flyfishing3 Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 but the guns would be illegal so nobody would have them, which means we'd all be SAFE! Problem solved. i'm glad to see your coming around greg. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caanglin Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) but the guns would be illegal so nobody would have them, which means we'd all be SAFE! Problem solved. Don't forget the police shouldn't have guns either. Because you don't want the bad people getting hurt either. Also one of their bullets could ricochet and hit some innocent bystander. Hurting people isn't cool man. Edited March 28, 2013 by fivex84 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gideon35T Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 """"Newtown gunman Adam Lanza fired 155 bullets in less than five minutes, prosecutor says"""" yeah, lets just keep everything the way it is. Without full auto with a typical cyclic rate this isn't possible. Bump fire for a semi auto is as fast as it gets and while it will achieve that rate it does not explain increased rate once you consider other factors. 5 minutes of action does not mean 5 minutes of sustained fire. Time to move between room and time to reload for a single shooter would shave off 40% when moving through a building like a school. It is simply not possible for one to rip off 155 rounds in <3 minutes in a semi auto. Well, if you were concentrating on JUST fast fire then MAYBE. However, he was an untrained kid and did not solely use the AR (or didn't use it at all in reality). There's more lies coming out of that story than the supposed "155 rounds" Bottom line, opinions are skewed when I'm dumb stats like that are thrown out into the general public. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7 VII 7 Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 but the guns would be illegal so nobody would have them, which means we'd all be SAFE! Problem solved. Greg, the best way to handle this is to give everyone sling shots... ooh could you imagine the loss of eyes?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caanglin Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 Greg, the best way to handle this is to give everyone sling shots... ooh could you imagine the loss of eyes?!?! Are these sling shots wooden or plastic? If wooden hell no! I don't want any splinters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pops Racer Posted March 29, 2013 Report Share Posted March 29, 2013 (edited) Mike you cherry picker you. Read the whole article. His mother is the root cause. The gun locker was unlocked. They found a check from her set aside so this mental case could purchase a firearm. He had a known propensity for violent and erratic behavior yet she ignored it. At one time in his life he frequently would dig holes 5 ft deep and toss his younger brother in the hole. All the signs were there and were ignored by her and others. Out of context. And I'm sure if you ban and confiscate alll the felons and real whackos will comply? C'mon youre a smart guy now when you conquer that minor detail I'll vote for you for Gun Czar. Just to further illustrate the folly of all this BS, if someone wants to do harm no laws can stop them: On March 25, 1990, Julio Gonzalez set fire to a social club in Brooklyn, NY. He was drunk, pissed off at his girl, and got bounced from the bar. He found a discarded hydraulic oil container on the street, purchased $1 of gasoline, dumped the oil down the stairway entrance, poured out the gasoline and ignited it with 2 matches. 87 people dead, killed by a drunken boyfriend with $1 worth of gasoline and 2 paper matches. No firearms, no magazines, no massive ammo stash. Yet not one politician, law-enforcement official, bureaucrat, news-media commentator, or entertainer called for restrictions on the purchase, possession, or use of alcohol and gasoline or for the registration of matches. If they are crazy enough and determined enough no one or nothing will stop them. I completely blame my thumbs for any grammatical or spelling errors incurred during composition of this post. I'm on a roll with mustard and hot sauce. I'm actively engaged in these issues in my home state, going to hearings, writing letters to legislators, and meeting with like minded individuals to bring out all the facts and present logical unemotional responses to booby hatch regulations that won't do a damn thing to prevent these insane and motivated felons from doing this. I own page 50. Edited March 29, 2013 by Pops Racer 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gideon35T Posted March 29, 2013 Report Share Posted March 29, 2013 Gabrielle Giffords - She was shot here in Arizona by a nutjob. Now she advocates for universal backround checks. Despite the fact that the man who shot her bought the gun from a local gun shop and DID get his backround check done at the time (about a month earlier if I remember correctly). This is the liberal logic of the anti-gun crowd. Universal checks would not have stopped the guy obviously. Now, the guy shot 19 people (killing six) during the incident. I can't help but think that a trained and armed vet like myself or Pops would have stopped him. Yes, he would have still shot her (bad people do bad things) but he wouldn't have hit that many other people. The mainstream media has umpteen opportunities to report on the myriad of cases where gunmen are stopped by a responsibly armed citizen. They simply choose not to report on such activity even though it FAR outweighs the number of mass shootings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che'_Moderator Posted March 31, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 3 seconds to swap magazines means even going from 30 to 10 round capacity magazines doesn't really do much to diminish the threat. But that question has been hammered to death in this thread. In three seconds I can empty a 10 round mag into a target and reload a second one and empty it. 150 rounds in 5 minutes is nothing. I have seen people dump 30 rounds from pistols in under 30 seconds in combat. In room clearing if there was a target rich environment 50-70 rds a minute is very plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 In three seconds I can empty a 10 round mag into a target and reload a second one and empty it. 150 rounds in 5 minutes is nothing. I have seen people dump 30 rounds from pistols in under 30 seconds in combat. In room clearing if there was a target rich environment 50-70 rds a minute is very plausible. Well then... apparently the logical answer to this is to ban magazines larger then 10 rounds. I mean... right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pops Racer Posted April 1, 2013 Report Share Posted April 1, 2013 (edited) Gabrielle Giffords - She was shot here in Arizona by a nutjob. Now she advocates for universal backround checks. Despite the fact that the man who shot her bought the gun from a local gun shop and DID get his backround check done at the time (about a month earlier if I remember correctly). This is the liberal logic of the anti-gun crowd. Universal checks would not have stopped the guy obviously. Now, the guy shot 19 people (killing six) during the incident. I can't help but think that a trained and armed vet like myself or Pops would have stopped him. Yes, he would have still shot her (bad people do bad things) but he wouldn't have hit that many other people. The mainstream media has umpteen opportunities to report on the myriad of cases where gunmen are stopped by a responsibly armed citizen. They simply choose not to report on such activity even though it FAR outweighs the number of mass shootings. There was a legally armed civilian on scene. During an after action interview, he stated he feared he would have hit more by-standers. It is a chaotic scene, the cops don't know who is who. You do risk being taken as a suspect. In that situation, training is a big deal. So is a pair of brass balls. When you carry, situational awareness is paramount. I mean its constant. Its your duty, your responsibility, knowing where exits are, cover, innocents, and yes, profiling and behavior. I would much rather be able to back out of or talk my way out of a situation than engage in any force on force action. Additionally physical fitness, hand to hand self defense, the ability to keep your weapon from being taken from you are all part of proper training. And the ability to just run away should be your first option. Macho = injury or death. But I generally agree with the above post. I would like to think my response in a situation like that would lead to lives saved and assailants thwarted. But everything changes when the range turns 2-way, people are screaming, lighting sucks and your pants are soiled. And no one is immune. And media does under report successful armed and unarmed self defense incidents. They are mostly propagandists and ratings whores, facts and news be damned. You can read the NRA's Armed Citizens report to get an idea what goes on every day. Edited April 1, 2013 by Pops Racer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gideon35T Posted April 1, 2013 Report Share Posted April 1, 2013 You are exactly right that there was A legally armed civilian on scene. Meaning that he had no support and could only have one line of sight. Multiply that by two dozen lines of fire and the likelyhood of a succesful interdiction rises (albiet that the likelyhood of an accident does as well but it's no different than combat). Here's a quote I picked up from an article this morning: "Civility is not a legal thing, it is a social thing. One might pass all the hate-speech laws they wish, it does not change the heart wherein lies the hate. The speech one uses is a reflection of the inner self and to pass laws against speech is to pass laws against emotion, against expression, against the privacy of one’s skull. To pass laws against possession of guns will not stop violence, it will not stop possession, it will only escalate the encounter between police and otherwise law-abiding citizens. It will indeed make outlaws of those who possess guns. These laws are laws passed by a government estranged from the people; a government peering down at the masses concerned mostly with control of those masses, not working in conjunction with the people to find that elusive, necessary balance between liberty and security. These laws show a disrespect for the people; a contempt for them and rightfully so. The people have lacked any significant education over the past several decades where social engineering has replaced the purpose of educators and indoctrination the purpose of the schools. Why should the government view the people as capable of anything other than following orders?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 Hey Sean, you going to move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caanglin Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7a59u1Uy10 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Wow. That's pretty funny. I'd like to be there when (if) someone successfully explains how the bullets got into the magazines in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikS Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 Good thing he chose a knife instead of an assault weapon, right? Now that I think about it, economics plays a big role in what people have when they go crazy and try to kill people. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Student-Suspect-said-goal-was-killing-spree-but-4421291.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts