Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Doggy Daddy on July 22, 2012, 06:22:11 PM
-
Just now on Fox, she stated that one in five police officers is killed with an assault weapon. I doubt that one in five police officers gets killed PERIOD. Oh, in fact according to http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/pf/jobs/1108/gallery.dangerous_jobs/11.html (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/pf/jobs/1108/gallery.dangerous_jobs/11.html), it's 18 per 100,000 and
"However, one of the main culprits when it comes to police killings are traffic accidents, said Floyd.
Traffic-related accidents were up 37% in 2010 and represented 56% of all fatalities. Only two occurred in high-speed pursuits, he said, with the rest occurring on routine patrol"
BTW, nobody on Fox challenged her statement. :facepalm:
DD
-
Back during the debate over the 1994 assault weapon ban, a New Jersey police officer said that his men had a greater chance of encountering an escaped Bengal Tiger than a criminal with an assault weapon.
I never knew tigers were of such concern to policemen. [tinfoil] [popcorn] :rofl: :rofl:
I saw Feinstein on Fox News Sunday this morning. She and Kristen Powers were whining about how assault weapons should be banned. Powers even said the initial ban didn't go far enough because it allowed people who already owned them to keep them.
But no one could seem to get it into their head that had the Aurora shooter not had an AR it wouldn't have helped. People would not have been able to play Rambo, charge the guy and trample him....
because in their obsession over the evil black rifle they neglected to consider that the Auroroa shooter had a shotgun and two .40 caliber handguns and would simply have used them.....
because the fastest "reload" has always been a second gun.......
Can TV people/politicians think? Or alternatly; how do they remember how to breath?
-
But no one could seem to get it into their head that had the Aurora shooter not had an AR it wouldn't have helped. People would not have been able to play Rambo, charge the guy and trample him....
because in their obsession over the evil black rifle they neglected to consider that the Auroroa shooter had a shotgun and two .40 caliber handguns and would simply have used them.....
because the fastest "reload" has always been a second gun.......
Can TV people/politicians think? Or alternatly; how do they remember how to breath?
I don't see why we should deny that rifles like the AR (full or semi) make it easier to shoot more people more quickly. That's what they were designed to do, and why military, police, and many civilians use them. That's technological progress. Of course it can be turned to an evil end. So can Diane Feinstein's car. Or, for that matter, her office. ;/
-
I don't see why we should deny that rifles like the AR (full or semi) make it easier to shoot more people more quickly. That's what they were designed to do, and why military, police, and many civilians use them. That's technological progress. Of course it can be turned to an evil end. So can Diane Feinstein's car. Or, for that matter, her office. ;/
I'm not "denying " that but I'm just saying that that they are not magic.
I have a M4orgery in 5.56 caliber, a Sig Sauer 556 and a Sig 556R in the Russian chambering, an WASR-10, and an M-1 Carbine.
Whatever I could theoretically do in a confined space with that M4orgery should I somehow go over to the darkside, I could do just as easily and handily with my M-1 Carbine. The politicos all whine the M4orgery is an assault weapon ....it has a pistol grip, and a high cap detachable magazine after all.
But the WW2 carbine does not have a pistol grip. It was never considered an "assault rifle" by the Di Fis of the country. The one major advantage an M4 would have is the round which is flatter shooting than a .30 carbine.
Chuck Connors found a modified 1892 quite useful as well. BTW....off camera when he was relaxing....he'd stuff real .44-40s in that rifle and have a grand time plinking. bangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbang..... >:D
-
She's a *expletive deleted*bag to the nth degree
-
. . . BTW, nobody on Fox challenged her statement. :facepalm:
That's the worst part - leftists say the most utterly outrageous things on TV, and "journalists" simply accept their statements at face value, nodding sagely . . .
But let a conservative make a contrary assertion, and they IMMEDIATELY challenge - "What's your proof? Who is your source? What evidence do you have for that viewpoint?" and so forth and so on, often interrupting with questions so the person can't even finish the statement. (Rush Limbaugh made this point some years ago, and it would seem things haven't changed.)
In the print media there's "Politifact" . . . that purports to be objective, but when someone to the right of center says something that's 100% true, the Politifact editors decide to rate not just what was said, but what was NOT said, in order to downgrade the statement from "True" to something less.
Thing is, surveys have shown that people ARE on to this media advocacy . . . but they still don't care.
-
Just now on Fox, she stated that one in five police officers is killed with an assault weapon. I doubt that one in five police officers gets killed PERIOD. Oh, in fact according to http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/pf/jobs/1108/gallery.dangerous_jobs/11.html (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/pf/jobs/1108/gallery.dangerous_jobs/11.html), it's 18 per 100,000 and
Without hearing the exact quote I'm going to guess that what she said (or intended to say) is that 1 in 5 police officers killed in the line of duty is killed by an assault weapon.
A quick google finds this page:
http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/causes.html
So in 2011 there were 163 officer fatalities, 70 of which were shot (41 were killed in auto accidents, 11 more struck by vehicle). It doesn't break down the firearm deaths by category of firearm, however. If you look at the numbers for the past 10 years it's 1559 deaths, 570 shot, 470 auto crashes, 140 struck by vehicle
So at a minimum we can say that 43% of job related officer fatalities in 2011 were from being shot. So she's claiming that a bit less than half of those were shot with what she defines as an assault weapon.
-
I don't see why we should deny that rifles like the AR (full or semi) make it easier to shoot more people more quickly. That's what they were designed to do, and why military, police, and many civilians use them. That's technological progress. Of course it can be turned to an evil end. So can Diane Feinstein's car. Or, for that matter, her office. ;/
You are overlooking that their concept of "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" is still focused on inconsequential, external, visual aspects that make the firearm look scary. So he had an AR-15, and that happens to be black and a copy of the Army's M16. So the AR-15 is derived from a military firearm, and that makes it scary and evil.
So what about the Ruger Mini-14? You can get it with a pretty, varnished wood stock and a shiny, stainless steel barrel. Doesn't look scary at all. In fact, most politicians and most media types couldn't tell a Mini-14 (or Mini-30) from a 10/22 from six feet away. High capacity magazines are available for the Mini-14 but nobody's talking about those, because they aren't black and scary looking. (And everyone overlooks the fact that the Mini-14 and Mini-30 are also derived from military firearms, being essentially scaled-down versions of the M14 battle rifle.)
Suppose the Aurora shooter had used a Ruger 10/22 with a drum magazine, rather than an AR-15. I wonder what the media comments would be if that had been the case ...
-
All the sunday talk shows were unbearably stupid today, they all whined about internet ammo sales "why does anyone need that much ammo"
The good part is now the news is saying nothing is going to happen because of the NRA.
Had a lot of interesting facebook arguments, only one person unfriended me :laugh:
-
Without hearing the exact quote I'm going to guess that what she said (or intended to say) is that 1 in 5 police officers killed in the line of duty is killed by an assault weapon.
What she intended to say, or didn't say, is irrelevant. What matters is the words that came out, and what people heard. Here they are:
FEINSTEIN: Well, I would hope there would be a sane national conversation on guns.
WALLACE: Has the president right on this?
FEINSTEIN: President Bush said he supported the continuation of assault weapons legislation. President Obama, Mr. Romney, I think they should give it a lot of consideration.
I think this is a bad time to embrace a new subject, but there has been no action. There has been no action because there is no outrage out there. People haven't rallied forward.
They -- when I did the legislation, I had Lloyd Bentsen, secretary of the treasury, standing with me, chiefs of police, police officers, sheriffs, because one out of the five police officers is killed with an assault weapon. There was a tremendous amount of support and even then, it was very tough. So it's a lot tougher now because the gun organizations have become so strong.
WALLACE: I'm going to give you the final word, Senator Johnson. Are these massacres horrible as they are and people here in Washington are looking for solutions, are they just a fact of life and death in America?
JOHNSON: Well, I hate to say it, but they probably are. Listen, I understand Senator Feinstein has seen gun violence up close and personal. I don't doubt her sincerity for a moment.
But I also, I really would hate to see a tragedy like this used to promote a political agenda to reduce American's freedoms. Enough have been taken away and we don't want to lose anymore.
WALLACE: We're going to leave there. Senator Feinstein and Senator Johnson --
FEINSTEIN: Thank you, Chris.
WALLACE: -- I want to thank you both very much for coming in today to discuss unfortunately another one of these terrible massacres. Thank you both.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2012/07/22/feinstein-johnson-debate-stricter-gun-control-netanyahu-dangerous-times-middle-east?page=3#ixzz21PnIRDSC
And that is the statement the viewer is left with. Unchallenged.
DD
-
Had a lot of interesting facebook arguments, only one person unfriended me :laugh:
Wifey does NOT hide her politics or fondness for guns when she posts on FB. She has been fielding quite a few questions from her FB friends who are suddenly interested in getting a firearm for personal and/or family protection.
She's a good woman, she is.
DD
-
I'm not "denying " that but I'm just saying that that they are not magic.
You are overlooking that their concept of "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" is still focused on inconsequential, external, visual aspects that make the firearm look scary.
Slow your roll, boys. I was responding to this:
But no one could seem to get it into their head that had the Aurora shooter not had an AR it wouldn't have helped. People would not have been able to play Rambo, charge the guy and trample him....
because in their obsession over the evil black rifle they neglected to consider that the Auroroa shooter had a shotgun and two .40 caliber handguns and would simply have used them.....
because the fastest "reload" has always been a second gun.......
Tommy Gunn was wrong because he's comparing multiple New York reloads to an AR with a drum magazine. The AR with the big magazine will deliver more rounds considerably faster than trying to use three guns with lower capacities. We can go ahead and admit that a semi-automatic copy of an assault rifle makes it easier to shoot a lot of people. That is the purpose of such rifles, is it not?
-
But fistful, didn't you know? AR15s are totally just for hunting. =D
-
We can go ahead and admit that a semi-automatic copy of an assault rifle makes it easier to shoot a lot of people
No *expletive deleted*it, Sherlock.
-
Tommy Gunn was wrong because he's comparing multiple New York reloads to an AR with a drum magazine. The AR with the big magazine will deliver more rounds considerably faster than trying to use three guns with lower capacities. We can go ahead and admit that a semi-automatic copy of an assault rifle makes it easier to shoot a lot of people. That is the purpose of such rifles, is it not?
Your point is debatable, on several points.
The purpose of any rifle is to fire bullets at targets. While the purpose of a true assault rifle is to make it easier to shoot people (not necessarily "a lot" of people), I don't think that is the purpose of a semi-automatic copy of an assault rifle. That certainly isn't the purpose of mine. The purpose of mine is to defend my home. Do I expect "a lot" of people to be invading my home? No, I don't -- so the purpose of the "semi-automatic copy of an assault rifle" is not to make it easier to shoot A LOT of people, it is to defend my home. I could accomplish exactly the same purpose with a Ruger Mini-14, using the exact same ammunition ... but I'm already trained and qualified with an M16 from Vietnam, so why not stay with a platform I already know? That's no different from my choosing a 1911 over, say, a Glock -- except that in that case my choice of a familiar weapon results in lower rather than higher capacity.
And don't forget that the largest straight magazines for the AR-15 hold 40 rounds, and most experts recommend NOT using 40s because they aren't reliable. Obviously, the 100-round drums aren't reliable, either. So your statement about the firearm perhaps should be applied to the magazine rather than the gun -- and then it fails due to the reliability factor.
But, in the end, "semi-automatic copy of an assault rifle" is just too much for a politician or media talking head to wrap their tongue around. So they just omit the qualifiers and call them all "assault rifles," and therein lies the problem.
-
Hawkmoon beat me too it.
Most after market drum mags for almost all the commen "assult" rifles out there seem to be pretty unreiliable.
Didn't he jam about halfway through? Mind, it could have been the rifle, but everything i've heard is S&W AR's are pretty decent, so I would say the drum mag caused any malfunction.
Regardless, I would like to see a break down of who got hit with what. I would think the 870 was the source of most the damage.
And I doubt anyone on here could make the arguement that a 12 gauge shotgun can not, overall, do as much, if not more, damage as any "assualt" rifle.
-
Lets say for arguments sake she means that 1 in 5 officers who are killed, are killed by an "assault rifle".
Who exactly is defining what an "assault rifle" is? Since we know the true defintion isn't being used. The real fact of the matter is that the liberals are again defining the language and the argument. Does a folding stock make something an assault rifle? Magazine fed? Semi automatic? Barrel shroud? We don't know even what they are defining it as.
What she intended to say, or didn't say, is irrelevant. What matters is the words that came out, and what people heard. Here they are:
And that is the statement the viewer is left with. Unchallenged.
DD
On the surface, her statement is beyond insane. Par for the course.
-
What she intended to say, or didn't say, is irrelevant. What matters is the words that came out, and what people heard. Here they are:
And that is the statement the viewer is left with. Unchallenged.
DD
Understood. I was just trying to add some information.
-
Tommy Gunn was wrong because he's comparing multiple New York reloads to an AR with a drum magazine. The AR with the big magazine will deliver more rounds considerably faster than trying to use three guns with lower capacities. We can go ahead and admit that a semi-automatic copy of an assault rifle makes it easier to shoot a lot of people. That is the purpose of such rifles, is it not?
Damn Skippy it is. And I don't hide that fact. If confronted, I say, "Yep, it's a killing machine, and I might need it someday. And those who misuse it is not enough reason to abridge my rights."
And arguably, that's what's REALLY at the root of all gun control. It's not about "regular" crime, and it's not about spree killers either. It's two allied camps of thought. One camp subconsciously knows that the "good people" or "normal people" might have to shoot a bunch some day, be it SHTF/Collapse, Civil War II, or God knows what... and it scares them. They want guns off the table so they don't have to think about it. The second camp knows it consciously, and just wants to control us.
And the fact that a large portion of the population, larger than any nation in the world's standing army can use force of arms, albeit in not a very organized or skilled manner, initally anyway... is key to what still makes America "different" than just about any other place on Earth save Switzerland...
At the risk of engaging in reductio ad absurdum, the most basic definition of "government" (to paraphrase Hobbes) is "The entity or organization that has a monopoly over the legitimate use of force." And what exactly defines "legitimate" is of course, for the eye of the beholder. The men with the guns make the rules, and the men with the guns enforce them.
If we truly are a government, for, and, and of the people, than there can be no monopoly over the legitimate use of force. Maintaining that balance is more important than crime, school or movie theater massacres, or the occasional dead child.
-
As... harsh as AJ's statement might seem on the surface, I have to agree. The quote that immediately springs to mind is, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I also agree that the fact that we have more firearms in private ownership than many militaries have *is* a defining difference that sets us apart from the rest of the world. We do not tolerate criminal acts, or even barbarian acts (which I believe this attack falls under). But to punish the tool, rather than the criminal, is the ultimate in folly. A firearm is a tool. A smoke/cs/chemical grenade is a tool. A gas mask, ballistic armor, all of those are simply *tools*. The person wielding those tools is the true problem, the true source of the suffering for the people affected. And to say that he couldn't have accomplished what he did if he didn't have an "assault" rifle is simply not true. This is a person who was organized enough, intelligent enough, and resourceful enough to accomplish his goals. He had access to an entire chemistry laboratory. He had the resources to produce a wide variety of noxious/toxic chemicals, or even explosives. I would imagine throwing home made incendiary devices into the middle of a crowded theater would probably be even more horrific than what we see today.
-
Lets say for arguments sake she means that 1 in 5 officers who are killed, are killed by an "assault rifle".
Who exactly is defining what an "assault rifle" is? Since we know the true defintion isn't being used. The real fact of the matter is that the liberals are again defining the language and the argument. Does a folding stock make something an assault rifle? Magazine fed? Semi automatic? Barrel shroud? We don't know even what they are defining it as.
Usually when they say this sort of thing they are including standard cap magazines. A lot of cops are killed with their own gun, and most full-size handguns these days carry more than 10 rounds. Using those definitions, the numbers (if you limited the universe to dead cops, or further to dead cops who were shot) aren't totally unreasonable. Everything else is, of course.
-
Slow your roll, boys. I was responding to this:
Tommy Gunn was wrong because he's comparing multiple New York reloads to an AR with a drum magazine. The AR with the big magazine will deliver more rounds considerably faster than trying to use three guns with lower capacities. We can go ahead and admit that a semi-automatic copy of an assault rifle makes it easier to shoot a lot of people. That is the purpose of such rifles, is it not?
Fistful, my point was that having a "New York reload" would make continuing an assault easier for the assailant and thus partially negate what would happen if there was a magazine ban.
Say 100 round magazines WERE banned. Say the Aurora assailant only had ten round magazines.
He empties that and you want to play Rambo?
He draw a second gun and BANG you're dead.
OF COURSE if he had a 100 rnd mag, it would be awhile before he'd empty it out.
Think tactically. Slowing someone down a bit by denying him high cap mags doesn't necessarily mean the Rambo wannabe is going to be any better off.
Plus, in case you didn't know, magazines can be changed very quickly, high cap or low cap.
Which is why I am right, not wrong. :angel:
How many people do you know that, during a shooting such as this, run toward the shooter? Very few if any.
An assailant with multiple arms still has a great advantage because it is the natural tendency to flee from danger, not overcome it when doing such would seem suicidal. I suspect a pump shotgun would be quit effective. You can still shuck rounds into the magazine as the situation allows and before you've run empty.
-
Diane Feinstein and her ilk are much more dangerous, deadly even, than any firearm or mass murderer for that matter.
-
Diane Feinstein and her ilk are much more dangerous, deadly even, than any firearm or mass murderer for that matter.
Amen brother. =|
-
The guy could have pulled his car up to the back door to block it and then tossed his homage grenades and jars of gasoline into the crowd, perhaps killing many more people. That guy would have figured out something. Feinstein is an idiot.
-
Fistful, my point was that having a "New York reload" would make continuing an assault easier for the assailant and thus partially negate what would happen if there was a magazine ban.
Say 100 round magazines WERE banned. Say the Aurora assailant only had ten round magazines.
He empties that and you want to play Rambo?
He draw a second gun and BANG you're dead.
OF COURSE if he had a 100 rnd mag, it would be awhile before he'd empty it out.
Think tactically. Slowing someone down a bit by denying him high cap mags doesn't necessarily mean the Rambo wannabe is going to be any better off.
Plus, in case you didn't know, magazines can be changed very quickly, high cap or low cap.
Which is why I am right, not wrong. :angel:
How many people do you know that, during a shooting such as this, run toward the shooter? Very few if any.
An assailant with multiple arms still has a great advantage because it is the natural tendency to flee from danger, not overcome it when doing such would seem suicidal. I suspect a pump shotgun would be quit effective. You can still shuck rounds into the magazine as the situation allows and before you've run empty.
If all you were trying to say was that mass murders can still happen without "high capacity" magazines or "assault weapons," then of course I agree. I just think we have to be careful in saying that kind of thing. If we appear to be saying that guns like the AR offer no advantages over pistols or shotguns, then we risk sounding disingenuous. Instead, we should make very clear that police use such guns because they are such an efficient means of hurting people, and that human beings have a right to the same efficient means of hurting people. For defense of themselves and their country, of course. I don't think our gains in gun rights have come from claiming that our guns are harmless. I think they've come from pointing out that we have a right to harm bad guys, in some situations.
I also don't think it's helpful to bring Rambo into the discussion. It is true that people sometimes do courageous things. Or maybe desperate things, driven by fear.
-
If all you were trying to say was that mass murders can still happen without "high capacity" magazines or "assault weapons," then of course I agree. I just think we have to be careful in saying that kind of thing. If we appear to be saying that guns like the AR offer no advantages over pistols or shotguns, then we risk sounding disingenuous. Instead, we should make very clear that police use such guns because they are such an efficient means of hurting people, and that human beings have a right to the same efficient means of hurting people. For defense of themselves and their country, of course. I don't think our gains in gun rights have come from claiming that our guns are harmless. I think they've come from pointing out that we have a right to harm bad guys, in some situations.
I also don't think it's helpful to bring Rambo into the discussion. It is true that people sometimes do courageous things. Or maybe desperate things, driven by fear.
Well, "advantages over what" Fistful?
A shotgun?
Maybe but who is going to try and "charge" at a psycho shooter who has a shotgun? I dunno. Remember the Aurora shooter had atleast 4 firearms.
If you want to ban ARs, then what about M-1 carbines? Don't tell me that an M-1 carbine wouldn't be very nearly as effective as an AR. Especially if the AR's magic 100 round magazine jammed. Never once have I had an M-1 carbine magazine jam on me.
The reason I brought Rambo in this--maybe that wasn't fair to you -- but Diane Feinstein was whining on TV about the Aurora guy having these large capacity "clips" and that if he hadn't, maybe somebody could have charged him when he ran out of ammo.
I wanted to grab her by the throat (even cable TV doesn't permit this --unfortunatly >:D) and yell in her face: "Holmes had a shotgun and two handguns and you think that tactic would work?!?!?!??! No, nimrod, the shooter would simply transition to another gun and kill the Rambo!!"
I also think that people like her have no idea how quickly a rifle like an AR --or an M-1 Carbine, or a Glock -- can be reloaded. 10 round mag, 20, 30, 50, whatever. If Holmes had had 10 magazines of 10 rounds each, the AR probably would not have jammed on him and he would not have needed to transition to another weapon.
As to ARs having an advantage, OK. But a Glock has an advantage -- it is easier to conceal.
Depending on how you look at things and what is important to you, an advantage in one situation can be a disadvantage in another.
Don't tell that to Feinstein, Schumer and that ilk because to them, the only purpose ARs serve and 30 rnd. mags serve is to kill a lot of people really fast. ;)
-
"Advantages over pistols and shotguns," like I said. I wasn't talking about the M1. Holmes didn't have one, and that is not the comparison to which I was responding.
Did you really mean to say that I want to ban ARs, or was that just rhetorical?
Look, you're choosing to fight over issues where you are already doomed by the facts. Of course the AR serves the purpose of killing lots of people really fast. That is what Stoner designed it for. Nor can you argue with the fact that reloads and transitions to other weapons slow down a shooter, providing an opportunity, no matter how small, for his targets to fight back.
If you want to win the gun debate, your response to Feinstein should be that scary black rifles are indeed very scary and efficient weapons; and that is why Americans should have them.
-
"Advantages over pistols and shotguns," like I said. I wasn't talking about the M1. Holmes didn't have one, and that is not the comparison to which I was responding.
Didn't say Homes had one; my point which was MY point and no one else's was that had Holmes had one he could have done the same thing with that as with the gun he actually did have. Are you disputing that?
Did you really mean to say that I want to ban ARs, or was that just rhetorical?
It was obvioously rhetorical and the fact you have to ask actually explains why we seem to be talking past each other in this thread.
Look, you're choosing to fight over issues where you are already doomed by the facts. Of course the AR serves the purpose of killing lots of people really fast. That is what Stoner designed it for. Nor can you argue with the fact that reloads and transitions to other weapons slow down a shooter, providing an opportunity, no matter how small, for his targets to fight back.
:facepalm: I was NOT arguing that reloading doesn't slow down the shooter, MY POINT WAS THEY DO NOT SLOW THEM DOWN >>>>>>>SIGNIFICANTLY<<<<<<<< AND PEOPLE LIKE FEINSTEIN WHO CLAIM SOMEONE COULD JUMP A SHOOTER DURING A RELOAD OR TRANSITION ARE NAIVE BECAUSE THEY MOST LIKELY WOULD GET SHOT FOR THEIR EFFORT.[/color]Am I clear now or do I have to have that etched in titanium -- or do you think panicky people are going to be prepared to watch for a shooter's gun going empty because the people at the Aurora theater were all in full panic and run like hell mode. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
If you want to win the gun debate, your response to Feinstein should be that scary black rifles are indeed very scary and efficient weapons; and that is why Americans should have them.
I'd love to tell that loonie leftie that?
Wait. Geeesh, I do hope you "get" that opr we're gonna be "talking past" each other for maybe ten more postings............... ;/ ;/ [popcorn] >:D :rofl:
-
Didn't say Homes had one; my point which was MY point and no one else's was that had Holmes had one he could have done the same thing with that as with the gun he actually did have. Are you disputing that?
No; that's the point. I'm not disputing it, so there's no reason to argue with me about M1s. I never took exception to the point you made about M1s, because I never disagreed with it.
:facepalm: I was NOT arguing that reloading doesn't slow down the shooter,
MY POINT WAS THEY DO NOT SLOW THEM DOWN >>>>>>>SIGNIFICANTLY<<<<<<<< AND PEOPLE LIKE FEINSTEIN WHO CLAIM SOMEONE COULD JUMP A SHOOTER DURING A RELOAD OR TRANSITION ARE NAIVE BECAUSE THEY MOST LIKELY WOULD GET SHOT FOR THEIR EFFORT.[/color]Am I clear now or do I have to have that etched in titanium -- or do you think panicky people are going to be prepared to watch for a shooter's gun going empty because the people at the Aurora theater were all in full panic and run like hell mode. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
You'd be clearer without the multi-colored, multi-font-size, combined with all-caps and excessive punctuation. That stuff's confusing.
Regardless of the color of words used to deny it, someone could still "jump a shooter during a reload or transition," without getting shot. It could happen. Even if they were shot, their counter-attack still might work, or provide a few milliseconds for someone else to try. Secondly, you don't know the mindset of every person in that theater, or at the scene of every other massacre. As I said, acts of derring-do (or at least sheer desperation) do occur from time to time.
So I guess getting things etched in titanium might help.
-
....someone could still "jump a shooter during a reload or transition," without getting shot.
Could happen ... I will anxiously await it happening at the very next psycho shooting..... :rofl:
I can pretty much promise you it won't happen unless there's a armed U.S. Navy SEAL team member in the audience or Green Beret, or similar very highly trained warrior.
And if color bothers you, GOOD.
-
Yeah, cause saying that it could happen is just like saying that it will happen on the next go-round. ;/
-
Could happen ... I will anxiously await it happening at the very next psycho shooting..... :rofl:
I can pretty much promise you it won't happen unless there's a armed U.S. Navy SEAL team member in the audience or Green Beret, or similar very highly trained warrior.
IIRC, didn't bystanders take down Jared Loughner during a reload?
-
>I can pretty much promise you it won't happen unless there's a armed U.S. Navy SEAL team member in the audience or Green Beret, or similar very highly trained warrior.<
Ummm... no.
Not gonna Google it, but one of the school shootings was stopped by another student who recognized that the bad guy had run dry, and tackled him.
Granted, some of that is situational: shooter running dry while close enough to other students that other students can act. But the kid was no SEAL etc...
-
In a closed dark theaters guys.....IN A CLOSE DARK THEATER, ok? Panicked people running around.....chaos....GET IT? :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
In a closed dark theaters guys.....IN A CLOSE DARK THEATER, ok? Panicked people running around.....chaos....GET IT? :facepalm: :facepalm:
Low light & chaos works both ways.
-
Low light & chaos works both ways.
My thoughts exactly. The main problem is keeping your cool when all around you are freaking out.
-
My thoughts exactly. The main problem is keeping your cool when all around you are freaking out.
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs...
-
Oh teh noes! We're all as dumb as Diane Feinstein! How do we remember to breathe?
-
Oh teh noes! We're all as dumb as Diane Feinstein! How do we remember to breathe?
How come every time I see this phrase "the" is spelled "teh?" Or is "teh" a word I've never heard before?
Anyway, fistful, being as dumb as Di Fi isn't really fatal unless you're also as ugly as she is. [popcorn] :angel: ;) :rofl:
-
How come every time I see this phrase "the" is spelled "teh?" Or is "teh" a word I've never heard before?
Anyway, fistful, being as dumb as Di Fi isn't really fatal unless you're also as ugly as she is. [popcorn] :angel: ;) :rofl:
"teh" is a common typo for "the", and I guess it's considered cute, and perhaps part of the LOLcat manner of speaking.
And as to Diane Feinstein...
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi156.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft33%2FAJ_Dual%2Ffeinsteinandcornflake.jpg&hash=8c8f376841d392a8af5e243b7f4ef37e7c7056de)
I kind of wish she'd stuck with her earlier career with the rocking chair factory in Mr. Rogers Land of Make Believe.
Could be worse though. Waxman, I hear he's gotten the death sentence in twelve systems...
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi156.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft33%2FAJ_Dual%2Fartwaxmangi.jpg&hash=130a39935792b1f12b3827ad6586fd01f8e0c46c)
-
How come every time I see this phrase "the" is spelled "teh?" Or is "teh" a word I've never heard before?
It's the internet version of talking in a dumb guy voice.
-
>I can pretty much promise you it won't happen unless there's a armed U.S. Navy SEAL team member in the audience or Green Beret, or similar very highly trained warrior.<
Ummm... no.
Not gonna Google it, but one of the school shootings was stopped by another student who recognized that the bad guy had run dry, and tackled him.
Granted, some of that is situational: shooter running dry while close enough to other students that other students can act. But the kid was no SEAL etc...
I believe that was the Springfield Oregon school shooting
-
>Anyway, fistful, being as dumb as Di Fi isn't really fatal unless you're also as ugly as she is<
Have you actually SEEN fistful lately?
-
>Anyway, fistful, being as dumb as Di Fi isn't really fatal unless you're also as ugly as she is<
Have you actually SEEN fistful lately?
Yeah, he looks like Clint Eastwood! [tinfoil]
-
Only in his twisted dreams (or Clint's darkest nightmares)
-
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs...
then you just don't understand the situation =D
-
It's the internet version of talking in a dumb guy voice.
Totally...