Harry's arm.
That whole bare-arm superhero John Wayne stuff just does not work in real life ..yanno?
Harry told me it worked fine when he backed up to a tree and put on a long sleeve denim shirt :)
-Frank aka GE
-
I had an uncle that was a tech Sgt in the Army Air Corps. He told me about getting to fire the Thompson and grease gun when he was in WW2 and doing range quals. He never got sent overseas, spent his time training mechanics on B24's and B17's in Arizona. He passed on some advice about shooting the sub guns. The "school" way was to stand facing the target square on and raise it up like a rifle to shoot. He said it worked better to shoot it at 45 degrees to the target and put the stock in the crook of your elbow and the gun turned sideways instead of vertical. It was easier to control the normal recoil rise that way. I got the chance to try it out with the grease gun more than 20 years later. He was right. The folks ahead of me started dumping rounds into the ground below the target then climbed them up over the berm on a short 4 to 5 round burst. A longer burst and you were an anti aircraft gun. Doing it like he said I was able to chew up the targets then cut the 2x4's holding them up. Had a heck of a time burning up excess ammo on the pistol range like that. I liked the M3A1 better than the M3. The little charging lever was better than trying to pull the bolt back with a finger tip in the cut out notch, especially if the gun was a mite warmish. :D
-
Long, interesting thread.
One thing I'd like to say regarding some of the points brought up about shootings in general in the USA, and specifically those who say that the large numbers of guns is the primary reason for this. You closest neighbor, Canada to the north, has a similar number of firearms per household as the state of Texas. My home province, Alberta, has nearly 3 firearms per household as an average, 2.7 the last time the NFA up here did a research poll using the gun control people's own polling agency. Yet, in all of Canada, for the last ten years, there is only 800 deaths from firearms per year on average, and 650+ on average are suicides. Then remove the somali vs somali killings in Toronto, and the gang killings between the Asian gangs, the UN gang, and the Hells Angels (the lower mainland gang war of the last few years), and you're down to well under 100 murders per year in the ENTIRE country. This, in a country with the same problems, same TV shows, same violent video games, same sports, nearly the same everything except the southern accents as the USA.
How is this explained away? How can advocates of "less guns, less crime/violence" argue their case when you consider that a country of 35 million people with over 50 million firearms in private hands has under 150 non suicide killings every year including all gang violence? I saw somebody shoot down the Swiss example by saying they are a rich country, filled with happy content non violent people. Well, Canada may not be quite as rich, and it has many of the same social problems as America, yet there is less killings with firearms in the entire country of Canada than just Chicago has in a month or two.
Anyone have an answer for the reason why Canada has so many fewer people gunned down every year as compared to the USA, with similar per capita/household firearm ownership numbers?
-
Long, interesting thread.
One thing I'd like to say regarding some of the points brought up about shootings in general in the USA, and specifically those who say that the large numbers of guns is the primary reason for this. You closest neighbor, Canada to the north, has a similar number of firearms per household as the state of Texas. My home province, Alberta, has nearly 3 firearms per household as an average, 2.7 the last time the NFA up here did a research poll using the gun control people's own polling agency. Yet, in all of Canada, for the last ten years, there is only 800 deaths from firearms per year on average, and 650+ on average are suicides. Then remove the somali vs somali killings in Toronto, and the gang killings between the Asian gangs, the UN gang, and the Hells Angels (the lower mainland gang war of the last few years), and you're down to well under 100 murders per year in the ENTIRE country. This, in a country with the same problems, same TV shows, same violent video games, same sports, nearly the same everything except the southern accents as the USA.
How is this explained away? How can advocates of "less guns, less crime/violence" argue their case when you consider that a country of 35 million people with over 50 million firearms in private hands has under 150 non suicide killings every year including all gang violence? I saw somebody shoot down the Swiss example by saying they are a rich country, filled with happy content non violent people. Well, Canada may not be quite as rich, and it has many of the same social problems as America, yet there is less killings with firearms in the entire country of Canada than just Chicago has in a month or two.
Anyone have an answer for the reason why Canada has so many fewer people gunned down every year as compared to the USA, with similar per capita/household firearm ownership numbers?
population per square mile / k. Also it is so freaking cold nobody wants to go outside.
-
Long, interesting thread.
One thing I'd like to say regarding some of the points brought up about shootings in general in the USA, and specifically those who say that the large numbers of guns is the primary reason for this. You closest neighbor, Canada to the north, has a similar number of firearms per household as the state of Texas. My home province, Alberta, has nearly 3 firearms per household as an average, 2.7 the last time the NFA up here did a research poll using the gun control people's own polling agency. Yet, in all of Canada, for the last ten years, there is only 800 deaths from firearms per year on average, and 650+ on average are suicides. Then remove the somali vs somali killings in Toronto, and the gang killings between the Asian gangs, the UN gang, and the Hells Angels (the lower mainland gang war of the last few years), and you're down to well under 100 murders per year in the ENTIRE country. This, in a country with the same problems, same TV shows, same violent video games, same sports, nearly the same everything except the southern accents as the USA.
How is this explained away? How can advocates of "less guns, less crime/violence" argue their case when you consider that a country of 35 million people with over 50 million firearms in private hands has under 150 non suicide killings every year including all gang violence? I saw somebody shoot down the Swiss example by saying they are a rich country, filled with happy content non violent people. Well, Canada may not be quite as rich, and it has many of the same social problems as America, yet there is less killings with firearms in the entire country of Canada than just Chicago has in a month or two.
Anyone have an answer for the reason why Canada has so many fewer people gunned down every year as compared to the USA, with similar per capita/household firearm ownership numbers?
sure we'll explain about canada as soon as you explain why Japan with almost no guns and 5 times the population has a lower murder rate than canada?
is it possible that it is not how many guns you own but the attitude of the population at large that drives the murder rate?
midway
-
As has been said in answer to the OP ..it's convenient to have loaded multiple magazines.,
especially at a range where time is money and would rather spend it shootin instead of loading :)
I used to shoot 2500 rounds in a few hours of target shooting with my .22 semi auto rifle and luger pistol.
-shrug-
Funny when I go to the range I don't really worry about loading magazines as I'm letting my barrel cool between loads.
-
sure we'll explain about canada as soon as you explain why Japan with almost no guns and 5 times the population has a lower murder rate than canada?
is it possible that it is not how many guns you own but the attitude of the population at large that drives the murder rate?
midway
Thats kind of what he was saying.
In fact, thats exactly what he's implying. Its not the guns, its the people. Fix the people, and you fix the problem.
-
Semp, from wikipedia's stats from last year on violent crime deaths, Japan is only 10% behind Canada, at 505, and we were at 552. Canada has 50 million firearms, at least, in the hands on 35 million people, which more than offsets the 4x greater population Japan, as Japan has what, maybe a few thousand, or less in civilian hands. It may become apparent to anyone who isn't drunk that the firearms may not be the actual issue at all. How else can the numbers be explained, when, as I said, you have Canada and the USA with very similar laws, similar cultures and influences, and similar large numbers of firearms in private ownership, yet wildly different numbers in terms of violent crime and gun crime. Then you take Japan, and compare it to Canada, and it has a very similar low violent crime rate, yet has NO guns in private hands. The number of firearms in private hands obviously isn't the only reason or even the most critical reason there is higher or lower numbers of violent/gun crimes, as the anti gun crowd tries to claim.
-
Semp, from wikipedia's stats from last year on violent crime deaths, Japan is only 10% behind Canada, at 505, and we were at 552. Canada has 50 million firearms, at least, in the hands on 35 million people, which more than offsets the 4x greater population Japan, as Japan has what, maybe a few thousand, or less in civilian hands. It may become apparent to anyone who isn't drunk that the firearms may not be the actual issue at all. How else can the numbers be explained, when, as I said, you have Canada and the USA with very similar laws, similar cultures and influences, and similar large numbers of firearms in private ownership, yet wildly different numbers in terms of violent crime and gun crime. Then you take Japan, and compare it to Canada, and it has a very similar low violent crime rate, yet has NO guns in private hands. The number of firearms in private hands obviously isn't the only reason or even the most critical reason there is higher or lower numbers of violent/gun crimes, as the anti gun crowd tries to claim.
there you go, you just answered your own question regarding canada's death rate. it's not the guns but the people's attitude that drives the murder rate down. I dont care what the anti-gun/pro-gun people outside of this think.
so you answered your own question: "Anyone have an answer for the reason why Canada has so many fewer people gunned down every year as compared to the USA, with similar per capita/household firearm ownership numbers?"
you think by now when all the postings that indicate that more guns/lack of guns doesnt drive the murder rate up or down, it's the people's attitude that does that that you would stop asking that question.
midway
-
there you go, you just answered your own question regarding canada's death rate. it's not the guns but the people's attitude that drives the murder rate down. I dont care what the anti-gun/pro-gun people outside of this think.
so you answered your own question: "Anyone have an answer for the reason why Canada has so many fewer people gunned down every year as compared to the USA, with similar per capita/household firearm ownership numbers?"
you think by now when all the postings that indicate that more guns/lack of guns doesnt drive the murder rate up or down, it's the people's attitude that does that that you would stop asking that question.
midway
It was a rhetorical question, you moron.