The Florida *Gun show loophole*

Page 4 of 5  


The entire Bill of Rights was written by James Madison, who also wrote most of the Constitution.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/16/2016 10:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

Right. The other 54 delegates who attended were just there for the free food. iirc, Madison wasn't even on the Committee of Detail. In any case Madison, a Federalist at the time, did a 180 at the founding of the Democratic-Republican party. Then he was against a national bank before he was for it. He was also against a war with Britain before he was for it. He'd be a good role model for Clinton.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Was he at the Pulse that night? Then what does this prove other than a highly trained and practiced "trick" shooter can achieve (after years of practice) firing rates approaching a "Black Mamba?"
Annie Oakely could split a playing card held edge-on from thirty paces, she hit dimes tossed into the air, she shot cigarettes from her husband's lips, and, a playing card being thrown into the air was shot multiple times before it touched the ground. So effing what? She wasn't at the Pulse either. If you're trying to prove that any ditch-brained human being can now "buy" trick speedshooter skill, I'd agree. And I further stipulate that represents a great danger to US citizens because we haven't been able to decelerate the frequency and severity of mass killings by hi-capacity firearms. Just like Republicans have left the elite, US citizens could leave the NRA in droves if they believed that it was exacerbating the problem.
With guns like the Sig Sauer MCX you don't need to practice (or even aim in a packed nightclub). You just have to twitch your finger. He bought the rifle a few days earlier and managed to kill and maim nearly 100 people on his (presumably) first murder spree. He was well-armed but certainly not well-regulated. Back when the 2A was drafted, one would need a cannon or a platoon of Marines to achieve the kill power that Omar had in one small package.
Just don't be surprised if the mood of the country changes and gun-control advocates multiply. Gays are banding together already, seeing it as a direct attack on them. They managed to ram gay marriage down Conservative America's throat in fairly short order. Gun control may soon follow because people are no longer buying the BS like "one good guy with a gun" can stop these events.
The newest line of NRA BS is that a .223 is so anemic that it's banned in many states for deerhunting. Seems to have killed 49 people without any problem at all. I think the NRA are in for the fight of their life against the gay lobby. With their refusal to even get behind not selling guns to people on the NoFly list the NRA totters on the edge of extinction, just like the Republican Romney elites.
As to whether a YouTube of an experienced speed shooter proves anything, it more likely proves my point that any idiot can buy that skill in the form of a Sig Sauer MCXb. And he did.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:13:20 -0400, "Robert Green"

The real answer is "Fight back". If these people had fought with this guy, he might have got a couple of them but certainly not more than a few. Instead they just ran around aimlessly waiting their turn to be shot. We need a whole different focus, more like the people on flight 93 who understood if they were going to die, they were going to die fighting. The only flaw in their plan is they waited too long. If they take these guys down before they get to the cockpit, they all live. We should be teaching "fight back" strategies and hope 5-10% of the population actually learns. There are a number of strategies but they all focus on "flank the shooter", "control the gun", "take down the shooter". "beat him to death before the cops get there and tweet the picture of his pummeled body" is an optional activity. I am tired of seeing these guys on TV in their facebook and high school yearbook photos. They should only be showing him in a pool of his own blood.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 12:40:49 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I was wondering about that too. Hard to judge not being there, but flight 93 is a good example. If I went into a bathroom as a retreat, I would not be huddled in the stall. I'd find the best place off to the side of the entrance, where I could rush him from the side as he entered. And I'd find something to toss as a diversion to get his attention off guard, or have another person in there toss something, etc. Figure out how to put the lights out so he can't see.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/22/2016 12:47 PM, trader_4 wrote:

Eventually, some people get to a point of "well, I'm dead if I don't do some thing, so lets do some thing". I have great respect for the "lets roll" people on flight 93. I hope I am never in such a situation. But, should I be, I pray to have the courage.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

I agree. And more and more schools are actually teaching that doctrine. People who have fought back have clearly interrupted rampages that would have taken more lives. They often did it when the shooter was reloading (LIRR and Gifford shootings). I think it's because at that moment it's easiest to believe you won't get shot (sense of lowered risk) and that you can actually stop the slaughter (sense of duty). "Grab the gun" would be a good slogan instead of some that are going around.

I'd expect it's human nature to think "I can just run away - I'll survive" and that's why the Army has to drill new recruits relentlessly to not fold under fire. It's pretty disorienting dealing with gunshots in a dark, enclosed space with people screaming all around you. I think the autopsies will show that some people never even saw the shooter - they were killed by a round that had passed through someone else. I'll bet plenty of them were drunk and stoned, too.

I haven't been watching the news so I'm going to wait until the official report to draw conclusions about what people did because it's too easy to speak ill of the dead. He had surprise, panic, a noisy and probably very brightly flashing rifle in a dark, enclosed space with people screaming. How could they know if he was the only shooter? It's so easy to Monday morning q-back this stuff that I'll wait this time. What scares me most is that the post-shooting analysis will be used by ISIS to train shooter teams. We had better come up with a better solution like vestibules that can detect someone with lots of guns and ammo trying to enter places with large numbers of people and lock them in. And maybe spray them with fentanyl gas like the Russians did in the Moscow Opera House siege. After you've seen people climbing over other people to escape, you understand what panic does to people.

For just a few times in my life I've seen true pandemonium. Almost no one is thinking anything other "How do I get away from the obvious danger?" People turn into animals that will climb over other people to escape. The list of things at least some people will do to survive - even at the expense of others (think Titanic life boats) - is long, appalling and frankly not surprising.

Back then, flyers were asked to cooperate with hijackers who were not weaponizing the plane but trying to go to Cuba. It made sense back then because if the pilot got shot in a scuffle, you've got a movie franchise called "Airport." After 9/11 we assume hijackers want to crash the plane. I suspect it's a whole lot harder now to hijack a plane than it was pre-9/11. It mostly happens overseas now because they aren't serious about airline security.

I agree. If only one in ten people knew to shout "Grab the gun!!' - something that psychologically turns the hunter into the hunted and might just freak out some psychopathic killer and put him on the run. The squirrels that manage to escape my dog run straight at her and obviously freak her out by doing so. Running around like headless chickens is certainly not the way to survive an active mass shooting but asking more of untrained citizens is wishful thinking. I would, however, like to see lots of articles and TV segments about how to neutralize a shooter instead of covering the life of Omar the Madman.

I think that will happen now that people are beginning to realize these shootings are not aberrations but the new status quo.

Not sure I agree. It's important to realize this normal looking person was capable of great violence. Those yearbook photos help people realize when someone normal looking talks to coworkers about sending some Islamic terror group after them they should take it seriously. So should the FBI. The last big round of shooters looked exceedingly normal.
I heard they buried Omar the Murderer in your scenic state somewhere. Want to start a pool to see who guesses how long it takes for someone to find his corpse and dig it up for "further funeral activities?"
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 11:38:18 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

How about a semi-automatic pistol then? That's the most common weapon sold for self-defense. If you don't need any skill to use a semi-suto rifle, don't even need to aim it, then the same is true for a semi-auto pistol. And there in lies the problem. Gun rights people know that it will never end. First it's ban the "assault rifle", whatever that even means. When that doesn't prevent shootings, then it will be all semi-auto rifles. When that doesnt' work, then it will be all semi-auto pistols, then revolvers, then shotguns, then all guns. It's just one step in the lib process.
Just look at what they did with cigarettes. First it was a 50 cent tax, no smoking in public buildings. Then a $2 tax and no smoking in businesses, no smoking on most sections of beaches, no smoking in bars. Then it was a $4 tax and you can't even have a private room in a restaurant for a once a month cigar dinner. Then it was a $6 tax andyou can't smoke outside within 25 ft of a door and you can't smoke on the beach anywhere. Then it was no smoking on entire properties.
Right now they are starting the same thing with what we eat. You can't buy a soda bigger than X ounces in NYC. Philly just put in a tax on soda, raising the price for a 2 liter by $1. So, excuse me, but we gun owners aren't stupid.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/22/2016 12:41 PM, trader_4 wrote: Gun rights people know that it

I think that reasonable compromise on gun control is to repeal all gun laws after 1965, and compromise by leaving the ones before that.
- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/22/2016 03:36 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

How about 1933? The NFA was just a make work project for the out of work revenuers after another stupid ban was repealed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

I can tell that you never did any penetration tests with the guns. With the right ammo the 223 will not have as much penetration through walls as the Glock. Run the mini14 with some varmit ammo through some walls and any of the normal self defense rounds in the glock and see which penetrates more.
I have an AR 15 and while it is not easy to get to and have a handgun at the bed at night. If I had an easy choice I would grab the AR15 as the first choice. It does have the short stock of the M4 design.
The Marines and other military people use the handguns as a backup. They only go to that when their main weapon is not functioning.
If you want to see something interisting get some varmit ammo for the mini 14. At about 10 to 20 yards shoot it through some iron about 1/4 of an inch thick. Then take the same ammo and distance. Put up a piece of cardboard. I used to use paper grocery bags, but they are hard to come by. Then put a piece of about 1/4 to 1/2 inch thick plywood about 3 feet after that and see what hapens. Most often the bullet will come apart at the cardboard and not penetrate the plywood.
Then see how much wood the 40 cal will penetrate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

Agreed - without specifying ammo it's hard to compare. You can load the .40 cal with rounds that definitely won't overpentrate in a home. Without getting into being a tutorial for the Omar's of this world, the .223 round will penetrate through a group of people the way it goes through ballistic gel.
I did read recently where there's been a switch back in the FBI to 9mm from .40 cal because there was some issue with the "stopping power" of the 9mm turning out to be greater in most police shooting situations. When I was still shooting it used to be "pistol v. shotgun?" for home defense. Now there's another option. I don't really keep up with that stuff anymore.
Every once in a while we'll go rent full auto machine guns at the local range. Tactically, FA is a bad idea but it's always a kick to empty a machine gun in a few seconds and hear the shells clattering all around you. It costs a lot, but there's no denying the awesome feeling of that sort of firepower.

Oh, for sure I'll be setting up the test in the basement tonight just as soon as I fill out the divorce papers. (-: I have been spending quite some time looking a various YouTube videos and all I can say is overpenetration depends a lot on the target, the ammo, the distance to the target and the element of luck.
I *still*- believe that the .223 round in an AR15var has way more kinetic energy that most pistol bullets in a smaller mass. I've heard cops say they hate AR15vars because the .223 round *will* puncture all but the best ballistic armor.

I don't mean this the wrong way, but the reasons you'd reach for the AR are the same reasons Omar did: superior killing power.

Especially if they've overheated and jammed it in a full auto fire jamboree. (-:

Try it at 10, 50 and 200 yards. Though I've never tried hitting anything with the Glock at 200 yards, I would imagine to hit a target at that range with a .40 cal , you'd have to aim at low flying aircraft. The trajectory would be like a rainbow.
I did read something about hollow points and drywall and how ramming through a piece of wallboard packs so much stuff into the hole of a hollow point round that it essentially acts as a FMJ round afterward.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07/02/2016 06:20 PM, Robert Green wrote:

That's probably like the FBI's short lived experiment with the 10mm. More of the girls could hope to hit anything with the .40 Short & Weak. Maybe they will do even better with the 9's. You can't miss fast enough to win a gun fight.
Wake me up if they make it all the way back to the .38 Specials they used to carry before they got their ass handed to them in Miami.
As far as I'm concerned the .40 has one advantage for USPSA -- it's considered a major caliber unless you're shooting Production where everything is scored as minor.
The disadvantage is it's easy to mix .40 cases with 9mm and they jam up my case feeder.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They're good for advertising. Not only sales, but firearms classes.
"Sign up for our classes where stupidity and ignorance are left at the door. We'll explain what is/what isn't an assault rifle. We'll cover the basics. We'll teach you how to shoot AND hit what you're aiming for. We will keep you from catching the contagious dumbass disease!"
--
MID: <nb7u27$crn$ snipped-for-privacy@boaterdave.dont-email.me>
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

Once again you have no idea in the WORLD about what you are talking about, Trader. Semi-auto is a "type" of firing mechanism and includes pistols and rifles. Many assault rifles can be placed in the safe, semi-auto (single shot per trigger pull), burst (3 rounds per pull) and full auto mode. I would bet good money that even assaulting an embassy, those weapons are not on full auto.
Soldiers are taught to fire controlled bursts and rarely use full auto - if ever. Look it up!
http://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-39466.html
(Sometimes it's embarrassing to converse with you because you're so obviously ignorant when you get outside the fields of engineering and home repair.)
Guns like the Sig Sauer MCX are very much designed for missions like storming embassies. They have allegedly been "neutered" for public consumption by eliminating the full auto selection but that's a rather meaningless distinction considering Omar's rate of fire, lack of experience with the gun and casualty count.
Here's a great discussion from the M4Carbine site among actual soldiers (who quote their MOS's - I am sure you know what that means, Mr. Military Expert?) about why full auto is almost never used even though it's available. It's a colossal waste of ammo, overheats the barrel, results in *lower* kill rates and a higher likelihood of a jammed weapon, etc:
<< I have very limited use for F/A fire except in highly mobile break contact situations OR in crew served mounted weapons and unfortunately I think that a lot of people take the opinion of 'safe-semi-oh shit' and that the "oh shit" position will save the day even if they have never trained on how to employ it or discussed the downsides.>>
F/A (full auto) has very little use in real firefights. And nowadays, when turds like Omar learn to "bump fire" we'll really be in the shi+ because they apparently can get their hands on all the AR15-style firepower and ammunition they need for a massacre with hardly a problem. We've just seen the beginning of these sorts of attacks and eventually, the public will decide enough is enough. They're leaning that way already and after a truly massive massacre (over 200 killed - until now we've only seen the work of amateurs) the pendulum will swing. Remember Trader, Saint Ronnie was fully against assault rifles . . . so then why aren't you?
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Perfect case in point. Hasan was only able to kill a fraction of the number of people that Mateen did 13 v. 49 partly because Hasan had a FN Herstal handgun and Mateen had a much more powerful MCX semi-automatic AR15 style-rifle. Similar handgun v. rifle shootings have the same sorts of ratios. Take Newton v. the Bapist church shooting. Newton had a much higher body count.
So *exactly* why is it that an doofis off the street like Omar (or anyone else) needs that kind of firepower for self-defense? "I wanna" just doesn't cut the muster anymore.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green has brought this to us :

<RANT> They don't, it is not a self-defense weapon, it is a common defense weapon. I for one don't want my common defense weapon locked up in an armory surrounded by enemy soldiers armed with Kalasnikov's fitted with 75 round drums while I only have a single-shot bolt-action with a five round magazine because some idiot thinks the 2nd amendment is about hunting deer.
OTOH a country overrun by brainwashed liberals can't be addressed with any kind of self-defense weapon, that takes vocal conservatism.
Spread the word that gun ownership isn't about self-defense and sport rifles and don't "Drink the Kool-aid" the liberals are pushing. </RANT>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 3:46:41 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

Obvioulsy for the same reason you own your Mini 14, which is also a semi-automatic rifle similar to the one Mateen used. The village hypocrite, at it again.
And a couple of shootings under different circumstances don't prove anything. In a nightclub, with no way out, no one else armed, no one fighting back, it would be easy to do what Mateen did with a pistol.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Dude, you made the comparison - however brief your analysis of "two words" was. Are you going to *really* try to insist that modern pistols are just as lethal as assault rifles?
Wasn't it you that wrote: "A pistol is what you shoot your way to a long gun with . . . "?
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green expressed precisely :

Of course they are, how dead does one have to be?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.