FOOD FOR THOUGHT AND DUMB GUN LAWS

[PaulScott]

I light of resent tragedy's , let me say if there had been 1 Armed and Well Trained Patriot had Been in the Crowd both Stories would had ended MUCH better

your Friend
SSgt Paul Williamson

 

[mom'sfolly]

21st century with 21st century guns and problems...not at all the same.

I think you would be hard pressed to name a single incident of an armed civilian successfully defending a store or home with a needed armor piercing round.

 

[Matthew3590]

21st century with 21st century guns and problems...not at all the same.

I think you would be hard pressed to name a single incident of an armed civilian successfully defending a store or home with a needed armor piercing round.

How do you know the bullet wasn't already armor piercing?

I am sorry to disagree mom'sfolly but it is exactly the same. 20th century problems and 20th century guns had the same problems. When the military is using muskets and civilian own muskets. Muskets are military grade fire arms.

 

[Q9]

21st century with 21st century guns and problems...not at all the same.

I think you would be hard pressed to name a single incident of an armed civilian successfully defending a store or home with a needed armor piercing round.

I just came on here, so I haven't looked at the conversation between page 8 or so and here. I will address your comment as a stand-alone statement.

Kevlar is dramatically overrated. Will it stop anything up to a .44 magnum? Yes. You will still be in extreme pain and likely suffer broken ribs if you get shot. A round from a rifle will tear through Kevlar like a hot knife through butter. A shotgun won't penetrate, but it will lay you out flat if it's a powerful load (think buckshot or slugs).

I, personally, believe that armor-piercing handgun rounds are way overrated. Will they go through? Yes. However, they will usually do significantly less damage than a normal handgun round (I'm looking at you, 5.7X28mm), making them somewhat impractical for civilian use. I still don't see any real issue with access to such pistols and ammunition, however. Also, the 5.7mm does have very light recoil and extreme accuracy, making it a great option for those who can't stand heavier recoil. As far as criminal use goes, they normally try to avoid confrontation with police anyway, 5.7mm and other AP rounds are expensive and rare, and the guns that fire them are even more so.

 

[Q9]

The SROs at my kids school are not rent-a-cops, they are cops. They can't change the laws of physics and get someplace faster, better etc. Police arrived at the Aurora theater in 90 seconds; the cops at my kid's school would have trouble getting from their portables to the back of the first building in 90 seconds. If the building was locked down, it would take even longer.

In case you think I'm expanding the size of the school, here is the map. The SROs are in portables, in front of the parking lot, in front of the school.

Columbine High School, Virginia Tech both had cops: http://www.businessinsider.com/there-were-police-officers-at-columbine-2012-12

I still say cops on campus would do nothing more than provide a false sense of security.

I still haven't seen anyone give a real reason that a civilian needs 30 round and larger clips. So they are fun to shoot; go to a shooting range, where the guns are kept, and shoot at the range. Why does a civilian need armor piercing bullets? Why do they need military grade sniper rifles? Why shouldn't these be regulated? The only arguments I've seen against regulations are that it violates the 2nd amendment; which is balderdash. The courts have ruled that regulation doesn't violate the second amendment. No one is saying "take away the guns".

I won't address your comment regarding resource officers - I believe you have an excellent point in that regard. I will, however, discuss your statements regarding magazines and AP ammo.

In regards to the 30 round magazines, it's because, quite simply put, they're available. I do not need to justify my owning such magazines; in fact, it came with the rifle. The reason for owning one? One can hold more rounds before having to reload. In addition, if a firearm is standard issue to infantry, it follows that civilians should have access to it, per the obvious intent of the Second Amendment (And no, a rocket launcher is NOT a firearm - nobody is suggesting those.). To suggest keeping guns permanently at a range most definitely would be a violation of the Second Amendment - it is my property, and one cannot mandate that I store it in someone else's hands.

Unless you're referring to the rare and expensive rounds such as 5.7X28mm and 4.6mm, these "armor piercing rounds" are not in any way special. A round from a rifle can and will penetrate Kevlar with ease. A .30-30 will go through, a 7.62X39 will go through, a .308 will go through, a .223 will go through, the list goes on and on. To ban "armor piercing" rounds is to ban nearly every centerfire rifle cartridge in existence.

Sniper rifles are a rifle used by a sniper, they are not a class of weapons in and of themselves. My Mosin-Nagant, if I added a scope, could be used as a "sniper rifle" in the wrong hands. It's accurate, and half a century of service can testify to its sheer lethality. My father uses it to hunt deer. The Remington 700 is an incredibly accurate weapon, chambered for a variety of extremely accurate long range cartridges, such as .270 and .308. It has been used, if I'm not mistaken, by snipers in the military and in SWAT teams. Most civilians use them for hunting or sport. If you're referring to such weapons as the .50 caliber rifles, then I'd like to point out that they are practically nonexistent in regards to criminal use.

I also take issue with the phrase "military grade." What makes something "military grade?" Is it the features? Then one could make a hunting rifle "military grade" by slapping on polymer furniture, a pistol grip, and a collapsible stock. Is it the quality of the weapon? Then Joe American the deer hunter next door uses a "military grade sniper rifle" to put venison on the table. While I understand the urge to use such terms, the fact is, they don't actually mean anything.

At the very least, I hope I've provided some clarification in regards to common myths.

 

[Q9]

Nobody has answered this question, yet.

What regulations or restrictions are you proposing? I would like to discuss specific policies, rather than vague ideas.

 

[chickened]

The SROs at my kids school are not rent-a-cops, they are cops. They can't change the laws of physics and get someplace faster, better etc. Police arrived at the Aurora theater in 90 seconds; the cops at my kid's school would have trouble getting from their portables to the back of the first building in 90 seconds. If the building was locked down, it would take even longer.

In case you think I'm expanding the size of the school, here is the map. The SROs are in portables, in front of the parking lot, in front of the school.

Columbine High School, Virginia Tech both had cops: http://www.businessinsider.com/there-were-police-officers-at-columbine-2012-12

I still say cops on campus would do nothing more than provide a false sense of security.

I still haven't seen anyone give a real reason that a civilian needs 30 round and larger clips. So they are fun to shoot; go to a shooting range, where the guns are kept, and shoot at the range. Why does a civilian need armor piercing bullets? Why do they need military grade sniper rifles? Why shouldn't these be regulated? The only arguments I've seen against regulations are that it violates the 2nd amendment; which is balderdash. The courts have ruled that regulation doesn't violate the second amendment. No one is saying "take away the guns".

More than likely cops at a school would reduce the body count and possibly stop the whole incident. No cops at the school and unarmed administators such as what Newtown had... well Newtown proves my point. Will cops at schools stop all shootings probably not. Will banning large capacity clips absolutely not in fact a complete ban would not and has not and in fact there already is a ban on weapons within 1000 yards of schools and how well has that worked? Bans just do not work, give it up it is useless, all it does is provide a feeling of security which is actually less than a false sense of security because a shooter that knows cops are at a school may choose a softer target unless they are planning on killing themselves then they have nothing to lose really.

I tell you what Momsfolly you give up your right to choose and I may consider giving up the 2nd and my right to have a 30 round clip. I bet you won't for similar reasons that I won't.

Maybe smaller more managable schools are the answer...

The courts have said regulations cannot "infringe" on a right also.

 

[chickened]

Nobody has answered this question, yet.

What regulations or restrictions are you proposing? I would like to discuss specific policies, rather than vague ideas.

She is like every other liberal she has no real solutions. Antigun liberals operate on emotion and feelings not facts and reason.

 

[chickened]

I won't address your comment regarding resource officers - I believe you have an excellent point in that regard. I will, however, discuss your statements regarding magazines and AP ammo.

In regards to the 30 round magazines, it's because, quite simply put, they're available. I do not need to justify my owning such magazines; in fact, it came with the rifle. The reason for owning one? One can hold more rounds before having to reload. In addition, if a firearm is standard issue to infantry, it follows that civilians should have access to it, per the obvious intent of the Second Amendment (And no, a rocket launcher is NOT a firearm - nobody is suggesting those.). To suggest keeping guns permanently at a range most definitely would be a violation of the Second Amendment - it is my property, and one cannot mandate that I store it in someone else's hands.

Unless you're referring to the rare and expensive rounds such as 5.7X28mm and 4.6mm, these "armor piercing rounds" are not in any way special. A round from a rifle can and will penetrate Kevlar with ease. A .30-30 will go through, a 7.62X39 will go through, a .308 will go through, a .223 will go through, the list goes on and on. To ban "armor piercing" rounds is to ban nearly every centerfire rifle cartridge in existence.

Sniper rifles are a rifle used by a sniper, they are not a class of weapons in and of themselves. My Mosin-Nagant, if I added a scope, could be used as a "sniper rifle" in the wrong hands. It's accurate, and half a century of service can testify to its sheer lethality. My father uses it to hunt deer. The Remington 700 is an incredibly accurate weapon, chambered for a variety of extremely accurate long range cartridges, such as .270 and .308. It has been used, if I'm not mistaken, by snipers in the military and in SWAT teams. Most civilians use them for hunting or sport. If you're referring to such weapons as the .50 caliber rifles, then I'd like to point out that they are practically nonexistent in regards to criminal use.

I also take issue with the phrase "military grade." What makes something "military grade?" Is it the features? Then one could make a hunting rifle "military grade" by slapping on polymer furniture, a pistol grip, and a collapsible stock. Is it the quality of the weapon? Then Joe American the deer hunter next door uses a "military grade sniper rifle" to put venison on the table. While I understand the urge to use such terms, the fact is, they don't actually mean anything.

At the very least, I hope I've provided some clarification in regards to common myths.

I would add that anyone with reloading equipment can manufacture a bullet that penetrates body armor. Teflon tips come to mind that is what antitank rounds have and it can penetrate up to 6 inches of steel. Maybe we should ban reloading equipment also.

 

[TallChickMagnet]

You are spouting off lies. It is not way too easy. In fact it is impossible unless they steal them.

Right now I can walk down the street, fill out a one page app, wait ten days, then go kill 100 people... in 10 minutes. That sounds to easy to me. Only a criminal background check, that really takes about 30 days to complete, so I get the gun before it is completed. No, check to see if you are currently having a mental/emotional crisis. etc... Again, too easy!!!