Unfortunately it seems this is the minority train of thought these days.
The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.
Example: The US supporting al queda against the USSR. That worked well.
2 Likes
I wasn’t accusing you of being a dick; if you reread your original post, perhaps you can see how I interpreted what you said the way I did.
If it’s the post I am thinking of, I think Nards was commending ED for not just wading into a 2A debate, but in essentially any debate here. This forum is mostly frequented by conservatives and has been for as long as I can remember.
And I don’t consider gun owners “nutjobs”; I’m one myself.
I get this too…if you dont have a “gun room” your some pansy snow flake. If you mention some kinda way to prevent crazies from stockpilling a arsenal the same thing. If im just a gun enthusiast i wouldnt be bothered by a bit more background checks. Since doing nothing wrong if it helps prevent bad shit I dont see how this violates anyones rights. But yea i got a gun to bro…i just keep it at home.
It’s odious when you stretch the definition of Nazis beyond reason yet claim to deserve the “right” to confront actual Nazis (rarely) and alleged Nazis (frequently) violently.
That’s the legacy of Soviet communism, now verbatim copied by Antifa - in the USSR everything non-communist was “fascist” by default. Baseball and football? Fascist. Rolling Stones? Fascist. Don’t forget that the Berlin Wall was officially called “the anti-fascist defensive barrier” in East Germany.
Textbook Komintern stuff from the 1930s. Claim exclusive right to violence and the expand the list of “enemies” from actual Nazis to pretty much anyone who disagrees with you politically.
8 Likes
I agree with this.
1 Like
You can’t limit the number of guns a person has. That’s just dumb.
People have turkey guns, and duck guns, and deer guns, and antelope guns, and bear guns. Then there is trap guns and cowboy shooter guns, and pistol league guns and service league guns. A smart citizen will have guns for self defense, at least one handgun and a rifle. Anyone that does police work or bodyguarding has at least 2 handguns on them, and usually many more for practice and have familiarity.
The problem is nutheads.
In France the nuts just drive trucks highspeed down pedestrian lanes and at festivals.
Or bombs in crowded areas.
France has more problems with mass killing than the USA.
France has a problem with mass killings caused by adherents of salafi Islam, not with mass killings as a product of socio-political factors.
So France as a country doesn’t need “soul searching” to address a supposed multifaceted problem. Mass killings in France have a depressingly simple and uncomfortable explanation.
As far as gun ownership goes, there are many countries (even in Europe) where the percentage of households owning a gun is equal or even greater compared to the US - the difference is the number of guns in those households.
Freaking Iceland has a slightly higher percentage of households owning a gun than the US.
I can only surmise that the difference is the “gun culture” per se. For example, I own a gun. Pretty much all of my friends own a gun.
Hell, one of them even works in the factory producing one of the best firearms in the world (ahem, ahem) but we have never discussed guns. It’s simply something one does not discuss in company, even among friends. No magazines, no reviews, no fanboys.
5 Likes
No, it doesn’t change mine. There’s no way to reasonably fight back. The only plan is to determine level and direction of fire and find cover. Nobody is in a good position to fight back with that much high ground around the event, and you would need a high powered rifle with optics to make a clean shot attempt. If you have that then by definition you’re probably not out enjoying the concert in the first place.
It’s not even a question of training at that point, but a matter of physics and practicality. No matter how highly trained (and yes that includes most highly trained contractors, infantry, and combat roles), a person is at a massive disadvantage in that situation–the ambush was perfectly planned with maximal cover and range. Training would probably at most help identify the direction and height of the fire and aid in quickly getting to cover
1 Like
Its ok. No harm, no foul.
1 Like
Excellent post. Idaho has been a gold mine of great information, causing me to rethink my survival strategies several times. As far as this goes, it’s not an ideal situation by any means, although in my opinion there are some things to be done that can mitigate danger to the CC guy from LEOS. Truthfully though, if you are in that situation the likelihood is that you don’t have long to react amd decide. If the shooter is in the open it’s probable the 1 of the 2 of you is going to be dead before response, unless you’re very close to a substation. Most firefights are extremely short
Now THAT’S a country boy! Hahaha
Yup! Stupid as hell but…God do I love that!
3 Likes
He must be wearing the thickest beer goggles ever.
3 Likes
Probably should have clarified this - the equation is obviously vastly different if the guy is standing right in front of you and about to spray a burst versus “I’m standing in a crowd and I start to hear shots ringing out somewhere in the venue.”
Good discussion in here.
Some thoughts on gun control. Fully automatic weapons are illegal unless you’ve gone through a very serious vetting process and the weapons was manufactured and resistered prior to 1986. Full auto conversion isn’t easy but it can be done, but it’s also already illegal. The last time I checked there has been one instance of a murder with a legal fully auto weapon (outside of the military). Feel free to check me on that as there may have been two but it’s been a while since I checked. The gun control laws that are passed have very little to do with the actual lethality of the weapon and much more to do with appearance.
While I am very willing to consent to background checks and training for concealed carry (even far and away more rigorous than what is currently in place, including actual qualification requirements for carrying) I’m not giving up my firearms. I’m watching the upper echelons of US society increasingly condone violence, and I’m not willing to depend on them for my own safety. We seem to be turning college campuses into training grounds for future totalitarians.
That said, anyone who thinks that returning fire on a 32 floor room without considering that a miss could kill innocents is highly irresponsible. The elevation changes your bullet trajectory dramatically so whoever does better be very well trained.
Violence has unfortunately become part of American society. If we want that changed then it’s going to take a hell of lot more than gun laws.
5 Likes
Actually, building a sear is really fricking easy, especially for an AK. I took off literally homemade AK-47s off of many an Afgani (alive and dead). They work very well for their intended purpose. There are plans and how-tos on the internet. If you can fix a car, you can build an AK using parts from Home Depot or modify one to be full auto.
No amount of laws can stop this.
Correct. This is extremely hard, especially if the shooter is wearing a proper helmet. And any decent sniper will lay flat on the ground with some sort of cover (e.g., sandbags), making the angle of the shot a matter of inches. Impossible to hit with a handgun. Almost needs to be another sniper at the same elevation. This is why the cops went through the door.
I’ve shot at people up in a hill and down at people from a hill. The high ground is valued for a reason.
4 Likes
I can’t see any way that being armed would have helped any of the concert-goers. I said what I said to Pat because someone that could have stopped that would certainly already have been permitted to do so. The suggestion that allowing officers to carry off-duty(I believe LEOs can already carry off-duty in every state and locality in the country) to deal with situations like that is a bit unrealistic. Returning fire with a handgun and from an unconcealed position hundreds of yards away from a guy with a rifle and concealment is a bit of a silly solution.
Of course, that’s not nearly as silly as suggesting further arms restrictions to deal with such situations. That would be like the U.S. disarming itsself in response to North Korean missile tests.