Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
CaptHadley
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:36 pm

Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 2:46 am

It appears the age old adage of "good guy with a gun" doesn't always ring true. Who knew two year olds were that good with aim? And how do they know it was an accident? Have you ever seen Stewie, that kid is badass and probably a year old. Kids these days, I tell ya!
https://www.ajc.com/news/breaking-georg ... tsMZT3x1J/
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5625
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 2:54 am

Who’s the “good guy” here? I don’t see the irresponsible owner or the 2-year old fitting that description. Child gets off as too young to know better.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19038
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:42 am

That's one way to fix stupid.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
GDB
Posts: 13677
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:56 am

It's long been obvious, at least to those with a modicum of common sense, that having a gun at home greatly increases the risks of injury/death by negligent discharge, or an intruder getting it first, violent arguments turning lethal, depression/suicidal thoughts ending badly (no stomach pumping if pills taken or being talked down from jumping), or as in this case a child killing themselves or someone by accident.
Gun nuts bang on about them being 'responsible owners', a responsible owner is not usually a gun nut, since they would have secure storage and not leaving the things loaded. Y'know, like in a military or police armoury.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:31 am

It's just me in my home. Three guns and none of them have ever accidently or purposely fired upon anyone. I have a biometric gun safe that I keep them in. No one is getting to them by accident.

And why do liberals only care about suicide if a gun is involved? They are so fake. And besides, if someone makes the choice to end their life then it's none of your business as long as they're not harming anyone else in the process. It's quite efficient but terribly messy.
 
N583JB
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:31 am

GDB wrote:
It's long been obvious, at least to those with a modicum of common sense, that having a gun at home greatly increases the risks of injury/death by negligent discharge, or an intruder getting it first, violent arguments turning lethal, depression/suicidal thoughts ending badly (no stomach pumping if pills taken or being talked down from jumping), or as in this case a child killing themselves or someone by accident.
Gun nuts bang on about them being 'responsible owners', a responsible owner is not usually a gun nut, since they would have secure storage and not leaving the things loaded. Y'know, like in a military or police armoury.


If you properly secure your gun, your risk of being injured by that gun is zero. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. No one is forcing you to own a gun, just like no one will be forcing me to give mine up.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8483
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 12:07 pm

There’s no bad guy in this case. It was an accident.

Obviously, permitting guns means there’s a risk of accidents happening.

Obviously, not permitting guns means there’s no risk of an accident. Not a reduced risk, there is no risk.

Nothing interesting to see here. Just a sad event being explored for political reasons.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
johns624
Posts: 2723
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:21 pm

CaptHadley wrote:
It appears the age old adage of "good guy with a gun" doesn't always ring true. Who knew two year olds were that good with aim? And how do they know it was an accident? Have you ever seen Stewie, that kid is badass and probably a year old. Kids these days, I tell ya!
https://www.ajc.com/news/breaking-georg ... tsMZT3x1J/

It sounds like you're happy that it happened. That's just a little bit sick...actually, it's a whole lotta sick!
 
GDB
Posts: 13677
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:52 pm

N583JB wrote:
GDB wrote:
It's long been obvious, at least to those with a modicum of common sense, that having a gun at home greatly increases the risks of injury/death by negligent discharge, or an intruder getting it first, violent arguments turning lethal, depression/suicidal thoughts ending badly (no stomach pumping if pills taken or being talked down from jumping), or as in this case a child killing themselves or someone by accident.
Gun nuts bang on about them being 'responsible owners', a responsible owner is not usually a gun nut, since they would have secure storage and not leaving the things loaded. Y'know, like in a military or police armoury.


If you properly secure your gun, your risk of being injured by that gun is zero. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. No one is forcing you to own a gun, just like no one will be forcing me to give mine up.


Well luckily for me and most other Western nations bar one, I don't need a gun, this was a pistol not a shotgun or .22 bolt action farmers/those in rural areas can have a need for.
Since gun crime is low, most of it is criminals vs other criminals and the standard criminal weapon in the UK is an illegally converted replica, often as dangerous to the shooter than the intended target.
Which is why 90% of police officers are unarmed.

Moreover, if you have the aforementioned shotguns/.22 rifles, you are subject to 1) Criminal record checks. 2) Inspection of storage and security by the police. Having a record of mental instability would also exclude you from owning one.
Which is why the last mass shooting we had was 10 years ago, in a rural area with guess what? A shotgun and a .22 rifle.
They have not been banned since as stated, there is a use for them in rural areas. Pragmatism not blind zealotry.

Before the restrictions were looser, albeit with those checks. Which did not prevent the 1987 Hungerford massacre (look it up), where a pistol, a semi auto AK, and M1 Carbine were used. They were banned. The Thatcher government, no left wingers themselves, did so as the public demanded it.
But they did not ban 9mm military/police grade magazine fed pistols. The we had the slaughter of the children in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996. Look that one up too. These weapons were banned, due public pressure. We are odd like that, not wanting a repeat and certainly not having nut jobs (including some so called lawmakers), called the parents 'crisis actors'.
The same year as the last major mass shooting in Australia.

We had a lot of death caused by a group called the IRA, your NRA has far more blood on it's hands.
Ever wondered why some home grown nut job Jihadis are reduced to using knifes?
They cannot get guns. Not so far.
(Those found to be illegally converting replicas to sell to criminals, or terrorists, can and have got very long prison terms. Same has applied to smuggling some in, there was a case not long ago, AK's, Machine Pistols, again they are away for a long time).
So never say never but why make it easy?
 
N583JB
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 2:03 pm

GDB wrote:
N583JB wrote:
GDB wrote:
It's long been obvious, at least to those with a modicum of common sense, that having a gun at home greatly increases the risks of injury/death by negligent discharge, or an intruder getting it first, violent arguments turning lethal, depression/suicidal thoughts ending badly (no stomach pumping if pills taken or being talked down from jumping), or as in this case a child killing themselves or someone by accident.
Gun nuts bang on about them being 'responsible owners', a responsible owner is not usually a gun nut, since they would have secure storage and not leaving the things loaded. Y'know, like in a military or police armoury.


If you properly secure your gun, your risk of being injured by that gun is zero. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. No one is forcing you to own a gun, just like no one will be forcing me to give mine up.


Well luckily for me and most other Western nations bar one, I don't need a gun, this was a pistol not a shotgun or .22 bolt action farmers/those in rural areas can have a need for.
Since gun crime is low, most of it is criminals vs other criminals and the standard criminal weapon in the UK is an illegally converted replica, often as dangerous to the shooter than the intended target.
Which is why 90% of police officers are unarmed.

Moreover, if you have the aforementioned shotguns/.22 rifles, you are subject to 1) Criminal record checks. 2) Inspection of storage and security by the police. Having a record of mental instability would also exclude you from owning one.
Which is why the last mass shooting we had was 10 years ago, in a rural area with guess what? A shotgun and a .22 rifle.
They have not been banned since as stated, there is a use for them in rural areas. Pragmatism not blind zealotry.

Before the restrictions were looser, albeit with those checks. Which did not prevent the 1987 Hungerford massacre (look it up), where a pistol, a semi auto AK, and M1 Carbine were used. They were banned. The Thatcher government, no left wingers themselves, did so as the public demanded it.
But they did not ban 9mm military/police grade magazine fed pistols. The we had the slaughter of the children in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996. Look that one up too. These weapons were banned, due public pressure. We are odd like that, not wanting a repeat and certainly not having nut jobs (including some so called lawmakers), called the parents 'crisis actors'.
The same year as the last major mass shooting in Australia.

We had a lot of death caused by a group called the IRA, your NRA has far more blood on it's hands.
Ever wondered why some home grown nut job Jihadis are reduced to using knifes?
They cannot get guns. Not so far.
(Those found to be illegally converting replicas to sell to criminals, or terrorists, can and have got very long prison terms. Same has applied to smuggling some in, there was a case not long ago, AK's, Machine Pistols, again they are away for a long time).
So never say never but why make it easy?


Our NRA has zero blood on its hands, as an NRA member has never committed a mass shooting. Most NRA members are law-abiding citizens and are thus responsible with their guns. The people who are doing most of the shooting in the United States are involved in gangs/drugs and largely own their weapons illegally. With more guns on the streets than there are people in the United States, that is not going to change in our lifetimes.

Interestingly enough, the deadliest massacre in our nation's history didn't involve a single firearm. Hundreds of schoolchildren were murdered by a madman with a bomb.

I'm glad that you are happy with the way your country handles its affairs. I'm happy with being allowed to protect myself and my family from armed criminals. To each their own.
 
GDB
Posts: 13677
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 3:07 pm

N583JB wrote:
GDB wrote:
N583JB wrote:

If you properly secure your gun, your risk of being injured by that gun is zero. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. No one is forcing you to own a gun, just like no one will be forcing me to give mine up.


Well luckily for me and most other Western nations bar one, I don't need a gun, this was a pistol not a shotgun or .22 bolt action farmers/those in rural areas can have a need for.
Since gun crime is low, most of it is criminals vs other criminals and the standard criminal weapon in the UK is an illegally converted replica, often as dangerous to the shooter than the intended target.
Which is why 90% of police officers are unarmed.

Moreover, if you have the aforementioned shotguns/.22 rifles, you are subject to 1) Criminal record checks. 2) Inspection of storage and security by the police. Having a record of mental instability would also exclude you from owning one.
Which is why the last mass shooting we had was 10 years ago, in a rural area with guess what? A shotgun and a .22 rifle.
They have not been banned since as stated, there is a use for them in rural areas. Pragmatism not blind zealotry.

Before the restrictions were looser, albeit with those checks. Which did not prevent the 1987 Hungerford massacre (look it up), where a pistol, a semi auto AK, and M1 Carbine were used. They were banned. The Thatcher government, no left wingers themselves, did so as the public demanded it.
But they did not ban 9mm military/police grade magazine fed pistols. The we had the slaughter of the children in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996. Look that one up too. These weapons were banned, due public pressure. We are odd like that, not wanting a repeat and certainly not having nut jobs (including some so called lawmakers), called the parents 'crisis actors'.
The same year as the last major mass shooting in Australia.

We had a lot of death caused by a group called the IRA, your NRA has far more blood on it's hands.
Ever wondered why some home grown nut job Jihadis are reduced to using knifes?
They cannot get guns. Not so far.
(Those found to be illegally converting replicas to sell to criminals, or terrorists, can and have got very long prison terms. Same has applied to smuggling some in, there was a case not long ago, AK's, Machine Pistols, again they are away for a long time).
So never say never but why make it easy?


Our NRA has zero blood on its hands, as an NRA member has never committed a mass shooting. Most NRA members are law-abiding citizens and are thus responsible with their guns. The people who are doing most of the shooting in the United States are involved in gangs/drugs and largely own their weapons illegally. With more guns on the streets than there are people in the United States, that is not going to change in our lifetimes.

Interestingly enough, the deadliest massacre in our nation's history didn't involve a single firearm. Hundreds of schoolchildren were murdered by a madman with a bomb.

I'm glad that you are happy with the way your country handles its affairs. I'm happy with being allowed to protect myself and my family from armed criminals. To each their own.


Yeah they have, by enabling the repeal of assault weapons bans, by bribing lawmakers.
So basically no different to those who funnel cash to terror groups. Who never get near to firing a shot themselves.
Thus enabling the steep rise in mass shooting with the weapon of choice being a high capacity magazine, semi auto, high velocity weapon. Even promoting rounds designed to defeat body armour. And enabling those with a history of mental instability to still get guns. Gee, how do you think that has worked out?
They have also made it more likely that you feel the need to have a gun to protect your family.
Not so much 'exceptionalism' more exceptionally destructive and stupid.
Or maybe just about every other Western nation is more civilized and gives a shit about it's own citizens.
 
N583JB
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 3:27 pm

GDB wrote:
N583JB wrote:
GDB wrote:

Well luckily for me and most other Western nations bar one, I don't need a gun, this was a pistol not a shotgun or .22 bolt action farmers/those in rural areas can have a need for.
Since gun crime is low, most of it is criminals vs other criminals and the standard criminal weapon in the UK is an illegally converted replica, often as dangerous to the shooter than the intended target.
Which is why 90% of police officers are unarmed.

Moreover, if you have the aforementioned shotguns/.22 rifles, you are subject to 1) Criminal record checks. 2) Inspection of storage and security by the police. Having a record of mental instability would also exclude you from owning one.
Which is why the last mass shooting we had was 10 years ago, in a rural area with guess what? A shotgun and a .22 rifle.
They have not been banned since as stated, there is a use for them in rural areas. Pragmatism not blind zealotry.

Before the restrictions were looser, albeit with those checks. Which did not prevent the 1987 Hungerford massacre (look it up), where a pistol, a semi auto AK, and M1 Carbine were used. They were banned. The Thatcher government, no left wingers themselves, did so as the public demanded it.
But they did not ban 9mm military/police grade magazine fed pistols. The we had the slaughter of the children in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996. Look that one up too. These weapons were banned, due public pressure. We are odd like that, not wanting a repeat and certainly not having nut jobs (including some so called lawmakers), called the parents 'crisis actors'.
The same year as the last major mass shooting in Australia.

We had a lot of death caused by a group called the IRA, your NRA has far more blood on it's hands.
Ever wondered why some home grown nut job Jihadis are reduced to using knifes?
They cannot get guns. Not so far.
(Those found to be illegally converting replicas to sell to criminals, or terrorists, can and have got very long prison terms. Same has applied to smuggling some in, there was a case not long ago, AK's, Machine Pistols, again they are away for a long time).
So never say never but why make it easy?


Our NRA has zero blood on its hands, as an NRA member has never committed a mass shooting. Most NRA members are law-abiding citizens and are thus responsible with their guns. The people who are doing most of the shooting in the United States are involved in gangs/drugs and largely own their weapons illegally. With more guns on the streets than there are people in the United States, that is not going to change in our lifetimes.

Interestingly enough, the deadliest massacre in our nation's history didn't involve a single firearm. Hundreds of schoolchildren were murdered by a madman with a bomb.

I'm glad that you are happy with the way your country handles its affairs. I'm happy with being allowed to protect myself and my family from armed criminals. To each their own.


Yeah they have, by enabling the repeal of assault weapons bans, by bribing lawmakers.
So basically no different to those who funnel cash to terror groups. Who never get near to firing a shot themselves.
Thus enabling the steep rise in mass shooting with the weapon of choice being a high capacity magazine, semi auto, high velocity weapon. Even promoting rounds designed to defeat body armour. And enabling those with a history of mental instability to still get guns. Gee, how do you think that has worked out?
They have also made it more likely that you feel the need to have a gun to protect your family.
Not so much 'exceptionalism' more exceptionally destructive and stupid.
Or maybe just about every other Western nation is more civilized and gives a shit about it's own citizens.


More people are killed by blunt objects like baseball bats in the United States than are killed by "assault" rifles or rifles of any kind. The ones with blood on their hands would be people like you, who want law-abiding citizens to be completely defenseless while well-armed criminals are free to do as they please. Thankfully, the 2nd Amendment doesn't care about the opinions you have of it.
 
meecrob
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:15 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:45 pm

N583JB wrote:
The ones with blood on their hands would be people like you, who want law-abiding citizens to be completely defenseless while well-armed criminals are free to do as they please. Thankfully, the 2nd Amendment doesn't care about the opinions you have of it.


This is the part that I don't get. You make it sound like you regularly have to defend yourself with a gun while going about your daily business.
 
N583JB
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:02 pm

meecrob wrote:
N583JB wrote:
The ones with blood on their hands would be people like you, who want law-abiding citizens to be completely defenseless while well-armed criminals are free to do as they please. Thankfully, the 2nd Amendment doesn't care about the opinions you have of it.


This is the part that I don't get. You make it sound like you regularly have to defend yourself with a gun while going about your daily business.


Of course not. I think of a gun the same way I think of airbags, smoke detectors, and fire extinguishers. You hope you never need them, but when you do need them, you really need them. My firearm that I store securely, unloaded, is not going to suddenly load itself and shoot me, but in the event of a home invasion, it may save my life or the life of someone else I care about.
 
bmartino99
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 18, 2018 7:57 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:33 pm

GDB wrote:
N583JB wrote:
GDB wrote:

Well luckily for me and most other Western nations bar one, I don't need a gun, this was a pistol not a shotgun or .22 bolt action farmers/those in rural areas can have a need for.
Since gun crime is low, most of it is criminals vs other criminals and the standard criminal weapon in the UK is an illegally converted replica, often as dangerous to the shooter than the intended target.
Which is why 90% of police officers are unarmed.

Moreover, if you have the aforementioned shotguns/.22 rifles, you are subject to 1) Criminal record checks. 2) Inspection of storage and security by the police. Having a record of mental instability would also exclude you from owning one.
Which is why the last mass shooting we had was 10 years ago, in a rural area with guess what? A shotgun and a .22 rifle.
They have not been banned since as stated, there is a use for them in rural areas. Pragmatism not blind zealotry.

Before the restrictions were looser, albeit with those checks. Which did not prevent the 1987 Hungerford massacre (look it up), where a pistol, a semi auto AK, and M1 Carbine were used. They were banned. The Thatcher government, no left wingers themselves, did so as the public demanded it.
But they did not ban 9mm military/police grade magazine fed pistols. The we had the slaughter of the children in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996. Look that one up too. These weapons were banned, due public pressure. We are odd like that, not wanting a repeat and certainly not having nut jobs (including some so called lawmakers), called the parents 'crisis actors'.
The same year as the last major mass shooting in Australia.

We had a lot of death caused by a group called the IRA, your NRA has far more blood on it's hands.
Ever wondered why some home grown nut job Jihadis are reduced to using knifes?
They cannot get guns. Not so far.
(Those found to be illegally converting replicas to sell to criminals, or terrorists, can and have got very long prison terms. Same has applied to smuggling some in, there was a case not long ago, AK's, Machine Pistols, again they are away for a long time).
So never say never but why make it easy?


Our NRA has zero blood on its hands, as an NRA member has never committed a mass shooting. Most NRA members are law-abiding citizens and are thus responsible with their guns. The people who are doing most of the shooting in the United States are involved in gangs/drugs and largely own their weapons illegally. With more guns on the streets than there are people in the United States, that is not going to change in our lifetimes.

Interestingly enough, the deadliest massacre in our nation's history didn't involve a single firearm. Hundreds of schoolchildren were murdered by a madman with a bomb.

I'm glad that you are happy with the way your country handles its affairs. I'm happy with being allowed to protect myself and my family from armed criminals. To each their own.


Yeah they have, by enabling the repeal of assault weapons bans, by bribing lawmakers.
So basically no different to those who funnel cash to terror groups. Who never get near to firing a shot themselves.
Thus enabling the steep rise in mass shooting with the weapon of choice being a high capacity magazine, semi auto, high velocity weapon. Even promoting rounds designed to defeat body armour. And enabling those with a history of mental instability to still get guns. Gee, how do you think that has worked out?
They have also made it more likely that you feel the need to have a gun to protect your family.
Not so much 'exceptionalism' more exceptionally destructive and stupid.
Or maybe just about every other Western nation is more civilized and gives a shit about it's own citizens.


The NRA is no different than any other interest group organization. They represent and fight for the views and beliefs of millions of members. If you view lobbying politicians and hiring lawyers the same as funneling cash to terror groups, well that's your opinion.

The weapon of choice in mass shootings in the US according to Every Town Research ( an anti-gun organization) 81% of the time was a pistol.
 
GDB
Posts: 13677
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:50 pm

N583JB wrote:
GDB wrote:
N583JB wrote:

Our NRA has zero blood on its hands, as an NRA member has never committed a mass shooting. Most NRA members are law-abiding citizens and are thus responsible with their guns. The people who are doing most of the shooting in the United States are involved in gangs/drugs and largely own their weapons illegally. With more guns on the streets than there are people in the United States, that is not going to change in our lifetimes.

Interestingly enough, the deadliest massacre in our nation's history didn't involve a single firearm. Hundreds of schoolchildren were murdered by a madman with a bomb.

I'm glad that you are happy with the way your country handles its affairs. I'm happy with being allowed to protect myself and my family from armed criminals. To each their own.


Yeah they have, by enabling the repeal of assault weapons bans, by bribing lawmakers.
So basically no different to those who funnel cash to terror groups. Who never get near to firing a shot themselves.
Thus enabling the steep rise in mass shooting with the weapon of choice being a high capacity magazine, semi auto, high velocity weapon. Even promoting rounds designed to defeat body armour. And enabling those with a history of mental instability to still get guns. Gee, how do you think that has worked out?
They have also made it more likely that you feel the need to have a gun to protect your family.
Not so much 'exceptionalism' more exceptionally destructive and stupid.
Or maybe just about every other Western nation is more civilized and gives a shit about it's own citizens.


More people are killed by blunt objects like baseball bats in the United States than are killed by "assault" rifles or rifles of any kind. The ones with blood on their hands would be people like you, who want law-abiding citizens to be completely defenseless while well-armed criminals are free to do as they please. Thankfully, the 2nd Amendment doesn't care about the opinions you have of it.


Yes, a blunt object with the range of a human arm is just the same as a 5.56mm round. There's a saving in the defence budget.
By your logic, a police baton is more dangerous than a gun.
 
GDB
Posts: 13677
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:52 pm

N583JB wrote:
meecrob wrote:
N583JB wrote:
The ones with blood on their hands would be people like you, who want law-abiding citizens to be completely defenseless while well-armed criminals are free to do as they please. Thankfully, the 2nd Amendment doesn't care about the opinions you have of it.


This is the part that I don't get. You make it sound like you regularly have to defend yourself with a gun while going about your daily business.


Of course not. I think of a gun the same way I think of airbags, smoke detectors, and fire extinguishers. You hope you never need them, but when you do need them, you really need them. My firearm that I store securely, unloaded, is not going to suddenly load itself and shoot me, but in the event of a home invasion, it may save my life or the life of someone else I care about.


Which are common everywhere else, not guns though, funny that.
At least you are secure in storing it, not so secure in the society you live in.
 
N583JB
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:55 pm

GDB wrote:
N583JB wrote:
GDB wrote:

Yeah they have, by enabling the repeal of assault weapons bans, by bribing lawmakers.
So basically no different to those who funnel cash to terror groups. Who never get near to firing a shot themselves.
Thus enabling the steep rise in mass shooting with the weapon of choice being a high capacity magazine, semi auto, high velocity weapon. Even promoting rounds designed to defeat body armour. And enabling those with a history of mental instability to still get guns. Gee, how do you think that has worked out?
They have also made it more likely that you feel the need to have a gun to protect your family.
Not so much 'exceptionalism' more exceptionally destructive and stupid.
Or maybe just about every other Western nation is more civilized and gives a shit about it's own citizens.


More people are killed by blunt objects like baseball bats in the United States than are killed by "assault" rifles or rifles of any kind. The ones with blood on their hands would be people like you, who want law-abiding citizens to be completely defenseless while well-armed criminals are free to do as they please. Thankfully, the 2nd Amendment doesn't care about the opinions you have of it.


Yes, a blunt object with the range of a human arm is just the same as a 5.56mm round. There's a saving in the defence budget.
By your logic, a police baton is more dangerous than a gun.


Blunt objects are used to murder more Americans than those 5.56mm rounds are. I guess it is time to ban baseball and also put all of those mechanics and plumbers out of business, since they carry bludgeoning tools.
 
N583JB
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:55 pm

GDB wrote:
N583JB wrote:
meecrob wrote:

This is the part that I don't get. You make it sound like you regularly have to defend yourself with a gun while going about your daily business.


Of course not. I think of a gun the same way I think of airbags, smoke detectors, and fire extinguishers. You hope you never need them, but when you do need them, you really need them. My firearm that I store securely, unloaded, is not going to suddenly load itself and shoot me, but in the event of a home invasion, it may save my life or the life of someone else I care about.


Which are common everywhere else, not guns though, funny that.
At least you are secure in storing it, not so secure in the society you live in.


I'm more secure with a means of defending myself and my family than I would be without it.
 
CaptHadley
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:36 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 6:03 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
It's just me in my home. Three guns and none of them have ever accidently or purposely fired upon anyone. I have a biometric gun safe that I keep them in. No one is getting to them by accident.

And why do liberals only care about suicide if a gun is involved? They are so fake. And besides, if someone makes the choice to end their life then it's none of your business as long as they're not harming anyone else in the process. It's quite efficient but terribly messy.


First off, shocker.. Secondly, somebody breaks into your home, what are you going to do? Say "Hang on, biometric safe, it works kinda slow" And how on gods green earth did liberals enter into this? Fact of the matters is mr gun toting 2nd amendment guy got waxed by his 2 yr old. Can't wait for that talk in the future "hey mom how did dad die?" Lot of good that pistol is gonna do you locked away, unloaded, in a safe if somebody breaks into your home. Man up, keep that bad boy on the counter top or end table, within easy reach.
 
N583JB
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 6:07 pm

CaptHadley wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
It's just me in my home. Three guns and none of them have ever accidently or purposely fired upon anyone. I have a biometric gun safe that I keep them in. No one is getting to them by accident.

And why do liberals only care about suicide if a gun is involved? They are so fake. And besides, if someone makes the choice to end their life then it's none of your business as long as they're not harming anyone else in the process. It's quite efficient but terribly messy.


First off, shocker.. Secondly, somebody breaks into your home, what are you going to do? Say "Hang on, biometric safe, it works kinda slow" And how on gods green earth did liberals enter into this? Fact of the matters is mr gun toting 2nd amendment guy got waxed by his 2 yr old. Can't wait for that talk in the future "hey mom how did dad die?" Lot of good that pistol is gonna do you locked away, unloaded, in a safe if somebody breaks into your home. Man up, keep that bad boy on the counter top or end table, within easy reach.


It doesn't take more than a few seconds to open a biometric safe. It takes more than a few seconds to break into a home and then make your way to someone's bedroom, particularly when you are unfamiliar with the layout of the house.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 6:10 pm

CaptHadley wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
It's just me in my home. Three guns and none of them have ever accidently or purposely fired upon anyone. I have a biometric gun safe that I keep them in. No one is getting to them by accident.

And why do liberals only care about suicide if a gun is involved? They are so fake. And besides, if someone makes the choice to end their life then it's none of your business as long as they're not harming anyone else in the process. It's quite efficient but terribly messy.


First off, shocker.. Secondly, somebody breaks into your home, what are you going to do? Say "Hang on, biometric safe, it works kinda slow" And how on gods green earth did liberals enter into this? Fact of the matters is mr gun toting 2nd amendment guy got waxed by his 2 yr old. Can't wait for that talk in the future "hey mom how did dad die?" Lot of good that pistol is gonna do you locked away, unloaded, in a safe if somebody breaks into your home. Man up, keep that bad boy on the counter top or end table, within easy reach.


Who said it is unloaded? And you should do your research before making such comments. The safe (about the size of a large shoe box and looks nice on my desk) opens instantly upon authenticating the biometric input.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5625
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 7:49 pm

Just to get the numbers right, in 2018 in the USA; long guns (rifles inc AR) and shotguns killed 699 poor souls. While hands, feet and blunt objects murdered 1115 and knives 1515. Blunt objects kill more than long guns. Ban fists.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195 ... apon-used/
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2366
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:35 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Just to get the numbers right, in 2018 in the USA; long guns (rifles inc AR) and shotguns killed 699 poor souls. While hands, feet and blunt objects murdered 1115 and knives 1515. Blunt objects kill more than long guns. Ban fists.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195 ... apon-used/

But 699 lives could have been saved with better background checks and mental health evaluations, which continue to be fought in the US. I don't understand why gun peoples defense to that is always "WELL KNIVES ALSO KILL PEOPLE" You can't stop the knives and fists, but you can do a better job stopping the gun violence
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5625
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:14 pm

You’ll have offer something evidence on how “better background checks and mental health evaluations” would reduce those murders. What’s a better check? How reliable are psychologists at predicting who might use a gun?
 
CaptHadley
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:36 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:47 pm

N583JB wrote:
GDB wrote:
N583JB wrote:

Our NRA has zero blood on its hands, as an NRA member has never committed a mass shooting. Most NRA members are law-abiding citizens and are thus responsible with their guns. The people who are doing most of the shooting in the United States are involved in gangs/drugs and largely own their weapons illegally. With more guns on the streets than there are people in the United States, that is not going to change in our lifetimes.

Interestingly enough, the deadliest massacre in our nation's history didn't involve a single firearm. Hundreds of schoolchildren were murdered by a madman with a bomb.

I'm glad that you are happy with the way your country handles its affairs. I'm happy with being allowed to protect myself and my family from armed criminals. To each their own.


Yeah they have, by enabling the repeal of assault weapons bans, by bribing lawmakers.
So basically no different to those who funnel cash to terror groups. Who never get near to firing a shot themselves.
Thus enabling the steep rise in mass shooting with the weapon of choice being a high capacity magazine, semi auto, high velocity weapon. Even promoting rounds designed to defeat body armour. And enabling those with a history of mental instability to still get guns. Gee, how do you think that has worked out?
They have also made it more likely that you feel the need to have a gun to protect your family.
Not so much 'exceptionalism' more exceptionally destructive and stupid.
Or maybe just about every other Western nation is more civilized and gives a shit about it's own citizens.


More people are killed by blunt objects like baseball bats in the United States than are killed by "assault" rifles or rifles of any kind. The ones with blood on their hands would be people like you, who want law-abiding citizens to be completely defenseless while well-armed criminals are free to do as they please. Thankfully, the 2nd Amendment doesn't care about the opinions you have of it.


Ahh, and there it is! Didn't take long at all. Yur gunna take mah shooter away frum me! It's mah Jebus givin wright!
Oh BS, not one person is saying confiscate every gun, knock off the NRA talking points, it's stupid, worn out and reeks of the redhat/redneck incest crowd. I would hope you're smarter than that.
Your biometric "safe" is a joke. You're going to rely on something battery operated to protect you? Let me guess, you check the batteries every other day, BS. Something that your fingers better not have a band-aid or scab on them. Get a real safe with a real combination lock. And on that note, how are you going to be 100% sure the person entering your home is there to do harm and not someone you know? Don't say you know everyone that will enter your home as you do not. You have no idea if it's someone that happens to be drunk and looking for a place to crash, relative who couldn't reach you that needed a place to stay. You have absolutely no idea with 100% certainty unless you turn on the lights or call out. Now you've announced yourself to whomever is in the house. How do you know it's only one person, what if there's more than one intruder, what then? Start a firefight maybe? Now we have the possibility of someone innocent getting struck. Do you barricaded yourself in your room and dial 911? Now we're talking minutes, what are you going to do with those minutes, start blasting away at the door?
Be honest with yourself, know that you might feel like you've got it all covered, but you really don't. It's a toss up.
Oh and lastly, i've been researching the interwebs but cannot come up with a chart or graph showing how many mass killings from the use of a firearm compared to mass killings with a knife or blunt object. Do you have any?
 
CaptHadley
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:36 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:54 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
It's just me in my home. Three guns and none of them have ever accidently or purposely fired upon anyone. I have a biometric gun safe that I keep them in. No one is getting to them by accident.

And why do liberals only care about suicide if a gun is involved? They are so fake. And besides, if someone makes the choice to end their life then it's none of your business as long as they're not harming anyone else in the process. It's quite efficient but terribly messy.


First off, shocker.. Secondly, somebody breaks into your home, what are you going to do? Say "Hang on, biometric safe, it works kinda slow" And how on gods green earth did liberals enter into this? Fact of the matters is mr gun toting 2nd amendment guy got waxed by his 2 yr old. Can't wait for that talk in the future "hey mom how did dad die?" Lot of good that pistol is gonna do you locked away, unloaded, in a safe if somebody breaks into your home. Man up, keep that bad boy on the counter top or end table, within easy reach.


Who said it is unloaded? And you should do your research before making such comments. The safe (about the size of a large shoe box and looks nice on my desk) opens instantly upon authenticating the biometric input.


As stated in another post. You're relying on if the batteries are good and your hand is free of anything that would prevent it from opening to save your life. Heh, good luck with that one. I'm actually surprised you keep your firearm in a case, cause that's what "The Man" says to do, controlling and all you know. So hey, what's the deal, again, on your comment about liberals etc? I'm a liberal and I own a few hand guns, and a Mossberg Shockwave, loaded with Defender rounds. Nice little "handgun" that I like to keep next to my bed, nothing in chamber though, the pucker factor goes to eleven when it's racked.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19038
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 10:20 pm

N583JB wrote:
My firearm that I store securely, unloaded, is not going to suddenly load itself and shoot me, but in the event of a home invasion, it may save my life or the life of someone else I care about.


Key word being "may".

When seconds count, your unloaded gun is minutes away.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
N583JB
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 10:39 pm

CaptHadley wrote:
N583JB wrote:
GDB wrote:

Yeah they have, by enabling the repeal of assault weapons bans, by bribing lawmakers.
So basically no different to those who funnel cash to terror groups. Who never get near to firing a shot themselves.
Thus enabling the steep rise in mass shooting with the weapon of choice being a high capacity magazine, semi auto, high velocity weapon. Even promoting rounds designed to defeat body armour. And enabling those with a history of mental instability to still get guns. Gee, how do you think that has worked out?
They have also made it more likely that you feel the need to have a gun to protect your family.
Not so much 'exceptionalism' more exceptionally destructive and stupid.
Or maybe just about every other Western nation is more civilized and gives a shit about it's own citizens.


More people are killed by blunt objects like baseball bats in the United States than are killed by "assault" rifles or rifles of any kind. The ones with blood on their hands would be people like you, who want law-abiding citizens to be completely defenseless while well-armed criminals are free to do as they please. Thankfully, the 2nd Amendment doesn't care about the opinions you have of it.


Ahh, and there it is! Didn't take long at all. Yur gunna take mah shooter away frum me! It's mah Jebus givin wright!
Oh BS, not one person is saying confiscate every gun, knock off the NRA talking points, it's stupid, worn out and reeks of the redhat/redneck incest crowd. I would hope you're smarter than that.
Your biometric "safe" is a joke. You're going to rely on something battery operated to protect you? Let me guess, you check the batteries every other day, BS. Something that your fingers better not have a band-aid or scab on them. Get a real safe with a real combination lock. And on that note, how are you going to be 100% sure the person entering your home is there to do harm and not someone you know? Don't say you know everyone that will enter your home as you do not. You have no idea if it's someone that happens to be drunk and looking for a place to crash, relative who couldn't reach you that needed a place to stay. You have absolutely no idea with 100% certainty unless you turn on the lights or call out. Now you've announced yourself to whomever is in the house. How do you know it's only one person, what if there's more than one intruder, what then? Start a firefight maybe? Now we have the possibility of someone innocent getting struck. Do you barricaded yourself in your room and dial 911? Now we're talking minutes, what are you going to do with those minutes, start blasting away at the door?
Be honest with yourself, know that you might feel like you've got it all covered, but you really don't. It's a toss up.
Oh and lastly, i've been researching the interwebs but cannot come up with a chart or graph showing how many mass killings from the use of a firearm compared to mass killings with a knife or blunt object. Do you have any?


Many on the left are directly advocating for firearm confiscation, including Beto. Some other politicians with a (D) next to their name have proposed outlawing semi-automatic weapons, which in essence would ban the vast majority of legally-owned firearms that are currently in existence.
I don't keep my firearm in a biometric safe since we don't have any children in our household. I do keep it unloaded, but loading it takes only seconds.
With regard to your scenarios, I don't shoot blindly and I'm not going to shoot at a target that I can't see. In the event of a home invasion, I'll do whatever circumstances dictate. I live in a Castle Law state so I'm not worried about being arrested for defending myself from a home intruder.
I'm not overly worried about "mass" killings because statistically they represent a very small percentage of homicides annually.
 
N583JB
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 10:39 pm

scbriml wrote:
N583JB wrote:
My firearm that I store securely, unloaded, is not going to suddenly load itself and shoot me, but in the event of a home invasion, it may save my life or the life of someone else I care about.


Key word being "may".

When seconds count, your unloaded gun is minutes away.


No it is actually literally only seconds away.
 
NIKV69
Posts: 13418
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 10:56 pm

johns624 wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:
It appears the age old adage of "good guy with a gun" doesn't always ring true. Who knew two year olds were that good with aim? And how do they know it was an accident? Have you ever seen Stewie, that kid is badass and probably a year old. Kids these days, I tell ya!
https://www.ajc.com/news/breaking-georg ... tsMZT3x1J/

It sounds like you're happy that it happened. That's just a little bit sick...actually, it's a whole lotta sick!


Yea really it takes gun hating to whole other level. A waste of posting.
I am the Googlizer!!!
 
johns624
Posts: 2723
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 10:59 pm

GDB wrote:


Yeah they have, by enabling the repeal of assault weapons bans, by bribing lawmakers.
So basically no different to those who funnel cash to terror groups. Who never get near to firing a shot themselves.
Even promoting rounds designed to defeat body armour. And enabling those with a history of mental instability to still get guns. Gee, how do you think that has worked out?

1. What assault weapon ban was repealed?
2. No special rounds required to defeat body armor. Any rifle hunting bullet will defeat common body armor.
 
johns624
Posts: 2723
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:03 pm

stl07 wrote:

But 699 lives could have been saved with better background checks and mental health evaluations, which continue to be fought in the US.

1. What better background checks? It is essentially the same as the one that law enforcement uses.
2. The hangup with mental evaluations is HIPAA. That has nothing to do with guns or the gun lobby.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19038
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:28 pm

N583JB wrote:
scbriml wrote:
N583JB wrote:
My firearm that I store securely, unloaded, is not going to suddenly load itself and shoot me, but in the event of a home invasion, it may save my life or the life of someone else I care about.


Key word being "may".

When seconds count, your unloaded gun is minutes away.


No it is actually literally only seconds away.


I'm sure in your mind it is, but when you're half asleep at 3:30am, your heart's pounding, your palms are sweaty and your hands are shaking, your kids are in another room (are they safe?) and your wife's clinging to your arm in fear...
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
GDB
Posts: 13677
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 12:25 am

johns624 wrote:
GDB wrote:


Yeah they have, by enabling the repeal of assault weapons bans, by bribing lawmakers.
So basically no different to those who funnel cash to terror groups. Who never get near to firing a shot themselves.
Even promoting rounds designed to defeat body armour. And enabling those with a history of mental instability to still get guns. Gee, how do you think that has worked out?

1. What assault weapon ban was repealed?
2. No special rounds required to defeat body armor. Any rifle hunting bullet will defeat common body armor.


Sure about that?
Or you have no idea of the recent history in your own country?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... eapons_Ban

You might like the first part, you won't when you get to the mass shootings bit.
(I note that one of the drivers were massacres of kids).

Please don't try to kid me, kid yourself if you like, the death industry in the US (nothing to do with hunting, unless it's for humans), has marketed rounds to defeat body armour. In fact NATO chose the 5.56mm SS109 in the late 70's in large part due to it's ability to defeat body armour, either steel or composite helmets, which themselves are more effective than body armour worn by say cops.

Plus a hunting rifle, which sane people elsewhere in the world tend to define as .22 calibre from a bolt action weapon, is nowhere near as lethal as a 5.56mm, or 7.62x39mm or worse of all, a 7.62mm NATO. All magazine fed, almost always semi auto. basically semi auto versions of full auto military weapons, which have NO place for hunters, farmers etc, or are the animals hunted packing too?
Or are hunters in the US just really poor shots?

Us damn Euro Libs, know it all eh?
Well it's been a long time, but in the mid 80's though I was only a reservist, my unit (5th Battalion Queens Regiment), was assigned as a NATO reinforcement unit as part of 2nd Infantry Div.
So I fired the following, mostly 7.62mm L1A1 SLR. Including on occasion with a SUIT sight, a predecessor to all those now standard optics, originally developed from Northern Ireland experience. And the then cumbersome image intensifier.
As well as 7.62mm L4A4 LMG, 7.62mm L7A2 GPMG (I think that's called the M240 in US service).
9mm Sterling SMG, 9mm L9A1 Pistol, (Browning Hi-Power).
66mm LAW. Never got the chance to fire the 84mm Carl Gustav RCL.
My company was a standard rifle one, another part of the Battalion had the real punch, 24 MILAN ATGW firing units. Another had 8 x 81mm Mortars.

A long time ago but memories are vivid, not long after I was shocked, (as was most of the country), that the Hungerford killer had a semi auto AK-47, not many did but what little justification ended that day. Human lives and all that. Not a selfish fetish.

So yes, I do have an idea of how lethal these are.
And how there is no justification for their use by civilians, even us reservists were given intensive training before using live rounds.
(Including, prior to firing 7.62mm, a .22 kit that could be put in the SLR barrel and magazine for initial indoor ranges).

(After two years changing work commitments meant I could not continue, that and missing out on a major exercise in Germany, due to getting Chicken Pox, which at 19 is no joke).
Would have been moot anyway, got Epilepsy a bit later, then in my early 30's Rheumatoid Arthritis. So wasn't to be in the long term.

So that's the prism I view this issue through.
 
johns624
Posts: 2723
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 12:56 am

GDB wrote:
johns624 wrote:
GDB wrote:


1. What assault weapon ban was repealed?
2. No special rounds required to defeat body armor. Any rifle hunting bullet will defeat common body armor.


Sure about that?
Or you have no idea of the recent history in your own country?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... eapons_Ban

Please don't try to kid me, kid yourself if you like, the death industry in the US (nothing to do with hunting, unless it's for humans), has marketed rounds to defeat body armour. In fact NATO chose the 5.56mm SS109 in the late 70's in large part due to it's ability to defeat body armour, either steel or composite helmets, which themselves are more effective than body armour worn by say cops.

Plus a hunting rifle, which sane people elsewhere in the world tend to define as .22 calibre from a bolt action weapon, is nowhere near as lethal as a 5.56mm, or 7.62x39mm or worse of all, a 7.62mm NATO. All magazine fed, almost always semi auto. basically semi auto versions of full auto military weapons, which have NO place for hunters, farmers etc, or are the animals hunted packing too?
Or are hunters in the US just really poor shots?


Hook, line and sinker... I was hoping that you would answer like you did. You need to do a bit more research. The AWB of 1994 didn't ban any guns. It banned cosmetic accessories and certain names. The Colt AR15 was still available, it was just called the Colt Sporter. It didn't have an evil bayonet lug or flash hider, and was only available with 10 round magazines, but it was functionally the same gun. The NRA didn't get it repealed, it had a 10 year "sunset" provision and wasn't reauthorized by Congress.
A .22 rimfire is a fun gun, and I own a couple, but it isn't powerful enough to hunt anything bigger than a squirrel. Common medium game (deer, etc.) guns are normally as powerful as a 7.62mm NATO, known in civilian circles as the .308 Winchester. I've owned them, also. If you want to hunt larger game (brown bear, moose, etc.) then the guns become even more powerful.
The 5.56mm NATO needed an anti-body armor round because it is a relatively weak round. For hunting, it isn't used for anything bigger than coyote and fox. The SS109/M855 isn't really needed, because if it's not someone wearing ballistic armor, it actually has less terminal effect.
I'll put the average American gun owner up against the average British army infantryman as far as shooting ability. I remember reading years ago that the British Radway Green Arsenal couldn't even load matchgrade ammo for the Palma international matches because they didn't have the technical know-how. That's how far you've fallen.
 
N583JB
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 1:24 am

scbriml wrote:
N583JB wrote:
scbriml wrote:

Key word being "may".

When seconds count, your unloaded gun is minutes away.


No it is actually literally only seconds away.


I'm sure in your mind it is, but when you're half asleep at 3:30am, your heart's pounding, your palms are sweaty and your hands are shaking, your kids are in another room (are they safe?) and your wife's clinging to your arm in fear...


Still only seconds away. You'd be amazed how clearly you can think in life and death situations. I am speaking from experience. The fear comes afterwards, once everything has passed.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 1:57 am

N583JB wrote:
scbriml wrote:
N583JB wrote:

No it is actually literally only seconds away.


I'm sure in your mind it is, but when you're half asleep at 3:30am, your heart's pounding, your palms are sweaty and your hands are shaking, your kids are in another room (are they safe?) and your wife's clinging to your arm in fear...


Still only seconds away. You'd be amazed how clearly you can think in life and death situations. I am speaking from experience. The fear comes afterwards, once everything has passed.


Exactly. There are plenty of 911 calls on YouTube of people having to shoot Intruders.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22318
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 2:59 am

Such responsible adulting. Leaving weapons out where children can get them. Just let guns out wherever because Second Amendment. This certainly is what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Farther down the page, a Georgia college student shot himself and died while removing a magazine from his gun. So, why do we need any more laws? Why even enforce the laws on the books? Clearly, things are fine.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5625
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 3:16 am

You can’t outlaw stupid, but you can end it apparently. Loads of people think owning a gun makes them qualified as a marksman. I have taken three tests for licenses, none were all that difficult. Plus military training. Dad taught me more than any of them. You need to shoot enough that’s it’s second nature. I’m not very energetic at practice, only about 20,000 rounds per year until they closed the ranges.
 
CaptHadley
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:36 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 3:32 am

N583JB wrote:
scbriml wrote:
N583JB wrote:

No it is actually literally only seconds away.


I'm sure in your mind it is, but when you're half asleep at 3:30am, your heart's pounding, your palms are sweaty and your hands are shaking, your kids are in another room (are they safe?) and your wife's clinging to your arm in fear...


Still only seconds away. You'd be amazed how clearly you can think in life and death situations. I am speaking from experience. The fear comes afterwards, once everything has passed.


Just curious, aren't you a member of the law enforcement community?
 
CaptHadley
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:36 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 3:53 am

NIKV69 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:
It appears the age old adage of "good guy with a gun" doesn't always ring true. Who knew two year olds were that good with aim? And how do they know it was an accident? Have you ever seen Stewie, that kid is badass and probably a year old. Kids these days, I tell ya!
https://www.ajc.com/news/breaking-georg ... tsMZT3x1J/

It sounds like you're happy that it happened. That's just a little bit sick...actually, it's a whole lotta sick!


Yea really it takes gun hating to whole other level. A waste of posting.


Hey Johns316,

Nope, just got a chuckle out of the "my right to own a gun" crowd. I guess owning and responsibility are two different things, things this guy won't have to deal with ever again. Hey Nik! guess you didn't read where I own handguns huh. To be precise, I own a .40, .45, 9mm Glocks. .45 S&W M&P Shield, 45 Springfield XDS and my favorite, Mossberg 12 gauge Shockwave with Defender loads. Sorry to burst your "gun hatin'" theory. I don't drive around with a NRA sticker on my car, nor do I spout off about my dern tootin rights being taken away. However, I do not feel there is any reason to own or posses a AK47 type military weapon. They make terrible range guns and are not even worth mentioning insofar as a hunting type weapon. They are only around due to people, like yourself, who enjoy going to the local county fair 4H building gunshow/confederate flag license plate extravaganza! Armed with a MAGA hat, flannel shirt tucked into jeans with the obligatory Skoal can outlined in the back pocket and having junior tag along to witness what the great U S of A is all about! I go to my local range a couple times a month and run thru a few boxes on various types of targets, to have some fun and sharpen my skills. See Nik, that's all you have to do. Stop thinking the boogeyman is coming for your guns every day, it's bad on your ticker!
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 4:04 am

CaptHadley wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
It sounds like you're happy that it happened. That's just a little bit sick...actually, it's a whole lotta sick!


Yea really it takes gun hating to whole other level. A waste of posting.


Hey Johns316,

Nope, just got a chuckle out of the "my right to own a gun" crowd. I guess owning and responsibility are two different things, things this guy won't have to deal with ever again. Hey Nik! guess you didn't read where I own handguns huh. To be precise, I own a .40, .45, 9mm Glocks. .45 S&W M&P Shield, 45 Springfield XDS and my favorite, Mossberg 12 gauge Shockwave with Defender loads. Sorry to burst your "gun hatin'" theory. I don't drive around with a NRA sticker on my car, nor do I spout off about my dern tootin rights being taken away. However, I do not feel there is any reason to own or posses a AK47 type military weapon. They make terrible range guns and are not even worth mentioning insofar as a hunting type weapon. They are only around due to people, like yourself, who enjoy going to the local county fair 4H building gunshow/confederate flag license plate extravaganza! Armed with a MAGA hat, flannel shirt tucked into jeans with the obligatory Skoal can outlined in the back pocket and having junior tag along to witness what the great U S of A is all about! I go to my local range a couple times a month and run thru a few boxes on various types of targets, to have some fun and sharpen my skills. See Nik, that's all you have to do. Stop thinking the boogeyman is coming for your guns every day, it's bad on your ticker!


It seems you must frequent those events to know so many details.
 
CaptHadley
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:36 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 4:52 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:

Yea really it takes gun hating to whole other level. A waste of posting.


Hey Johns316,

Nope, just got a chuckle out of the "my right to own a gun" crowd. I guess owning and responsibility are two different things, things this guy won't have to deal with ever again. Hey Nik! guess you didn't read where I own handguns huh. To be precise, I own a .40, .45, 9mm Glocks. .45 S&W M&P Shield, 45 Springfield XDS and my favorite, Mossberg 12 gauge Shockwave with Defender loads. Sorry to burst your "gun hatin'" theory. I don't drive around with a NRA sticker on my car, nor do I spout off about my dern tootin rights being taken away. However, I do not feel there is any reason to own or posses a AK47 type military weapon. They make terrible range guns and are not even worth mentioning insofar as a hunting type weapon. They are only around due to people, like yourself, who enjoy going to the local county fair 4H building gunshow/confederate flag license plate extravaganza! Armed with a MAGA hat, flannel shirt tucked into jeans with the obligatory Skoal can outlined in the back pocket and having junior tag along to witness what the great U S of A is all about! I go to my local range a couple times a month and run thru a few boxes on various types of targets, to have some fun and sharpen my skills. See Nik, that's all you have to do. Stop thinking the boogeyman is coming for your guns every day, it's bad on your ticker!


It seems you must frequent those events to know so many details.


Frequent? No, been to a few? Absolutely, nothing like getting some friends together and heading to the local gun show to drink a few and laugh at the patrons. And on that note, they actually serve alcohol at these events, imagine that! So, Triple T, you never did answer my questions. How did you come to the conclusion about liberals and guns from the little tidbit I posted initially? Also, again, how often do you check your biometric safe' batteries? Don't want to be caught dead battery handed if a boogeyman breaks in now huh. Lastly, how do you open your safe if you have a band-aid, scab, elmers glue on your fingers? Hey, i'm an animal lover, do you own cats? I don't, my wife is allergic to them.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:03 am

CaptHadley wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:

Hey Johns316,

Nope, just got a chuckle out of the "my right to own a gun" crowd. I guess owning and responsibility are two different things, things this guy won't have to deal with ever again. Hey Nik! guess you didn't read where I own handguns huh. To be precise, I own a .40, .45, 9mm Glocks. .45 S&W M&P Shield, 45 Springfield XDS and my favorite, Mossberg 12 gauge Shockwave with Defender loads. Sorry to burst your "gun hatin'" theory. I don't drive around with a NRA sticker on my car, nor do I spout off about my dern tootin rights being taken away. However, I do not feel there is any reason to own or posses a AK47 type military weapon. They make terrible range guns and are not even worth mentioning insofar as a hunting type weapon. They are only around due to people, like yourself, who enjoy going to the local county fair 4H building gunshow/confederate flag license plate extravaganza! Armed with a MAGA hat, flannel shirt tucked into jeans with the obligatory Skoal can outlined in the back pocket and having junior tag along to witness what the great U S of A is all about! I go to my local range a couple times a month and run thru a few boxes on various types of targets, to have some fun and sharpen my skills. See Nik, that's all you have to do. Stop thinking the boogeyman is coming for your guns every day, it's bad on your ticker!


It seems you must frequent those events to know so many details.


Frequent? No, been to a few? Absolutely, nothing like getting some friends together and heading to the local gun show to drink a few and laugh at the patrons. And on that note, they actually serve alcohol at these events, imagine that! So, Triple T, you never did answer my questions. How did you come to the conclusion about liberals and guns from the little tidbit I posted initially? Also, again, how often do you check your biometric safe' batteries? Don't want to be caught dead battery handed if a boogeyman breaks in now huh. Lastly, how do you open your safe if you have a band-aid, scab, elmers glue on your fingers? Hey, i'm an animal lover, do you own cats? I don't, my wife is allergic to them.


My safe makes it well known when the batteries need to be changed. I can't remember the last time I had a bandage on my hand or fingers. And my hands stay clean. But all of my prints (and at multiple angles) are stored. Any finger will work. I'm not a fan of cats. The dig around in their litter box and then crawl all over the furniture and counters. No thanks.

You are an admitted liberal so I have no idea why you took issue with my statement. They're notorious for trying to step on the 2nd Amendment. I have no use for an AK-47 but I know that if you give them any momentum they will come back for more. And there are plenty of liberals who want all guns banned. I support all constitutional rights, even the ones I disagree with. I loathe birthright citizenship but that's just how things are. Get over it.
 
CaptHadley
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:36 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:34 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

It seems you must frequent those events to know so many details.


Frequent? No, been to a few? Absolutely, nothing like getting some friends together and heading to the local gun show to drink a few and laugh at the patrons. And on that note, they actually serve alcohol at these events, imagine that! So, Triple T, you never did answer my questions. How did you come to the conclusion about liberals and guns from the little tidbit I posted initially? Also, again, how often do you check your biometric safe' batteries? Don't want to be caught dead battery handed if a boogeyman breaks in now huh. Lastly, how do you open your safe if you have a band-aid, scab, elmers glue on your fingers? Hey, i'm an animal lover, do you own cats? I don't, my wife is allergic to them.


I'm not a fan of cats. The dig around in their litter box and then crawl all over the furniture and counters. No thanks.

Wow, color me, surprised.

And there are plenty of liberals who want all guns banned


Really? Huh, like who?
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:49 am

CaptHadley wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:

Frequent? No, been to a few? Absolutely, nothing like getting some friends together and heading to the local gun show to drink a few and laugh at the patrons. And on that note, they actually serve alcohol at these events, imagine that! So, Triple T, you never did answer my questions. How did you come to the conclusion about liberals and guns from the little tidbit I posted initially? Also, again, how often do you check your biometric safe' batteries? Don't want to be caught dead battery handed if a boogeyman breaks in now huh. Lastly, how do you open your safe if you have a band-aid, scab, elmers glue on your fingers? Hey, i'm an animal lover, do you own cats? I don't, my wife is allergic to them.


I'm not a fan of cats. The dig around in their litter box and then crawl all over the furniture and counters. No thanks.

Wow, color me, surprised.

And there are plenty of liberals who want all guns banned


Really? Huh, like who?


Who? Uh, well you can start with Cory, Kamala, and Beto. All three presidential candidates wanted mandatory gun buybacks.

Oh, and I love dogs. I've had Golden Retrievers pretty much my entire life.
 
CaptHadley
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:36 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:17 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:


Wow, color me, surprised.

And there are plenty of liberals who want all guns banned


Really? Huh, like who?


Who? Uh, well you can start with Cory, Kamala, and Beto. All three presidential candidates wanted mandatory gun buybacks.

Oh, and I love dogs. I've had Golden Retrievers pretty much my entire life.


Really? All guns? Boy I sure would like to read where they want ALL guns banned. Do you have any place where I could find that? I just did a search and couldn't find where they wanted ALL guns banned. Maybe i'm not looking in the right place? You did say ALL guns right?

I'm really surprised you're a dog lover. Definitely had you pegged as a cat aficionado.
 
GDB
Posts: 13677
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 10:32 am

johns624 wrote:
GDB wrote:
johns624 wrote:
1. What assault weapon ban was repealed?
2. No special rounds required to defeat body armor. Any rifle hunting bullet will defeat common body armor.


Sure about that?
Or you have no idea of the recent history in your own country?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... eapons_Ban

Please don't try to kid me, kid yourself if you like, the death industry in the US (nothing to do with hunting, unless it's for humans), has marketed rounds to defeat body armour. In fact NATO chose the 5.56mm SS109 in the late 70's in large part due to it's ability to defeat body armour, either steel or composite helmets, which themselves are more effective than body armour worn by say cops.

Plus a hunting rifle, which sane people elsewhere in the world tend to define as .22 calibre from a bolt action weapon, is nowhere near as lethal as a 5.56mm, or 7.62x39mm or worse of all, a 7.62mm NATO. All magazine fed, almost always semi auto. basically semi auto versions of full auto military weapons, which have NO place for hunters, farmers etc, or are the animals hunted packing too?
Or are hunters in the US just really poor shots?


Hook, line and sinker... I was hoping that you would answer like you did. You need to do a bit more research. The AWB of 1994 didn't ban any guns. It banned cosmetic accessories and certain names. The Colt AR15 was still available, it was just called the Colt Sporter. It didn't have an evil bayonet lug or flash hider, and was only available with 10 round magazines, but it was functionally the same gun. The NRA didn't get it repealed, it had a 10 year "sunset" provision and wasn't reauthorized by Congress.
A .22 rimfire is a fun gun, and I own a couple, but it isn't powerful enough to hunt anything bigger than a squirrel. Common medium game (deer, etc.) guns are normally as powerful as a 7.62mm NATO, known in civilian circles as the .308 Winchester. I've owned them, also. If you want to hunt larger game (brown bear, moose, etc.) then the guns become even more powerful.
The 5.56mm NATO needed an anti-body armor round because it is a relatively weak round. For hunting, it isn't used for anything bigger than coyote and fox. The SS109/M855 isn't really needed, because if it's not someone wearing ballistic armor, it actually has less terminal effect.
I'll put the average American gun owner up against the average British army infantryman as far as shooting ability. I remember reading years ago that the British Radway Green Arsenal couldn't even load matchgrade ammo for the Palma international matches because they didn't have the technical know-how. That's how far you've fallen.


'How far we've fallen' you really are far gone.
2 million rounds fired by UK forces in Afghanistan in 2006-7, don't recall any reports on issues with reliability of rounds, which the press would have jumped on. A friend who did 22 years in, leaving as a RSM in 16th Air Assault Brigade has never told me any issues with rounds. He was damn glad the mods from the crappy L85A1 were done (which should have been a major political scandal, the Thatcher government were so keen to priviatize Enfield the serious issues were ignored, the Blair Government's 1998 defence review started the process of either replacing or fixing it, the Canadian M-16 variants already in SF use were a front runner but they went with the extensive mods to create the L85A2 and a bit later, the much wider adoption of the Mimini beyond the SF).
In tests, the L85A2 were rated as reliable as the as the M-16 variants in US service, while retaining the one good thing about the weapon, it's accuracy.

(Didn't have a good start with the M-16 in Vietnam, though the 'far fallen' UK/Commonwealth forces were using it in action in the 1964-66 Borneo confrontation with no such issues. But I digress, not even born then).
I nor anyone in my Company ever have a stoppage due to faulty ammunition, not with the 7.62mm weapons, not the 9mm. (I was a bit 'meh' where the Sterling SMG was concerned, though you were only issued it if you were lugging the 84mm RCL). Still had to know how to use it though.

I note you didn't address what motivated the original, yes very flawed, full of loopholes, temporary legislation.
Answer me this, why then did the the NRA and those they pay, make such a fuss about it, made sure it was repealed, why also did the many families who lost people to those weapons not want it repealed and re-instated, with fewer loopholes?
But they don't count do they?

My point remains, unanswered too, why does a civilian need a AR-15 or similar?
Australia, like the US with large tracts of rural, who see themselves as rugged outdoors types, reacted to the 1996 massacre. A Conservative government there acted. Mass shooting since? No.
What was the weapons of choice for massacres in most US schools, Malls, in Vegas (remember that one?), that one at the cinema?

We something nastily tragic recently, four bodies in a rural area. Mother, Two kids, Father. Police not looking for anyone else.
What's called a 'family destroyer'. But no one is calling for banning shotguns in rural areas. There is a justification for their general use if kept secure.
It's not the anti gun 'nuts' being absolutist, the nuts are in the other camp, not here thank goodness.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5625
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 2:08 pm

The AWB wasn’t repealed, it sunset as per the law. May not have a need for an AR, but it’s the most popular rifle in the USA in a wide range of chamberings.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aaron747, DarkSnowyNight, flyguy89, zakuivcustom and 88 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos