Gun sales today...pretty amazing...

[RTHolmes]

^ yup.

[Guppy35]

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.

[Stellaris]

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.

[Puma44]

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.  

[MarineUS]

You two need to take it to PM so Skuzzy doesn't have to lock the thread.

SMH. 

[SmokinLoon]

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.


    

[Guppy35]

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

[Rino]

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?

[Widewing]

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

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.


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.

[Tank-Ace]

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.

[Shamus]

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.

[Widewing]

Wow 

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.

[Widewing]

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.

[ink]

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.

[Widewing]

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