Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 24 of 35 FirstFirst ... 142122232425262734 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 480 of 689
Like Tree279Likes

Thread: 18 Children Dead in CT Mass Shooting

  1. #461
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Not extreme at all. It's too bad that being consistent is seen as extreme.
    The consistency is the mindset that "nothing is perfect, so we should do nothing."
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."


  2. #462
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    I saw a police officer training video in which a trained, veteran officer was up against a man with a knife. This was all gun with a fake pistol and a rubber knife of course. The results were if the man with the knife was within 21 feet of the officer, and the offcier's gun was in his holster, the man with the knife won every time. No matter was defensve moves were made by the officer. The man with the knife got multiple stabs in before the officer had a chance to draw his weapon.

    I can tell you this has always tainted my thought process about any violent encounter I may find myself in. My dad always said anyone that pulls a knife in a fight knows how to use it, most shooters aren't as good as they believe they are.
    If I were a police officer this would be an issue. In my case I will have the option to run away. Then it becomes a foot race.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #463
    MembersZone Subscriber BULL321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western, NC
    Posts
    3,420

    Default

    Here is my two cents on the gun control issue. As a vet with over 13 years on the job, 95% of the time that I have dealt criminal suspects with any type of guns, have either had an illegal firearm, been carrying the firearm in an illegal manner, or were already convict felons and therefore should have not been in possession of a firearm in the first place. I have come across owners of legally owned fire arms use a crime i.e. domestic assault. Gun control laws have not stopped the 95% of the guns I come across from being in possession of these subjects. I hate to tell you but these subjects don't care what laws they are breaking. The courts don't hold these suspect accountable for their actions. I don't think that any new laws will stop any new "gun violence" from occurring. What I do fear is that any new laws which restrict law abiding citizens from possessing any "assault weapons" or any high cap mags will only weaken their rights and effect their safety.

    That being said something needs to be done to prevent "nuts" from getting their hands on firearms but it should be done in a manner that doesn't step on the rest of the citizens Second Amendment rights. I also believe that a one week waiting period to purchase a new firearm (long guns and pistols) will help prevent crimes of passion. Call it a cool down period.

    There is a middle ground out there but a doubt the politicians will find it.
    Catch22, RFDACM02 and Chenzo like this.
    Stay Safe
    Bull


    “Guys if you get hurt, we’ll help you. If you get sick we’ll treat you. If you want to bitch and moan, then all I can tell you is to flick the sand out of your slit, suck it up or get the hell out!”
    - Capt. Marc Cox CFD

    Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.
    -WINSTON CHURCHILL

  4. #464
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The consistency is the mindset that "nothing is perfect, so we should do nothing."
    WRONG. Until we know what the problems are, we can't come up with the right solution. 99% of the people calling for bans and restrictions are just going through kneejerk reactions without ANY facts on the matter. They just want something done RIGHT NOW, so they get a warm and fuzzy feeling.

    BTW, do you know when mass killings with firearms peaked in the US?






    1929
    DeputyMarshal and Chenzo like this.

  5. #465
    MembersZone Subscriber BULL321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western, NC
    Posts
    3,420

    Default

    Two more thoughts/quotes that I think sum up my thoughts on gun control and our rights under the Constitution.

    "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." ~~ George Washington

    " The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-lest it come to dominate our lives and interests " Patrick Henry

    Just saying.
    RFDACM02 likes this.
    Stay Safe
    Bull


    “Guys if you get hurt, we’ll help you. If you get sick we’ll treat you. If you want to bitch and moan, then all I can tell you is to flick the sand out of your slit, suck it up or get the hell out!”
    - Capt. Marc Cox CFD

    Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.
    -WINSTON CHURCHILL

  6. #466
    Forum Member DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    And I bought a shotgun, brand new in the box from a dealer at a gun show in Wisconsin and filled out paperwork and he called and did the criminal background check on me. Perhaps the gun show issue is a LOCAL state issue in YOU area. Fix YOUR state and stop making assumptions about everywhere based on your experience there.
    Or it was a long time ago. Current law requires dealers to do the same paperwork at a gun show as in their own shops. That's federal law. On top of that, 17 states have laws requiring paperwork even for private sales.

    I have NEVER, and I mean NEVER, bought a gun from an FFL licensed dealer that there wasn't paperwork and a background check involved.
    If you ever do, it's an illegal sale.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  7. #467
    Forum Member DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    In fairness, that's taking it a little far. Basically what he's saying is that if it's a semi-auto designed for military use, it's an assault weapon. That would exclude nearly any hunting rifle, including the Ruger Mini-14 (which Obama has listed in his previous plans) and all .22's that I know of.
    The last semi-auto rifle designed for military use that comes to mind would be either the M1 Carbine or the Garand. AR-15s, for instance, were not designed for military use. Nor were any of the "scary rifles" frequently cited as "assault weapons".

    If you take the first part and combine "assault" and "rifle", then a number of rifles would fit that description. Muskets, bolt actions, etc. would be defined as an assault rifle.
    The point is that there's no need to define an "assault rifle". It already has a pretty specific meaning in context and it's already a Class III firearm thus highly regulated. It's the arbitrary definition of "assault weapon" created by anti-gun advocates that warrants a closer look. To date, every "assault weapon" definition that's gotten into law is mostly about superficial features that have nothing to do with their functionality.
    BULL321 and Chenzo like this.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  8. #468
    Forum Member DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The .223 will penetrate a 1/4 inch of steel at 700 yards.
    I call bullsh|t. A factory loaded .223 out of a standard barrel will just about penetrate cardboard at 700 yards. You might punch through mild steel with a custom load out of a match grade custom barrel but that's about the only way it's going to happen.

    How much more power does a projectile need to be considered "high power?"
    One of the defining characteristics of assault rifles (which an AR-15 is not) is that they fire intermediate cartridges. Common among those is the .223 which is less powerful than your grandfather's 30-06 (the round used by the M1 Garand battle rifle) and the popular .308 hunting cartridge (the round used by the M14 battle rifle).
    Chenzo likes this.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  9. #469
    MembersZone Subscriber BULL321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western, NC
    Posts
    3,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    I call bullsh|t. A factory loaded .223 out of a standard barrel will just about penetrate cardboard at 700 yards. You might punch through mild steel with a custom load out of a match grade custom barrel but that's about the only way it's going to happen.



    One of the defining characteristics of assault rifles (which an AR-15 is not) is that they fire intermediate cartridges. Common among those is the .223 which is less powerful than your grandfather's 30-06 (the round used by the M1 Garand battle rifle) and the popular .308 hunting cartridge (the round used by the M14 battle rifle).

    You are correct Sir!
    Stay Safe
    Bull


    “Guys if you get hurt, we’ll help you. If you get sick we’ll treat you. If you want to bitch and moan, then all I can tell you is to flick the sand out of your slit, suck it up or get the hell out!”
    - Capt. Marc Cox CFD

    Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.
    -WINSTON CHURCHILL

  10. #470
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Do you really believe that soldiers in the US Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, whatever, is going to turn their guns on their own country? If you do, you're more foolish than I thought. Do you know anyone in the armed forces? Ask them if they would turn their guns on American civilians. The military's bottom line goal is to defend the constitution, not assist in the destruction of it. .
    Wasn't it in Ft Hood, Army Camp in Texas where this happened? A soldier turning on his own...

    Yes, a rare occurrence.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  11. #471
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    ...On top of that, 17 states have laws requiring paperwork even for private sales...
    I believe NJ may be one of them. In my short search earlier, I find that NJ has more restrictive gun laws than quite a few other states.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  12. #472
    Forum Member Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Wasn't it in Ft Hood, Army Camp in Texas where this happened? A soldier turning on his own...

    Yes, a rare occurrence.
    Different circumstances. You're talking about one man, who clearly had some issues, turning and firing on fellow soldiers. I'm talking a platoon of soldiers being ordered to turn their weapons on civilians who don't comply. Sounds feasible? Not in my eyes.
    RFDACM02 likes this.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  13. #473
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    I call bullsh|t. A factory loaded .223 out of a standard barrel will just about penetrate cardboard at 700 yards. You might punch through mild steel with a custom load out of a match grade custom barrel but that's about the only way it's going to happen.
    I believe my "expert" more than you.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    One of the defining characteristics of assault rifles (which an AR-15 is not) is that they fire intermediate cartridges. Common among those is the .223 which is less powerful than your grandfather's 30-06 (the round used by the M1 Garand battle rifle) and the popular .308 hunting cartridge (the round used by the M14 battle rifle).
    Didn't say the round was more powerful than a .30-06 or .308. I said from a reliable source the round could penetrate 1/4" steel at 700 yards.

    So what is the criteria for a round to transition from an intermediate cartridge to being considered high powered? Given that innocent human targets are the concern, why is that nomenclature relevant?
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-14-2013 at 08:38 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #474
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Do you really believe that soldiers in the US Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, whatever, is going to turn their guns on their own country? If you do, you're more foolish than I thought. Do you know anyone in the armed forces? Ask them if they would turn their guns on American civilians. The military's bottom line goal is to defend the constitution, not assist in the destruction of it.
    No I don't. Yet we are constantly being told by conspiracy wackos that is why the citizens need to be armed with the most powerful weapons they can acquire.

    Just a few posts past yours is this from Bull321:

    "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." ~~ George Washington

    " The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-lest it come to dominate our lives and interests " Patrick Henry
    Which is it? Should we fear our own government or not? I would like you guys to get on the same page.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  15. #475
    Forum Member Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    No I don't. Yet we are constantly being told by conspiracy wackos that is why the citizens need to be armed with the most powerful weapons they can acquire.

    Key phrase here, conspiracy whackos. To compare any of us here to the conspiracy theorists, is utter nonsense. Conspiracy theorists use the same tactics as the media, they pray on the emotional response they get from being over the top, screaming, yelling, over-talking every. Look at the Alex Jones and Piers Morgan interview. Alex Jones had some very valid points, and was doing a great job trying to make Piers Morgan answer his questions instead of divert. Until Jones lost his f|_|cking mind and started mocking Piers and screaming.


    Just a few posts past yours is this from Bull321:



    Which is it? Should we fear our own government or not? I would like you guys to get on the same page.
    The fact of the matter, is we the people should not have to fear a government in which they are supposed to protect our rights. I don't necessarily fear the government, however I question a lot of their answers and take none of what they tell me at face value.

    As far as being on the same page, Why? Why do we have to be on the same page to agree on certain things? For example, I question the government and the moves they make. Bull may or may not. Why does that mean that we can't agree on the fact that it's Unconstitutional to ban, limit, or in anyway restrict my rights or his rights as a law abiding citizen to own semi-automatic firearms? To own 15, 20, 30 round magazines?

    There's no reason Bull and I, or myself and anyone, have to agree on the grounds or premise to want to or be able to work together to accomplish the same end goal, or to have the same feelings on something such as gun control.

    You're also making a blanket statement about why you think I want the right to own whatever I please. It's not entirely about fearing tyranny in the government. That really only covers about 2% of it. the other 98% simply boils down to the fact that I absolutely REFUSE to be a victim of a crime, when the constitution guarantees my right to bear arms and protect myself, my family, or stranger on the street. I will not be a victim. I hope to never, NEVER in my life, have to fire my weapon at a human being. However if it comes down to me or my family dying, or the criminal dying, I can tell you for damn sure it isn't going to me be.


    Still curious as to why you won't address my post, post number 441 to be exact, on the terminology of an assault weapon. Is it because you realize you've been proven wrong, so you're going to use the 3rd grade tactic of ignoring it?
    Last edited by Chenzo; 01-14-2013 at 09:56 PM.
    BULL321 likes this.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  16. #476
    Forum Member Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I believe my "expert" more than you.
    And I believe the fact that you yourself put "expert" in quotations shows the lack of his expertise.


    Didn't say the round was more powerful than a .30-06 or .308. I said from a reliable source the round could penetrate 1/4" steel at 700 yards.
    And I've proven, with that scary thing called FACTS, that its not possible. Ya know, those number things I posted a little bit ago? Those are called facts.

    So what is the criteria for a round to transition from an intermediate cartridge to being considered high powered? Given that innocent human targets are the concern, why is that nomenclature relevant?

    For starters, as has been stated before, nomenclature is important when you're trying to strip people of their rights.

    As far as the transition from intermediate to high powered, let me throw some of those magical things called facts at you again. (These definitions come from the firearm industry, so I know you'll dismiss them anyway because they don't fit your agenda)

    "An intermediate rifle cartridge is a round that is less powerful than a cartridge designed for a typical battle rifle (30.06, .308, 7.26x54 etc) but more powerful than the average pistol round (.45ACP, 9mm, .40S&W etc). Recoil of a rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge is significantly lower than that of a rifle firing a full size round, which makes it easier to control the recoil. Effective range for a intermediate cartridge is between 250 and 500 meters (270-550 yards)"

    So, considering the .223 meets, (hang on let me check, oh yeah that's right) ALL of those criteria, it is an intermediate cartridge. It is less powerful than a .308 round, more powerful than a .45ACP round, and the maximum effective range for a human target is about 450-525 yards. Pretty sure that meets the criteria for an intermediate cartridge. Not a "high powered rifle" as you and the lame stream media like to proclaim.

    Facts are fun, aren't they?
    Last edited by Chenzo; 01-14-2013 at 09:55 PM.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  17. #477
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The consistency is the mindset that "nothing is perfect, so we should do nothing."
    And your consistency is the mindset of sticking your fingers in your ears like a 3 year old and yelling "NO NO NO!!" when you are met with irrefutable evidence that you are wrong. Claiming that the industry that manufactures firearms isn't a better source for identifying its own products than a general purpose dictionary or some anti-gun politician. Claiming you aren't anti-gun but are willing to give away the rights of gun owners in the blink of an eye. Claiming you don't want to ban any guns but then calling for ending civilian ownership of wrongly identified semi-automatic rifles as assault rifles, incuding some by Senator feinstein like my Ruger 10/22 .22lr rifle squirrel hunting rifle. Claiming that the purchase and use of assault potato chips is highly regulated by the government. Claiming that the bolt action '03 Sprongfield and the semi-automatic M1 Garand are assault rifles. Claiming there is correlation between explosives and firearms owership. Oh yeah and your crowning glory of consistency, when you realized your a z z was getting stomped by pro-gun people here you drift off int the Travon Martin incident and play the race card. You are consistent only in your ridiculous, mostly baseless attempts at debate, and your continued pretending to be pro-gun. When inreality you are a Neville Chamberlain willing to pretend your useless attempts at bans and punishing law abiding citizens are actually effective at stopping violent crime. You do know who Neville Chamberlain is don't you? The champion of appeasement...Look him up, he gave away what wasn't his in a false belief it would bring peace.

    Are you aware that the term "Assault weapon" is a made up term originated by the anti-gun crowd? Unlike the proper firearms nomenclature "Assault Rifle" that refers to a rifle firing an intermediate powered bullet and that is capable of BOTH fully automatic and semi-automatic fire.

    What you don't like is you can't shout me down with your nonsense and misinformation. That I can stand toe to toe with you and shut you down over and over with FACTS, something you are completely unfamiliar with in this topic is I am sure a new experience for you.
    DeputyMarshal and Chenzo like this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  18. #478
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Wasn't it in Ft Hood, Army Camp in Texas where this happened? A soldier turning on his own...

    Yes, a rare occurrence.
    An incident of either a disturbed individual, or a Islamic sympathizer, that attacked other soldiers on base. Hardly the same as expecting the might of the US military to turn on the citizens they took an oath to protect.
    Chenzo likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  19. #479
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I believe my "expert" more than you.

    Of course you do. Can I have his name and e-mail address in a pm so I may contact him and ask him a couple of questions? Or is this another of your fanciful, unsupported, fairy tales?


    Didn't say the round was more powerful than a .30-06 or .308. I said from a reliable source the round could penetrate 1/4" steel at 700 yards.

    And I call nonsense. It is not a reliable man killer past 300 to 500 meters. if it won't kill a man at those ranges, reliably, I doubt it will penetrate 1/4 inch of steel at 700 yards.

    So what is the criteria for a round to transition from an intermediate cartridge to being considered high powered? Given that innocent human targets are the concern, why is that nomenclature relevant?

    The length of the cartridge and the resulting amount of powder, followed by ballistics, determine an intermediate cartridge over a high powered cartridge.

    Examples: The Standard US issue 5.56mm x 45mm is an intermediate cartridge. The Standard US issue 7.62mm x 51mm is a high power cartridge, as is the .30-06 Springfield cartridge, also known as the 7.62mm x 63mm. The intermediate cartridge has less range and less foot pounds of force at the same ranges as a high power cartridge and the high power cartridge will allow for much greater ranges.

    Its relevant because it completely disproves your calling the '03 Springfield bolt action rifle and the M1 Garand assault rifles. That's why nomenclature is important and why your total lack of understanding that makes you nothing more than a propagandist.



    The facts, try getting some.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  20. #480
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Different circumstances. You're talking about one man, who clearly had some issues, turning and firing on fellow soldiers. I'm talking a platoon of soldiers being ordered to turn their weapons on civilians who don't comply. Sounds feasible? Not in my eyes.
    Gotcha. I'd agree with you on that.
    Chenzo likes this.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Shooting is West Palm Beach leaves firefighter, gunman dead.
    By SouthFlaHopeful in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 05:54 AM
  2. At least 2 dead in Kansas City mall shooting
    By RspctFrmCalgary in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-30-2007, 11:06 AM
  3. India-At Least 100 children dead
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-16-2004, 05:08 AM
  4. Children that cheered dead Americans
    By Waterboy620 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-12-2003, 05:01 PM
  5. Haysville, KS - 2 children dead
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-22-2002, 03:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts