Eleven days.

Quote: GWAE

Arguing about control is as pointless as arguing about politics.

It depends what your goal is.

It's not about changing your opponent's mind, that indeed is folly. But by debating, you do open thought and exchange new ideas. You teach and learn, and through that you grow. And that is my goal. To grow, and to encourage and promote others to do so as well.

Quote: gamerfreak

Another weird part of the gun community is now trigger happy so many gun nuts are. They literally fantasize about situations where they might get to shoot someone, playing out very specific scenarios in their head. Just ask most anyone that carries on a daily basis why they prefer having a .45 as opposed to a 9mm on their hip. Ask why they carry a semi-automatic pistol rather than a revolver. You will see how much detailed thought they’ve put into killing people.

If you're going to carry, you can only carry seriously. You have to spend hours upon hours of studying, contemplating, and thinking about taking another human life. You do spend hours upon hours thinking about how you sit / where you sit when out in public. You make yourself aware of entrances and exits. Not many of us can afford four figures plus time off to have a proper sort of training, but we can read, study, and do our best to mentally prepare. I don't obsess about killing people, I don't envy those who have been in the position. But get me in a situation where it's being discussed, and my answer is always "when gunplay, empty contents into chest." It's not bloodlust, it's not disrespect of life, it's part of the mental conditioning I feel I'll need because when you're in the s#$%, there is no "think". There is only "do". As center mass is what must be done to ensure my safety, it's the only thought I can allow exist in my head. It's why I react the way I do when someone says "Shoot him in the leg" or other such Hollywoodery. It's not founded in savagery, it's self preservation.

FWIW, I carry a 5rd .38 most days.

Quote: gamerfreak

The reason I bring this up - I’m a first responder and one night we got a call around 3:30 AM for a cardiac arrest. When we arrived at the house, no one was answering the door. So I broke a window to get into the house. It wasn’t long before I realized that DISPATCH HAD GIVEN US THE COMPLETLY WRONG ADDRESS!!!

Fortunately, no one was home in the house I broke in to. But would I be alive today if this was AZDuffman’s, RonC’s , or MaxPen’s House? Or 99% of gun owners really?

First responder, so you're in people's business any day, any hour. My little cousin does the same, fire, EMT, all that. I'm a mailman, so for the next two months I'll be creeping onto people's porches well after dark every single day. Linesmen, gas men, paperboys, drunk neighbors, unhailed constabulary, hundreds of thousands of strangers are somewhere they're not supposed to be, where 150mm people are hoarding and toting 300mm guns. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

It just.... isn't.

Tomorrow's one of the few holidays I observe, so I'll begin as I always do. To the several who have already done so, as well as any inspired to join along, feel free to join me...

Quote: Face

“I, Face, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.”

Cool. And while I'm about as critical as one could get regarding American military actions post 1953, every service member deserves a show of gratitude for the service and sacrifice they have given to us, the people of the United States and her allies. With heart, I say thank you.

Now, let's get to the defending.

The "armed populace" argument is one of those things that cause me cognitive dissonance. Yes, I believe that an armed society is a polite society, but yes, I believe the less guns present would equal less cases of wayward firearms. I agree with comments like MaxPen's "If only there was a CCW holder present", but it also stands to reason the critiques about theatre confusion and good guy identification in an active shooter scenario. So hey, instead of "thinking it out" and trying to argue using imagination, why not go looking for facts? So that's what I did. And here's what I found.

"Mass shootings" isn't widely defined, so I'll be using the FBI's definition, which is "a person in a public space causing casualties via firearm to 4 or more people". Please note that there are some omissions from their list, these being domestic violence and gang related incidents. DV I sort of understand; if boyfriend kills the two kids, the mom, the live in grandma and then himself, while horrible, it's not a public, indiscriminate killing, such as we're studying. Gun violence, absolutely, but I agree this is not a "mass shooting" incident. The gang related, on the other hand, bothers me. If my job inspires me to walk into the USPS and mow down those I hate, that's a mass shooting. If my "job" inspires me to walk onto MLK Blvd and mow down competition...it doesn't count? Are they... not people? Not "public"? Not a danger to the general populace? It doesn't make much sense, and I've not found any reasoning to explain it so far. Sorry to ramble, just trying to be accurate and give a solid picture.

Given the above definition, the FBI has stated there have been ~250 (+/- 20 depending on definition) active shooter scenarios from 2000 - 2017. In those examples, it was determined that 33 of them had a "good guy with a gun" present. Please note the discrepancies with this number - 1) it does not include incidents where a firearm was NOT used (someone stabbing several people and being stopped by GGwaG is not counted, no firearm was being used), 2) does not include domestic violence, 3) does not include gang violence, and 4) the FBI must determine that LEO and/or GGwaG have to have the potential to have intervened. Additionally, it is important to note that this is only the information that was made available. If an active shooter popped off, and I with my pistol turned and ran and was never made a part of the incident, it is not counted as a GGwaG incident as no one knows that a GGwaG was there. Savvy?

So, the big question and area of contention - what happened with these Good Guys with Guns?

In 25 of the incidents (75%), the GGwaG was SUCCESSFUL at stopping the active shooter. Three out of every four. Well done, fellow gunners.

In 6 of the incidents, GGwaG was successful in reducing further loss of life. This is your Sutherland Springs Church shooting good ol boy. People died, but GGwaG's presence ensured that fewer died than had been intended.

That leaves 2. And what were those two? A pack of hunters were ambushed and killed (they were good guys and assumed to be armed, hence their inclusion), and an off-duty in Vegas was stalking an active shooter in a store and failed to realize he had a partner. Shot in the back and killed.

What does this tell us?

It's not a complete picture. As one ensconced in gunner life, I am aware of just how many people carry and just how many guns are out there. I know as well as you do that in many of these scenarios, a GGwaG was indeed present and just went uncounted. Maybe he fled, maybe he hid. Maybe he was killed before anything could be done. I do not view this info as proof that CCW is panacea.

But what I feel it does tell us, pretty much without challenge, is that GGwaG, your regular ol every day American schlub totin' iron, is not a thing in which to fear or deride. We are people, just like you, with morals and values, just like you, who wish to do what we can to ensure all folks are free from violence. And when given a chance, we will defend you and yours just as we do us and ours, up to and including the threat of death, without question.

I'll end with my favorite stat of all. In these 33 incidents where GGwaG was compelled to act, possibly without training, likely without preparation, and in a manner that puts him in peril not only from an assailant but also from a confused and frantic constabulary, while in a pandemonium of public freak out, not one single round from a GGwaG caused an innocent casualty. NO deaths, NO injuries.

94% ended in success. 6% ended in death for the GGwaG. 0% made the situation worse.


Now crack a beer, light that joint, and hug your brothers and sisters. And please rise and remove your hats as we honor the men and women of our armed forces with the National Anthem...

Face. I will try to respond but my reading comprehension sucks at anything over 500 words so I might have missed something.

In your Sutherland shooting example the ggwag didnt do anything. He shot the guy after he was done shooting. He was fleeing. Those shots also may or may not done anything to take him down. The guy wrecked, maybe it was due to the shooting. Not sure. In that same scenario there was 1 ggwag. What happens when there are 90 people. The ggwag may stay causing more injuries at that point. We just dont have any data to support that so really it is just a guess.

I think 1 thing we might agree on is; the way it is now is just not working. We either need more guns in the hands of people or we need to eliminate guns. I honestly cant decide where I stand on that part of the solution. I don't like the idea of more guns, but there are so many guns on the street today that if we eliminate them then the bad guys will end up with all of the illegal ones. We can make punishments harsh for the gun offenders, but prisons are already too crowded.

How is NY city with their tough gun laws? Had their violent crime gone down since they started it? I cant recall any mass shootings in that area.

After all those words I dont think that I really made any points.

Quote: GWAE

After all those words I dont think that I really made any points.

But you're talking. That's the important part.

Re: Sutherland, the FBI did not state it was one of their incidents, I just used it as an example as I thought it fit. I did not recall the event in detail, I just remembered that the perp was confronted by a civilian who plunked him (after the killing, you are correct) and gave chase, and that said civilian was met by police down the road who directed him to maintain his cover while they were on scene. Point being that GGwaG was the one who engaged first, got shots on target first, chased and called it in, met police while engaged, and it all went down the way it was supposed to, as opposed to the melee many folks envision.

I don't know "what would happen if". None of us do. All we can do is take what we DO know and extrapolate. And yes, what we DO know is still very, very little. Especially being on this site, we should all agree that the evidence is incomplete, and that no hard resolutions can or should be made from it. But, so far, it does show that comments like MaxPen's are not some deluded cowboy fantasy, nor are comments about bedlam founded in anything other than personal belief and assumption. What we have so far shows that, so far, GGwaG are a net positive.

I in a way agree with you that "things are just not working", but I can't seem to find a way to prove it. I did see a report that the occurrences of active shooter situations are rising over the years, over that 2000 - 2017 timeframe used earlier. What is not clear is classification and information gathering. Is it actually rising, or are differences in reporting causing the appearance? What is clear is the number of folks killed in these situations in this same time period is stagnant. The numbers of incidents and numbers of casualties obviously differ year by year, but when averaged out, the number killed is just a straight line. Not rising, despite the expiration of the '94 Assault Weapon Ban and almost militarization of NRA politicking. Not lowering, despite drastic anti-gun legislation in many of the most populated states. Dunno what that tells you, but it confirms to me my position since the jump - it's not a gun problem and you can't legislate it away. If your conclusion differs, I'd hear it (and that goes for anybody).

Comparing cities I view as folly, although I might (and likely am) just bad at it. NYC is widely known as one of the most gun UN-friendly places in the nation, and I do not recall it being "on the list" of gun violence disasters. Yet Chi, DC, the other authoritarian areas are rife with it. Years ago I did a gun friendly v gun violence study across all the states, and there wasn't a clear trend there, either. One very gun friendly state would show a laughable lack of gun violence, while another gun friendly state was in the top 5. One authoritarian state led the list while another was 48th or something. There was just no rhyme or reason to it. Someone then mentioned demographics, I obliged, and found that the blacker the state, the worse the stats. No one was ready for that convo and the thread died. This is not meant to be a zing or offered for contemplation, I'm just stating what happened.

I don't know the answer. What I do know is allllllll the energy is being spent attacking guns when very little of the attacks are based in reality and backed by factual statistical information. Bans, buybacks, background checks, ballistic fingerprinting, registrations, red-flag laws, anonymous snitch lines, all the efforts called for by the anti's have been or are in effect somewhere in this country. Where are their results? Where are their stats supporting their claims? Why am I spending my November preparing to defend against Cuomo's SAFEAct II: Electric Boogaloo, where .50cal's are going to be (attempted to be) banned despite there never being a single gun crime committed with a .50cal in the history of ever? Why do I know the names Steven Paddock, Dylan Roof, Oman Fateen, Adam Lanza? Why does a shooting that involves shotguns and revolvers not make cable news or WoV, but one featuring AR's and minors need weeks of attention? Why when GGwaG plunks a s#$%head and saves the day does it not receive the same attention (or any at all)? Why when a "see something say something" type of person sees something and says something and winds up stopping a mass shooter AS HE WAS LEAVING HIS HOME WITH AN ARSENAL, why is that not reported and lauded and encouraged for the same 2-3 weeks? It was just weeks ago, did you hear about it? Why the f#$% not?

It's almost.... it's almost as if all anyone cares about is taking guns. We still fight to deny socialized medical care (bootstraps), we still vilify and demean those with whom we disagree (libtard / bible thumper), we still disparage those who struggle mentally (crazy f#$%s), we laugh at efforts to give people refuge and taunt those who use them (millennial safe space fags), we measure value of people to how much they can produce, we champion production, property, and material goods, yet never mention self care, mental health and spiritual enlightenment. We create a society of enormous, ever-present, life long pressure and then marvel in disbelief when someone snaps. And you're telling me it's a gun problem?

Keep talking, GWAE. It helps. Little by little, it helps.

Hey, Face.

I get trashed every time I try to join this conversation, but here I am again.

I agree with nearly everything you've said, not just what, but why.

So, here's something a little different as far as going forward. Be gentle.

Why do we let people own thousands of rounds? Banana clips and drums are closely related, but in the neighborhood.

Let's say we start over. Let people buy or keep all the guns they want. Make it illegal, and ENFORCE it, for people to possess more than, say, 6 rounds of any one caliber.

Make the only point of sale gun ranges. Control the purchase of ammo similarly to Sudafed sales, where your ammo must be accounted for. You want to shoot a gun, buy x amount of ammo at the range, check x amount of brass back in.

You fired your gun for whatever reason off the range, you must turn in brass to restock. And if the gun was used illegally, no more ammo for you, for any of your guns .

Part of gun ownership could be, upon registration (and yes, they should he registered), you agree you can be checked for too much ammo in your possession. And overage can result in confiscation of all your ammo. Same with unregistered guns if found.

I recognize there's a 4th Amendment argument to be made. However, I look at what's required for anyone to drive a car, training/licensing/periodic review, and it's not unreasonable. I look at involuntary drug testing to be hired and retained in millions of jobs, and again, it's not unreasonable. I think it would be effective, but I have no stats since it hasn't been tried.

Definitely eliminate 30 round loads, drums, hi-capacity magazines. Nobody should be able to spray a couple hundred rounds in a few seconds. Make em reload, at least, to give the ggwag a fighting chance.

Even if you think this is an automatic duh, no, I'd like you to say exactly WHY it wouldn't work, or at least help mitigate the situation . Thanks.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Hey, Face.

I get trashed every time I try to join this conversation, but here I am again.

I agree with nearly everything you've said, not just what, but why.

So, here's something a little different as far as going forward. Be gentle.

Why do we let people own thousands of rounds? Banana clips and drums are closely related, but in the neighborhood.

Let's say we start over. Let people buy or keep all the guns they want. Make it illegal, and ENFORCE it, for people to possess more than, say, 6 rounds of any one caliber.

Make the only point of sale gun ranges. Control the purchase of ammo similarly to Sudafed sales, where your ammo must be accounted for. You want to shoot a gun, buy x amount of ammo at the range, check x amount of brass back in.

You fired your gun for whatever reason off the range, you must turn in brass to restock. And if the gun was used illegally, no more ammo for you, for any of your guns .

Part of gun ownership could be, upon registration (and yes, they should he registered), you agree you can be checked for too much ammo in your possession. And overage can result in confiscation of all your ammo. Same with unregistered guns if found.

I recognize there's a 4th Amendment argument to be made. However, I look at what's required for anyone to drive a car, training/licensing/periodic review, and it's not unreasonable. I look at involuntary drug testing to be hired and retained in millions of jobs, and again, it's not unreasonable. I think it would be effective, but I have no stats since it hasn't been tried.

Definitely eliminate 30 round loads, drums, hi-capacity magazines. Nobody should be able to spray a couple hundred rounds in a few seconds. Make em reload, at least, to give the ggwag a fighting chance.

Even if you think this is an automatic duh, no, I'd like you to say exactly WHY it wouldn't work, or at least help mitigate the situation . Thanks.

I know your post was directed at face but I agree with what you said. When the constitution was written they wanted everyone to bear arms. However the arms that they had back then were muzzle loaders. You want 1000 rounds back then sure, why not. Good luck loading it 25 times to kill. I saw a meme, and maybe it was on here, were Thomas Jefferson comes back from the dead and laughs that we are still using his words. Times changes, laws change, language changes, and interpretations change.

BBB, I am guessing that the argument Face will make will be something along the lines of if we are under armed then the government or another government can take us over. Sorry face, I don't mean to put words into your mouth. That is just the argument that I have heard before from others.

What danger are you in from a guy who owns a thousand rounds but only fires at a gun range? Do we ban cars that go 200mph even though most are driven at forty?

Gang stats are not irrelevant though. When there is shooting at an upscale shopping center all the white folks are looking around for the firecrackers while all the black folks are on the floor hunting for cover.

A five shot 'banker's special' is safer because it is more concealable and more reliable and if one thru five have not solved your problem number six sure ain't likely to help you much either.
CORRECTION: 'sure is not likely to help'

Quote: FleaStiff

What danger are you in from a guy who owns a thousand rounds but only fires at a gun range? Do we ban cars that go 200mph even though most are driven at forty?

Gang stats are not irrelevant though. When there is shooting at an upscale shopping center all the white folks are looking around for the firecrackers while all the black folks are on the floor hunting for cover.

A five shot 'banker's special' is safer because it is more concealable and more reliable and if one thru five have not solved your problem number six sure ain't likely to help you much either.
CORRECTION: 'sure is not likely to help'

a guy who owns 1000 rounds can shoot 1000 people. A guy who owns 50 rounds can only shoot 50 people.

people are not using a 200 mph car to kill people so it is not a valid comparison.

Quote: FleaStiff

What danger are you in from a guy who owns a thousand rounds but only fires at a gun range? Do we ban cars that go 200mph even though most are driven at forty?

Gang stats are not irrelevant though. When there is shooting at an upscale shopping center all the white folks are looking around for the firecrackers while all the black folks are on the floor hunting for cover.

A five shot 'banker's special' is safer because it is more concealable and more reliable and if one thru five have not solved your problem number six sure ain't likely to help you much either.
CORRECTION: 'sure is not likely to help'

Paddock is an extreme example, but he had:

" stockpiled an arsenal of weapons, associated equipment and ammunition that included fourteen AR-15 rifles (twelve of which had bump stocks and 100-round magazines), eight AR-10 rifles, a bolt-action rifle, and a revolver. "

He fired more than 1100 rounds.

He killed 58 and wounded another 422. A total of 851 people were injured in the stampede.

Source: wiki

Why did anyone need 1100 rounds (he owned thousands more, that's just how many he shot in less than 10 minutes) in their possession? Who needs a 100 round magazine? Nobody needs those things.

Who needs multiple homes?
Who need a paycheck over xxxx?
Who need more than one car?
Who needs a car if they live in the city?

Who in America wants to live like a Communist?

Quote: MaxPen

Who needs multiple homes?
Who need a paycheck over xxxx?
Who need more than one car?
Who needs a car if they live in the city?

Who in America wants to live like a Communist?

just like a 200mph car, these items are not being used to mass murder.

Actually, I like the Don Knotts rule: limit ammunition that law enforcement carries. Oh sure, let a SWAT team have a million rounds, but limit the highway patrol officer to one or two rounds. Maybe he can have a locked box with additional ammo in the trunk of his vehicle. That rule would save lives.

Policemen walking the beat in England don't carry guns. It's actually a reasonable idea.

Police forces are buying tanks, yet people who live 2-3 hours from a police station should be limited to 6 rounds? Isn't that assymmetric?

Quote: beachbumbabs

Paddock is an extreme example, but he had:

Who needs a 100 round magazine? Nobody needs those things.

Nobody needs more laws, more cops, more intrusion into our lives either.

Quote: gordonm888

Actually, I like the Don Knotts rule: limit ammunition that law enforcement carries. Oh sure, let a SWAT team have a million rounds, but limit the highway patrol officer to one or two rounds. Maybe he can have a locked box with additional ammo in the trunk of his vehicle. That rule would save lives.

Policemen walking the beat in England don't carry guns. It's actually a reasonable idea.

Police forces are buying tanks, yet people who live 2-3 hours from a police station should be limited to 6 rounds? Isn't that assymmetric?

there it is, I figured the police state argument would show up. Maybe the police are trigger happy and have the need for more firearms because that is what they are going up against. Limit the amo that people have and the governement can save money on the type of weapons that their police have. If they know they are not going up against 1000 rounds then they can use more tazers and bean bag guns.

Quote: GWAE

a guy who owns 1000 rounds can shoot 1000 people. A guy who owns 50 rounds can only shoot 50 people.

people are not using a 200 mph car to kill people so it is not a valid comparison.

I've read that in Iraq on average there were 15 thousand rounds fired per person hit, and these were by trained warriors. Using the thousand round suggestion here, that would only be 1/15th person hit.

This article says 250,000 per. https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-28580666.html

Why can't all the anti gun people just wear bullet proof vests?

Quote: GWAE

BBB, I am guessing that the argument Face will make will be something along the lines of if we are under armed then the government or another government can take us over. Sorry face, I don't mean to put words into your mouth. That is just the argument that I have heard before from others.

If our government truly turns tyrannical, good gun owners aren't going to be able to stop it. The US government has so many weapons to crush us many times over if it gets into the wrong hands.

Quote: petroglyph

Why can't all the anti gun people just wear bullet proof vests?

I would prefer my body not to look more like Trump than it already does.

If I’m not mistaken, the effectiveness of much of our military’s “guns” would be nothing, in the case where our government becomes truly tyrannical. They wouldnt be bombing neighborhoods, it would be close-quarters battles. AK-47s aren’t too shabby when it comes to that. It’d be pretty tough for “the government” to win that war. Think Vietnam. Home turf advantage. Having guns doesn’t mean we would win against the government, it means they won’t even try.


@babs, if I understood your post correctly, you’re saying to limit the number of rounds someone can have to six??? I know you know enough about guns to know six rounds is essentially nothing. Going to the shooting range and having to re-stock every 6 shots is a bit ridiculous. Can’t go hunting for that matter, either (other than maybe a few big game where you get very few shots off, but idk enough about bigger game hunting to really know for sure). If I have to protect myself from home invaders or being robbed on the street, 6 rounds is definitely going to be better than 0....but that’s also assuming I have 6 rounds ready for my preferred defense weapon. Tyrannical government? You’re screwed.

If you’re going to make an argument for limiting the number of rounds, please don’t say some ridiculous number like 6.


Just because I own a car and am over 21 doesn’t mean the government should have the right to inspect my house to make sure I don’t have any alcohol, since drinking and driving is illegal.


The problem isn’t guns. It’s mental health and people being a**holes to each other.

Quote: MaxPen

Who needs a car if they live in the city?

Who in America wants to live like a Communist?

Lol

Most New Yorkers are Communists

Quote: GWAE

just like a 200mph car, these items are not being used to mass murder.

You must have not seen all the news reports on people being mowed down by cars.

Quote: darkoz

Lol

Most New Yorkers are Communists

I might actually agree with you on that.😀

Quote: beachbumbabs

Even if you think this is an automatic duh, no, I'd like you to say exactly WHY it wouldn't work, or at least help mitigate the situation . Thanks.

Gentle is easy. I'm just not sure how to start as, with all gentleness intended, your vision seems like the pipiest of dreams.

There's roughly 1 trillion (with a "T") rounds in private possession. Logistics alone, how would one collect (very roughly) 25 Billion pounds of metal stashed and stored in literally every nook and cranny in the country, from AK to FL, CA to ME? Who is going to handle (very roughly) 10 million metric tons of explosives? Assuming $0.10 a round (a laughable average), who's going to compensate the American public for the tens of billions of dollars they're out?

How are you going to convince the American public to cooperate? How are you going to enforce when they don't? How are you going to shut down the enormous ammo manufacturing industry? How are you going to shut down the enormous home load hobby?

Even NY, which is about as hungry for law as one could get, had as part of the SAFEAct two provisions, one being a lowering of the per-weapon rd limit from 10 to 7, and the requirement to keep guns locked up at home. The former was struck down as arbitrary and capricious, the latter as unenforceable. This is NY, home of the gun law. And it was struck down after already being law by way of EO. You're going even farther into lowering the per-HOUSE limit to just 6, and adding mandatory home inspection, and doing it country wide? Damn Babs, it'd probably be easier to abolish the 2nd altogether. It's just not a feasible proposition.

IF, I dunno, Elon gets a hair up his ass and invents an energy weapon, and it was superior to ballistic weapons in ways that made it the preferred "firearm" of the American public, and the energy source was some battery or energy cell that required precise manufacturing the likes of which could not be easily accomplished at home (not many local ketamine labs around, are there?), then perhaps you would have the control necessary to put .gov in the manufacturing process, get all sales info and follow to the FFL, and ensure they're tracking sales and whatnot.... sure, then maybe you could get the control you need. But cat's so GD far out of the bag on this one it's long dead, and it's G-G-G-Great grand kitties are all running around, all still way the f#$% out of the bag lol. Best case scenario I can envision is a carbon copy of the War on Drugs. Maybe you have a better imagination.

Quote: tringlomane

If our government truly turns tyrannical, good gun owners aren't going to be able to stop it. The US government has so many weapons to crush us many times over if it gets into the wrong hands.

Someday I'm going to really tackle this one, I just can't seem to get it in under twelve pages =p But tring, that thought is so misguided I still haven't figured out how or why people still hold it.

Hear this, please; the largest armed forces in the world, larger than every single armed forces on the planet COMBINED, is the American public. 150mm strong. Look to the history of American combat in guerilla warfare. This is not bombing huge targets from great heights. This is door knocking. How well did the might of the USA fare against ten thousand dudes in pajamas with 60yr old AKs? How well did the finest men and women that ever lived do against a horde of starving rice farmers? Door knocking is not a battle of tech. It's a battle of heart, determination, and pools of blood. Tell me tring, where would this heart and determination come from? Every soldier took the oath I posted this morning. To defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Hear me and remember, the Constitution Does Not Prescribe Our Rights. Our rights are inherent. The Constitution limits the power of government. What soldier here would bare arms against his fellow man? Stand and make your heart known, explain to me how I'm wrong. Those that believe the military would win, you really think the majority of American soldiers would engage in Civil war with their own brothers and sisters.... just to take our guns?

No. It's a ridiculous idea on every single account.

And to GWAE, if he's made it this far, yeah, police state is a very real thing, and an argument worth holding. Jesus man, just look to Detroit circa 1964 or so. Look to the war protests around '70. There's highly documented video proof recent enough your parents lived through it. This s#$%, society, peace.... it's all very fragile. And hell, I know I have a unique view on this, but learn the story of my people some time. See what happens when your only protections are words on paper.

Quote: MaxPen

Who needs multiple homes?
Who need a paycheck over xxxx?
Who need more than one car?
Who needs a car if they live in the city?

Who in America wants to live like a Communist?

Not even pertinent. Assuming this is you arguing with what I said.

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

There is no reason for anybody to need 1100 rounds of ammo. Zip. Zero. If they want to harm themselves, one will be enough. If they're out to kill others, 2 is too many.

Pretending that it's just untested theory on how the US could lower gun death rates is simply to ignore other countries.

But you can't just read the laws of the countries and assume something from that. For instance Venezuela has supposedly restrictive gun laws and you have no guaranteed right to ownership but enforcement is a joke, and gun deaths high.. Whereas when the restrictive gun laws are enforced in other countries they are usually low.

US doesn't have the will to do what is necessary. We know that; why even argue that point? State lines and different laws mean anyone has access to a gun if they can travel or someone can bring it to them. But even in restrictive states there are usually weak points in the enforcement or law.

Quote: beachbumbabs

There is no reason for anybody to need...

Insert literally almost any thing ever. What a person needs can fit in a backpack. What a person "needs" is kinda their decision.

I don't understand all gunners. I know guys with pallets, forget boxes and bricks. I don't get it. I don't understand their mind. I generally like to keep a cache of some sort, and I have for years been lamenting my own because it has been decimated. I just haven't been resupplying, instead focusing my funds elsewhere. This thread made me do an inventory - I got about a half box of .38+P, a number of bindles of Russian 7.62X52mmR, not sure how many because they come wrapped in paper and twine but at least enough to hold the fort, a brick I have no idea where they came from or how I got them because I sure as s#$% didn't buy them....probably 700rds or so sitting right behind me, only about 50 of which I knew I had lol. Oh s#$%....

Lol, just found ~20 - 20g in the truck, another 20 of 12g, a loose handful of 22sr, probably 200 more .22lr, some f#$%ing .17's or some s#$%, which I don't even know because my .17 has been on loan for like 5yrs now..... Jesus Christ, there's a couple more belts of 12g in the basement, another drawer of 20's....~200-300 brass, mostly .44mag and 10mm..... I... don't even know what these are. Too long for .22mag, too thin for .17.... but I got a mess of 'em for some reason. Probably from when gramps died.

If ya'd asked me how much I have, I'd have told you "about 50". I actually have over a thousand easily, and this ain't even the armory. Even if I tried cooperating with you with willingness and vigor, you would've gotten ~2% of what I really had lol. How do you legislate and enforce that?

@Gamerfreak, you know how the VFD had those stickers to put on windows to notify of kids and pets? Maybe some "cook off" stickers wouldn't be a bad idea lol

Quote: rxwine

US doesn't have the will to do what is necessary.

Sure we do. We've been fighting attacks on the 2nd since 1934, and it's still standing =)

O beautiful for spacious skies
One hundred eighty grains
For purpose built 12 power scopes
400yds of range
America, America
God save some rounds for me
Let thunder roll throughout these hills
God damn it we are freeeeee!!!!

Quote: MaxPen

Who needs multiple homes?
Who need a paycheck over xxxx?
Who need more than one car?
Who needs a car if they live in the city?

Who in America wants to live like a Communist?

For your first question, most people don't actually NEED multiple houses. Maybe two or three at the most in case one of them burns to the ground or something like that. Having multiple houses is usually what an average Joe or Jane does when they win the Lottery to brandish that they won 333 million in cash on just a $2 game. Or what a Pop star or rap star does when they get $50 million to spew about how much bling bling they have in their songs or how they shake their butt in a club in their songs. As to your second question, most people actually need more than one car. Especially working parents. And in a multi generational family, it's not uncommon to see like 8 cars in one household. 80 year old Greatgrandparents each have their own cars, their 60 year old children(Grandparents themselves)each have their own cars,their 40 year old children have 2 cars. Their 19 and 20 year old children each have their own cars. In this scenario, I am implying that each generation became parents at exactly 20,a and that 4 different generations all live in the same house, which is a stretch, but go with it. ;)

There are a few things in life one should own at least an amount equal to their body weight, ammo being one of them.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Not even pertinent. Assuming this is you arguing with what I said.

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

There is no reason for anybody to need 1100 rounds of ammo. Zip. Zero. If they want to harm themselves, one will be enough. If they're out to kill others, 2 is too many.

https://www.lauraloomer.us/blog/exclusive-provisional-ballot-boxes-left-inside-avis-rental-car-at-fort-lauderdale-airport

Quote: MaxPen

There are a few things in life one should own at least an amount equal to their body weight, ammo being one of them.

There’s no way you have 450 pounds of ammo Max..... ;)

Quote: RS

There’s no way you have 450 pounds of ammo Max..... ;)

I would be able to eat for free at that burger joint downtown if I did.

Quote: petroglyph

https://www.lauraloomer.us/blog/exclusive-provisional-ballot-boxes-left-inside-avis-rental-car-at-fort-lauderdale-airport

There's a lot of guessing and speculation going on there. Kind of taking a couple pictures and stitching a story together.

The gray box has a list on the side of polling place supplies. Its blurry, but the instructions show its a checklist of things to take from the election office out to a site. It could have been used in a past election to store provisionals, could now hold blank forms as that would be the POINT of having a check list taped to the side, could be garbage but has to be controlled/verified NOT to contain ballots. Could be (and extremely more likely is) those or several other reasons before those boxes contain a SINGLE marked ballot, let alone a boxful.

You really, if you haven't worked with Florida elections, have no idea what a nightmare of chain of custody and validation they have in place for election and voting forms. Between the mess of the 2000 recount, and the efforts to purge and suppress minority and immigrant voting, everything is witnessed, dated, time stamped, IDd, on and on.

Once those boxes have been to a polling place that is using live ballots, no matter WHAT they hauled away, the boxes would have been checked for content with witnesses, sealed and tagged, then returned to the election office. And, yeah, the possibilities include actual live ballots. But a very remote chance. This was some volunteer hauling office supplies and signs.

Rental cars aren't usually in the airport security perimeter, but I guess it was important to someone, and they finally got a response from some police. Not sure what FLL layout is for Avis garages.

A new bill being drafted by the Big Brother lawmakers in New York State, will give authorities the right to review a person’s Internet search history over one year, and social media history over the past three years, before they can purchase a firearm.

Quote: MaxPen

If more people were armed in public these incidents wouldn't be so deadly.

"More guns" seems to be working out pretty well in Chicago.

Quote: beachbumbabs

There's a lot of guessing and speculation going on there. Kind of taking a couple pictures and stitching a story together.

The gray box has a list on the side of polling place supplies. Its blurry, but the instructions show its a checklist of things to take from the election office out to a site. It could have been used in a past election to store provisionals, could now hold blank forms as that would be the POINT of having a check list taped to the side, could be garbage but has to be controlled/verified NOT to contain ballots. Could be (and extremely more likely is) those or several other reasons before those boxes contain a SINGLE marked ballot, let alone a boxful.

You really, if you haven't worked with Florida elections, have no idea what a nightmare of chain of custody and validation they have in place for election and voting forms. Between the mess of the 2000 recount, and the efforts to purge and suppress minority and immigrant voting, everything is witnessed, dated, time stamped, IDd, on and on.

Once those boxes have been to a polling place that is using live ballots, no matter WHAT they hauled away, the boxes would have been checked for content with witnesses, sealed and tagged, then returned to the election office. And, yeah, the possibilities include actual live ballots. But a very remote chance. This was some volunteer hauling office supplies and signs.

Rental cars aren't usually in the airport security perimeter, but I guess it was important to someone, and they finally got a response from some police. Not sure what FLL layout is for Avis garages.

Lordy, lordy.

I can empathize with the workers not wanting to touch the boxes. I hope they are full of nothing.

Quote: TigerWu

"More guns" seems to be working out pretty well in Chicago.

About 25 miles from me in a South Suburb of Chicago, a security guard was just killed by the police. He had apprehended a shooter, had his gun drawn and was waiting for the police to come to arrest the shooter. The police came, saw the security guard with a gun out, and killed him.

Quote: FinsRule

About 25 miles from me in a South Suburb of Chicago, a security guard was just killed by the police. He had apprehended a shooter, had his gun drawn and was waiting for the police to come to arrest the shooter. The police came, saw the security guard with a gun out, and killed him.

I thought such things never happened. Somebody better tell Barney Fife.

Quote: MaxPen

There are a few things in life one should own at least an amount equal to their body weight, ammo being one of them.

also khakis to block the government tracking systems in the nut sack area