caanglin Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 Look up the actual status of that site now. They test old shit and are down to about 1/8 the size they are quoting in that article. Under FY12 I do not think that site was even listed as a logistical target. Hell Eglin AFB is usually top 5 and I can walk into the BX and buy a slurpie there, then walk out and piss on the AFRL building where most of our heavy bombs MOP/MOABs are developed. They even had an open house a few days ago Tax free slurpie. Like a boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted May 5, 2013 Report Share Posted May 5, 2013 Check the start of this page. I wrote long details responses towards specific points brought up by Burn-E. However, in the end, facts are meaningless to some people. Also, the use of proper terms can only be called derogatory when they are used with a derogatory connotation. It's like the difference between saying "Jew" and "JEW". Derogatory - tending the lessen the merit or reputation of a person or thing. Niether word is derogatory. Additional verbage would be required to claim the statement (as a whole) is derogatory. And yet Mike retains greater respect among the group of us than you do because you persist in interspersing your comments with efforts to play let's poke others in the eye with irrational phrases and childish language. Either be grown up about the discussion or quit please. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 thankfully the good guys with a gun, took out the bad guy with a gun. but it was after he was able to get off 37 shots with a AK 47. http://news.yahoo.com/ak-47-wielding-gunman-fires-37-times-shocked-225626374.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 thankfully the good guys with a gun, took out the bad guy with a gun. but it was after he was able to get off 37 shots with a AK 47. http://news.yahoo.com/ak-47-wielding-gunman-fires-37-times-shocked-225626374.html I was JUST watching this. Even though this happened months ago, it looks like it's just now getting publicity. Couple of things I'd like to point out here. His AK is super scary... and I mean that in a serious way. It expels quite a bit of ammunition and in a very loud fashion. When he opened fire, I cannot imagine how much those officers didn't want to be there. However... after having obviously more rounds at his disposal, and even the drop on the officers... he didn't kill anyone. Were the officers shot? Yes, and it's terrible... but the purpose of assault rifles initially was to injure people on a battlefield, not kill them. It takes two more people to carry an injured person off the battlefield, and while demoralizing everyone that sees that. In the context of this conversation the banning of weapons... WOULD NOT... have prevented this from happening. He would have found a way to go suicide by cop... because his mental stability (or lack thereof) was a motivational force in his life that couldn't be stopped. If he had come at them with a 20 dollar katana from the pawn shop, they would have still had to resort to the use of deadly force. Glad that no officers were killed in this scenario... and glad he's dead. Less paperwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge_Brownie Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 "He got of the vehicle, intending to kill my officers. We don't know why he did it," said Middlefield Police Chief Arnold Stanko. "He was a scumbag, and a terrorist, and he's dead."WTF?In the context of this conversation the banning of weapons... WOULD NOT... have prevented this from happening. He would have found a way to go suicide by cop... because his mental stability (or lack thereof) was a motivational force in his life that couldn't be stopped. If he had come at them with a 20 dollar katana from the pawn shop, they would have still had to resort to the use of deadly force.The katana, or even a less "scary" gun, probably wouldn't have put anyone in the background of the officers at risk. I think anyone would rather you come at them with a pawn shop katana than any kind of gun. Successfully preventing him from having this kind of weapon would have reduced his ability to do damage. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 WTF? The katana, or even a less "scary" gun, probably wouldn't have put anyone in the background of the officers at risk. I think anyone would rather you come at them with a pawn shop katana than any kind of gun. Successfully preventing him from having this kind of weapon would have reduced his ability to do damage. I do not believe the argument that having a different gun... or for example a low capacity magazine... decreases the risk to other people. This guy obviously wasn't going to follow the rules that you would have to "ban" those items anyways. So dafuq is the point? It's against the law to shoot police officers. So make it against the law to carry certain types of weapons?? Sorry, but the loonies, such as this guy (who we have no idea what mental illness or general distress was in his life) aren't going to follow laws pertaining to what kind of weapons they want to use when they aren't following the laws regarding the use of the weapon. Once you're to the point where you're driving around in a car with a weapon... whether it's a 22 pistol... or a sniper rifle... or an AK... or M1... a shotgun or whatever... and you've decided that you're going to use it to go suicide by cop... no mountain of regulations imposed are going to make any difference on the situation. That person has made a choice, and are going to follow through it it. Police officers should have great armor, and for that matter, great weaponry. They volunteered for a dangerous job of dealing with the mentally ill and serving the public. Why do we not do more to armor their vehicles? At least, I could see bullet proof glass being of great use here in this case. OH... and thanks for pointing out the use of the word terrorist. Becoming quite popular. Maybe I'm a terrorist?? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 Yeah... I think I need to be "terrorist" instead of "Level 3 member" Anyone able to do that for me? lol Maybe "Level 3 Terrorist" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 cannot request, must be earned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge_Brownie Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 This guy obviously wasn't going to follow the rules that you would have to "ban" those items anyways. So dafuq is the point?You didn't say that. You argued that he could have had a different weapon and it wouldn't have mattered. And had their been a federal ban on all assault weapons maybe he would have had to rush them with a pistol or a katana. I don't agree with banning weapons as I'm sure you know. But, your argument was shitty and I'm trying to help Mike out :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caanglin Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 (edited) thankfully the good guys with a gun, took out the bad guy with a gun. but it was after he was able to get off 37 shots with a AK 47. http://news.yahoo.com/ak-47-wielding-gunman-fires-37-times-shocked-225626374.html He ran out of ammo (or jammed) sat there and then they shot him. They lit his ass up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDlSrqCjhHQ Edited May 6, 2013 by fivex84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 You didn't say that. You argued that he could have had a different weapon and it wouldn't have mattered. And had their been a federal ban on all assault weapons maybe he would have had to rush them with a pistol or a katana. I don't agree with banning weapons as I'm sure you know. But, your argument was shitty and I'm trying to help Mike out I was trying to convey that regardless of what weapon he had, they were going to have to use deadly force on him. That being said, what ever the weapon is... if it's a long range serrated spoon... or a cross bow... end result is the same. Perhaps it is me and my shitty argument... but I don't understand how saying "you're not allowed to have this" (being any object you want) keeps people from actually obtaining that object. We outlawed booze... and look how well that went. We outlawed meth... and still... people use the shit out of it. Do not ban items.... help people. Whether it be mental health or whatever... the people who go off like this are because they are hurting usually... or sometimes just completely mental. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 looks like a large magazine, just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 looks like a large magazine, just saying. Magazine size = irrelevant. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caanglin Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 looks like a large magazine, just saying. Agreed! These cops had way to many bullets! The same thing is happening all around the country. Look at the Dorner shootings. "Officers fired 102 bullets into Carranza's truck." Oh. You were talking about the guy shooting at the cops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 Mike. The point I'm trying to make is this: Accuracy > magazine size. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts