Guns, concealed carry, and home defense
Quote: 1BBThis sounds like the Phoenix Program. Was your friend a member of SEAL Team ONE by any chance?
He was seal Team One. He is the 3rd author on the diving technology book, and NY Times article about him. I believe he was class of 1966. He could easily have been part of Phoenix, but I don't remember him mentioning it by name. I was 17 at the fall of Saigon, so most of the serious action occurred when I was very young.
Quote: FaceWhich side did you take? I'd not mind hearing a pro-rifle arguement. Then again, I also like the betting systems threads ;)
My shotgun is downstairs in the safe at condition 3 (empty chamber, loaded tube, with the action ready to pump without manipulating the release). My rifle is in the push-button box in the bedroom (also in condition 3, empty chamber, ready to run the bolt to load).
I can't see any reason to limit oneself to the limited range and lack of precision of a shotgun when you could just as easily have a rifle. This was especially true when I lived on about 5 acres. Here in the suburbs the fight is less-likely to involve rifle ranges. That said, if you KNOW the fight is going to be well-suited to the shotgun, it is devastating.
The rifle is smaller, lighter, has box-fed 20 or 30 round mags, and can project force from the muzzle to 200 yards and beyond without adjustment of anything or a "select-slug" manipulation. I'll take my chances that my adversary will stop with a round or two of M-193 ball to the chest.
Cops carry shotguns because they have to. Those who can carry rifles.
Quote: FleaStiffAll it would have taken is for ONE movie-goer that night to have been armed and taken him out with a head shot.
This came up in my Facebook feed today - apparently the movie theater chain in question has a "no guns" policy (amazing the perpetrator didn't respect it!).
But anyway, that moviegoer would have needed incredibly precise aim or probably a large-caliber handgun. The guy was wearing SWAT-caliber bullet proof equipment (vest, leg coverings, riot helmet). I don't have a background in ballistics so I don't know what it would have taken to penetrate the vest. Would a couple rounds of .45ACP have done it? I have no idea. But only those with lots of training and a gift for accuracy could have landed a head shot under those conditions. I am sort of talking out of my ass here, since I personally don't have combat experience either, but it seems like my statements are reasonable. Taking cover and firing from behind a theater seat at a moving target who is picking off citizens with an assault rifle is a little bit different than target practice at the range.
Yes, you could get him. Maybe. People stumbling over seats, or deciding to suddenly stand up and run for it having decided he's going to kill them if they stay put.
Depending on where he is, you could also hit someone behind him if you missed.
But, even under worse case, when he comes around the seats to shoot you up close, then maybe you've got the best shot possible. I'd certainly have a gun ready in that case -- 'cause what's the other choice then?
I'm sorry, but that should be illegal.
Quote: QuadDeucesI can't see any reason to limit oneself to the limited range and lack of precision of a shotgun when you could just as easily have a rifle. This was especially true when I lived on about 5 acres.
I can think of several =) At least in NY, I can't think of one single situation where I'd need to "reach out and touch someone". If someone is rummaging through my shed (approx 40yds from home) and I plunk him, I go to jail. If someone breaks into my house, flees when he sees me, and I plunk him at the end of my driveway (about 20 yds), I go to jail. Hell, even if I shoot him at the end of the hallway (maybe 7yds), I'd probably go to jail. About the only time I'm allowed to burn someone down is when my life is in immediate danger, ie someone's coming right at me and is within range to do damage. Unless someone's bunkered down across the street and is firing at me (incredibly unlikely), I can't see the use for a rifle. Not to mention the round will probably pierce him and breach the home, as well as permanantly damage my hearing (I was nearly deaf for an entire day shooting the M-4 out in a field without protection, just "one time' to see what it sounded like. Inside would put a hurtin' on me).
For home defense, a shotgun is perfect except for it unweildliness. If they could somehow make a semi auto blunderbuss, that'd be my go-to house gun ;)
Quote: AcesAndEightsThis came up in my Facebook feed today - apparently the movie theater chain in question has a "no guns" policy (amazing the perpetrator didn't respect it!).
But anyway, that moviegoer would have needed incredibly precise aim or probably a large-caliber handgun. The guy was wearing SWAT-caliber bullet proof equipment (vest, leg coverings, riot helmet). I don't have a background in ballistics so I don't know what it would have taken to penetrate the vest. Would a couple rounds of .45ACP have done it? I have no idea. But only those with lots of training and a gift for accuracy could have landed a head shot under those conditions. I am sort of talking out of my ass here, since I personally don't have combat experience either, but it seems like my statements are reasonable. Taking cover and firing from behind a theater seat at a moving target who is picking off citizens with an assault rifle is a little bit different than target practice at the range.
Have you ever seen the results from getting shot while wearing gear? Gear protects a life, but it doesn't prevent injury. I've heard it's like getting hit by a bat, complete with good bruising and even cracked bones. But as far as penetrating that stuff, I'd highly doubt your average carrying citizen carries a gun capable. There's guns that'll do it, but they're BIG hunting pieces unfit for typical carry. In any case, I'd rather "hit him with a bat" before he guns me down. I'd rather have a chance at a headshot, rather than cowering awaiting my doom. I'd rather possibly hit an innocent and maybe stop him than definitely not hit an inncoent while he mows them all down.
Quote: pacomartinAn AR-15 assault rifle, a Remington 12 gauge shot gun, and two .40 Glock handgun and protective gear. I am betting he bought most of that stuff in the past year. I assume he purchased the tear gas as well.
I'm sorry, but that should be illegal.
What part? Other than the armor and the gas, I have all of those and more. Make it illegal, and I as well as every other upholder of the law loses them while every crim and perp continues to carry.
of guns. Its the guns fault, not the guy who shot
the gun. They do the same with SUV's on the news.
"An SUV killed 4 people in a freeway accident today."
No driver, apparently, just a roving evil SUV.
Bloomburg is on the news demanding Obama and
Romney do something about guns. Like thats going
to happen in an election year.
Quote: FaceWhat part? Other than the armor and the gas, I have all of those and more. Make it illegal, and I as well as every other upholder of the law loses them while every crim and perp continues to carry.
I am willing to bet if you show us your acquisition and destruction cycle it reflects that of an earnest gun collector. There is a periodic additions and subtractions over a period of years. You probably also have a record of purchasing cabinets and other stuff to safely secure your weapons.
It is not so much that you own the same weaponry, it's that he went out and acquired all this material in the last two months. Along with the armor, and the tear gas and whatever else he needed.
Standard surveillance tells you that rates of acquisition and levels of communication mean a lot. Remember we are not tracking a military operative who is trying to cover his tracks by secretly acquiring weapons off the grid. This is a nut who is systematically purchasing the things he needs to fulfill his deranged fantasy.
I am also willing to believe that there are a lot of businessmen who go out an purchase a kevlar vest to put under their suitcoat. That is a man who wants to put something that increases his chance of survival. I am willing to believe the men that purchase full body armor that must be worn overtly are much fewer and far between. Coupled with buying four guns and gas in a few months you have someone that should be checked out.
Quote: rxwineI can think of a lot better places than a crowded darkened theater with lots of panicked people to have to go toe to toe with a vested armed intruder.
So can I, it's being stripped of the option that sucks. I carry in places like that anyway. All they can do (In Nevada) is trespass you.
Rule 4: Be sure of your target.
Quote: pacomartinAn AR-15 assault rifle, a Remington 12 gauge shot gun, and two .40 Glock handgun and protective gear. I am betting he bought most of that stuff in the past year. I assume he purchased the tear gas as well.
I'm sorry, but that should be illegal.
So should publicly insulting politicians, comrade.
I'm not sorry, but it's not illegal.
And the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle, no matter what Chuck Schumer tells you.
Quote: FaceI can think of several =) At least in NY, I can't think of one single situation where I'd need to "reach out and touch someone". If someone is rummaging through my shed (approx 40yds from home) and I plunk him, I go to jail.
That implies that under normal circumstances (lwhen shooting looters on sight is not accepted practice) shooting such a perp would be sound defensive practice. I don't care if I'm in Texas or not. I wouldn't shoot in that situation.
Like I said, if you KNOW you're going to be faced with a shotgun problem, it is devastating.
I'd worry more about one of the 8 to 12 00 pellets going stray than I would worry about over-penetration with 5.56mm FMJ.
Which is only fair.Quote: FaceI can think of several =) At least in NY, I can't think of one single situation where I'd need to "reach out and touch someone". If someone is rummaging through my shed (approx 40yds from home) and I plunk him, I go to jail.
Which is only fair. The country isn't in a state of anarchy, and there is no death penalty for larceny anyway.Quote: FaceIf someone breaks into my house, flees when he sees me, and I plunk him at the end of my driveway (about 20 yds), I go to jail. Hell, even if I shoot him at the end of the hallway (maybe 7yds), I'd probably go to jail.
On the other hand, if someone breaks into your house and does not flee or surrender when he sees you, it's only fair that you use all available means of defense with no restraint.
Quote: FaceHave you ever seen the results from getting shot while wearing gear? Gear protects a life, but it doesn't prevent injury. I've heard it's like getting hit by a bat, complete with good bruising and even cracked bones.
There have been fatalities.
Quote: FaceBut as far as penetrating that stuff, I'd highly doubt your average carrying citizen carries a gun capable.
There's plenty of guns capable of doing it. Even your average 9mil Glock will go through any vest if you load it with Russian 7N21 ammo. But not only is ammunition like that illegal, you can't even buy some steel core ammo that is not properly AP.
isn't guns, its that we used to have all the really dangerous
people locked up in institutions and now we don't. The killers
mom immediately knew it was her son and she lives in San
Diego. How did she know that? Because he was dropping
hints for years, probably. But Charles says getting somebody
committed now is almost impossible, thanks to the feel good
Libs. Better too have them killing people, I guess.
Quote: WongBoreally?ArmaLite (and eventually Colt), the manufacturer of the AR-15 described it as "a selective fire assault rifle"...
i know it is not banned and is legal.
Unless you get an automatic capable variant - which you can't get unless you're properly set up legally - it's not an assault rifle. However much the seller would like you to think it is in order to boost sales.
Quote: EvenBob
...Charles says getting committed now is almost impossible, thanks to the feel good
Libs.
blaming liberals for this, just makes you sound like a buffoon...
if memory serves it was bonzo's co-star, reagan, who was the champion of de-instituionalization.
but you don't hear people blaming him.
I work in Downtown Manhattan. I blame him every single day.Quote: WongBoblaming liberals for this, just makes you sound like a buffoon...
if memory serves it was bonzo's co-star, reagan, who was the champion of de-instituionalization.
but you don't hear people blaming him.
Quote: P90On the other hand, if someone breaks into your house and does not flee or surrender when he sees you, it's only fair that you use all available means of defense with no restraint.
Fair, yes. Legal in NY? Not as far as I can tell. It's a different world here. You'd better be able to prove your were in a life threatening situation or it's over for you.
Quote: P90Unless you get an automatic capable variant - which you can't get unless you're properly set up legally - it's not an assault rifle. However much the seller would like you to think it is in order to boost sales.
My Sheriff buddy and I were just talking about this the other day. They just came out with a stock you can put on an M-4 that makes it full auto, legal, of all places, in NYS.
Quote: WongBoif memory serves it was bonzo's co-star, reagan, who was the champion of de-instituionalization.
Thats just naive. If you do the research, you'll see it goes
way back to the mid 50's. Kennedy was involved in the
early 60's, the gov't made it harder for states in the mid
60's to get funding, the ACLU was majorly involved for
'patients rights'. More and more people were being
released on a out patient basis, on a take-your-meds
regimen. By the time it got to the early 80's, it was a
snowball that had been rolling downhill for 25 years,
picking up speed and its just happened reach its peak
when Reagan was president. Its all about money and
all about the increasing awareness of civil rights. To
blame it on Reagan is ridiculous. States were releasing
the mentally ill from state institutions long before
Reagan was president.
Geraldo made his bones by exposing a state mental
hospital in the 70's. Things like that went much farther
to deinstitutionalizing mental patients than anything
Reagan did.
I, too, would like to keep guns out of the hands of crazies, but I don't see a way to effectively do that. Stricter and stricter laws don't positively affect the criminal side as much as they negatively harm the legal, and they erode the freedoms we have as all laws do. In rural NY, it took me 2 years and several hundred dollars as it is. That's too much. Guys like WongBo and s2dbaker have a zillion further hoops they must jump through, if they're allowed at all.
I don't know what the answer is, I just know what it's not. Laws only affect the legals, and the legals aren't the problem.
Quote: FaceTo paco, if I'm reading right, you think the way he obtained them is the problem. All that stuff within 10 years is ok, the same stuff within 10 days is not. I get that, I can even agree somewhat.
I don't know what the answer is, I just know what it's not. Laws only affect the legals, and the legals aren't the problem.
I bet if this guy was required to go to a shooting range, and develop and demonstrate some level of proficiency with his first gun before purchasing his 2nd gun, the second purchase would never have happened.
While your sentiment is basically true, this guy was perfectly legal until yesterday. It's a different problem then controlling the monsters in Mexico.
How many of these people really knew how to shoot, or to respect a gun?
- Holmes, James Eagan, 24 July 20, 2012 Aurora, CO U.S.killed 12, 59 injured
- McLendon, Michael, 28 March 10, 2009 Kinston, Samson & Geneva, AL U.S. 10 killed, 6 injuries
- Wong, Jiverly Antares, 41 April 3, 2009 Binghamton, NY U.S. killed 13, 4 injured
- Hennard, George Pierre, 35 Oct. 16,1991 Killeen, TX U.S. killed 23, 19-22 injured
- Pough, James Edward, 42 June 17/18,1990 Jacksonville, FL U.S. killed 11, 6 injured
- Huberty, James Oliver, 41 July 18, 1984 San Diego, CA U.S. killed 21, 19 injured
- Starkweather, Charles, 19 Nov. 30 1957 & Jan. 21-29, 1957 Lincoln & Bennet, NE Douglas, WY U.S. 11 killed, no injuries
- Unruh, Howard Barton, 28 Sep. 6, 1949 Camden, NJ U.S. killed 13, 3 injured
or as an indicator of mental health
Quote: FaceHave you ever seen the results from getting shot while wearing gear?
I searched unsuccessfully for the '80s story of the Federal agents who finally caught up with a tax evader with a roadblock out in the sticks. IMO they went about it hot dog style, heavily armed cowboys wearing bullet-proof vests of some kind. Evidently they thought it made them invincible and didn't properly take cover; the guy opened up on them with a .44 magnum Ruger carbine [IIRC] and tore them up. At least one of them died, getting hit in the chest. The bullets didnt go through, but it was like getting hit in the chest with a sledge hammer.
Take cover? WHY? With that kind of fire power, seats, walls and even some fatso in front of you won't make much of a difference.
Take careful aim and go for a shot full in the face.
Quote: WongBoi don't really see greater proficiency as a preventative measure
or as an indicator of mental health
Probably not all the time. But most of the time, the guy that goes berserk does not want to train and become proficient. He wants immediate fulfillment of his fantasy of extreme power over other peoples lives. His targets are directly in front of him, and completely helpless. He simply takes advantage of his firepower.
Charles Whitman (Tower of University of Austin in 1966) would appear to be an exception as he had some proficiency in guns before he began his sniper attack.
Quote: pacomartinCharles Whitman (Tower of University of Austin in 1966) would appear to be an exception as he had some proficiency in guns before he began his sniper attack.
I have to be careful not to sound like I admire this guy or something stupid like that, but he was an awesome shot. When you shoot up or down you have to keep making adjustments... unadjusted, the rounds go over your target, so he had to deal with that. But it was like he never missed. He picked off one guy who sprinted suddenly to try to make it to safety. I can't tell you what a difficult shot that is.
take a look at these guys(and gal), who bring honor to the skill...
top ten snipers in history
Quote: WongBobeing a civilian sniper is a horrible thing to seem to admire.
Let me repeat, I do not admire this monster!!
Actually, it is a sad case. IIRC he killed his mother first. He was discovered to have a brain tumor that may have made him irrational.
Quote: odiousgambitHe was discovered to have a brain tumor that may have made him irrational.
I used to commute with a sniper for the FBI in Washington. I moved his bag once, and I swear it weighed 60 pounds. He was a very deliberate person whose voice rarely went up. Exactly like you would expect a sniper to behave. If I ever was in a bar with my SEAL friend, and somebody started going amuck and shouting and making a scene, he would get very calm and stop talking.
I don't have any statistics to prove it, but I suspect that very few people who are trained in guns are involved in murders with them, especially ones involving more than one person. If Charles Whitman had a tumor, it could explain the exception.
Career criminals will get their guns either way, most any that they want.
For one-time use, with modern availability of power tools and ready steel tubing, a zip gun is ridiculously simple to make.
Even if everything gun-related is banned, one can take a direct drive nailer's action and cartridge for priming, attach a piece of steel tubing, fill it with same propellant, add a wad, ball bearings for shot, overshot wad. And this goes way beyond a plain zip gun in terms of reliability, usability and firepower, it's a quality weapon, you can figure out further improvements. Ban nailers, no problem, zip gun designs aren't normally based on them anyway, way too expensive.
Quote: P90For one-time use, with modern availability of power tools and ready steel tubing, a zip gun is ridiculously simple to make.
If you offer anti-gun lobbies the option of home made vs factory made, they will go with first option 100% and ban pro made guns. I'm pretty sure they'd be happy to banish manufactured guns and worry about home made only.
in his life. He made an appointment at a shooting range
and never showed up. The guy who runs the place
said he had a weird messge on his answering machine
where he had lowered his voice as deep as it would go.
He had a 100 round cannister on the assault weapon which
is reknowned for jamming, which it apparently did. So
he mostly used spray and pray on the crowd with the Glock.
If he had experience, he could have killed a lot more
people by aiming his weapon. Thank god he didn't know
what he was doing.
For one-time use, with modern availability of power tools and ready steel tubing, a zip gun is ridiculously simple to make. "
Made my first one in 1956. Piece of wood, a key, 3 rubber bands, and the third section from a car aerial. Good enough to kill rays at the dump. Ooops, nowadays are called landfills. LOL
Quote: EvenBobLooks like this idiot from the theatre never shot a gun
in his life. He made an appointment at a shooting range
and never showed up. The guy who runs the place
said he had a weird messge on his answering machine
where he had lowered his voice as deep as it would go.
He had a 100 round cannister on the assault weapon which
is reknowned for jamming, which it apparently did. So
he mostly used spray and pray on the crowd with the Glock.
If he had experience, he could have killed a lot more
people by aiming his weapon. Thank god he didn't know
what he was doing.
As paco offered, it seems a lot are just crazies who grab a gun and go for it. Other than the Texas incident, the one he left off and that struck me as notable was the DC sniper. That one was a little strange as it covered many days, and it was just so different. Not a one time, random spray like all the others, but day after day of single kill shoot and runs. I'm not sure which one is more frightening.
Of course the sample size isn't enough, and of course I'm admittedly heavily biased, but one one hand you have a place where every (legal) person is forced out of their guns (Colorado movie theatre), get confronted, and 70 people get shot. On the other you have a guy carrying (Florida internet cafe), get confronted, and he plunks the two perps and everyone's safe. I know this means nothing statistically, but there you go. Friendly fire is certainly an issue, but something tells me that the casualty count wouldn't be 70 if there were men and women carrying in CO.
Quote: FleaStiff
Take cover? WHY? With that kind of fire power, seats, walls and even some fatso in front of you won't make much of a difference.
Those aren't cover. They're concealment.
Quote: rainmancriminals don't abide by the law. You can pass a law that bans guns all you want, then there will be a huge black market and any criminal who wants one will have one. The only people who won't have one is the good guy who abides by the law.
We are not talking about "criminals" in the classic sense. Criminals may be vicious, psychologically unbalanced, but they are usually operating in some sense that they think they can get away with something and profit. I am talking about the handful of people who are operating under extreme fantasy of superhuman power and delusion. They also might be suicidal since many of these rampages end with the shooter either killing himself, or making it nearly impossible for the police not to shoot them.
You are confusing two different issues.
Quote: pacomartinI am talking about the handful of people who are operating under extreme fantasy of superhuman power and delusion. They also might be suicidal since many of these rampages end with the shooter either killing himself, or making it nearly impossible for the police not to shoot them.
1) Can't you all wait at laast till the facts come in before trying to score off political opints off a tragedy?
2) Look at 1)
Even if declared insane for various reasons, he is, at most, in the same league of "insane" as any other person with fanatical devotion to a political goal (less insane even than religious fundamentalists), and fully functioning in all practical regards.
Quote: Nareed1) Can't you all wait at laast till the facts come in before trying to score off political opints off a tragedy?
2) Look at 1)
Tell that to the Honorable Senator Feinstein.
Quote: Nareed1) Can't you all wait at laast till the facts come in before trying to score off political opints off a tragedy?
2) Look at 1)
That seems a little harsh.
I think my position is fairly neutral politically. I am not in favor of complete restriction of guns, nor of unlimited access. Just that a person shows some indication of respect for the weapon before he can buy another one. I think that the sniper madman is largely fictional. The much greater danger is the madman who wants to exert power over the helpless. For that he just needs the necessary equipment, and no training.
There was quite a big news story in February about how Target Drugs finds pregnant women by their buying habits. Given those kind of stories, it's only natural to wonder why it is not possible to detect potential nut jobs by their highly unusual buying habits. People don't need arsenals overnight.
Quote: pacomartinThat seems a little harsh.
Well, it was not aimed only at you. But it was meant to be harsh.
Quote: EvenBob.... he could have killed a lot more people by aiming his weapon. Thank god he didn't know what he was doing.
Why not post this in the "Celebrate Religion Here" thread? I think God must've blurred Holmes's focus so as to keep the body count down. Nice work, God!
Quote: pacomartin
Just that a person shows some indication of respect for the weapon before he can buy
and who is the almighty one that decides whether or not you have "respect" for a weapon?
Quote: vert1276and who is the almighty one that decides whether or not you have "respect" for a weapon?
A simple proficiency test at a gun club. At the very minimum you have to show up ten times and shoot at a target for an hour. You have to demonstrate to someone that you know how to clean a gun, and that you can pass a written test just like you pass a written test to get a driver's license.
I am under the impression that some of these guys hardly even shoot the guns. Maybe they take them to a field somewhere just to make sure a bullet comes out when they pull a trigger. But the first time they use them is on a crowd of people.
Quote: pacomartin
I am under the impression that some of these guys hardly even shoot the guns. Maybe they take them to a field somewhere just to make sure a bullet comes out when they pull a trigger. But the first time they use them is on a crowd of people.
Look at this guy who did the shooting. He has a message
on his answering machine tying to make him sound like
a comic book villian. He dyes his hair bright red. He's a
loon. I'm sure he thought guns work just like they do in
the movies, pick it up and it kills somebody. The gun does
all the work, the shooter just holds it. He didn't need any
practice, he's been taught that the evil resides in the gun,
not in the person who uses it.
Ansd now he's sitting in court with a baffled look on his
face, thinking hey, arrest the guns, its their fault, I didn't
do anything.
